On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:55 AM <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> There are three possible ways out this problem of course. One is to say > these string must be finite and thus the set of them enumerable. The other > is to abandon the axiom of choice which permits the ordering I mention > above. The third would be to abandon MWI. This looks to be an informal > demonstration that MWI + QM(with Born rule) is not consistent with there > being an infinite set of possible outcomes. * There may be a fourth way. I think you're assuming that in Many Worlds only one observer sees one precise quantum event, but when you observe an electron do one particular thing there may be an infinite number of other Lawrence Crowells that live in a universe where the electron does something very slightly different, but the difference is so Infinitesimally tiny that no conscious observer could possibly tell the difference, so there is no difference between those infinite number of conscious beings that call themselves Lawrence Crowell either. Also, it seems that when the axiom of choice is allowed you can mathematically prove all sorts of things that seem very unphysical, like the Banach-Tarski paradox and many others. It makes life easier for mathematicians who like to prove things but can you think of an example of a physicist, and not a pure mathematician, that found the axiom of choice to be a useful tool in predicting the outcome of an experiment? Mathematics is the language of physics but like any language it can be used to write fiction as well as nonfiction, physics is only concerned with the nonfiction part. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1OSLSy1kDy4enym5oLDLn9U6UT5mPXkYdJLosHX93pcw%40mail.gmail.com.
