On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *> So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO know >> what world I am in ! It's the world in which I made my bet, and won or >> lost.* >> > > Assuming 30 seconds elapsed between the time you made your bet and the > time you won or lost your bet, which of those 30 * (5.39 × 10^44) splits > that occurred during that time interval is the one that "you" are in? And > even if by some miracle "you" could tell me which one "you" are in "now" > that still leaves open the question of if "you" are still in that one > "now". And if "you" weren't in "that one" how could "you" tell the > difference? > > >> *> All other ALLEGED world are DERIVATIVE from this one, and I have zero >> contact* >> > > You keep saying that over and over again, but no matter how many times you > say it that won't make it true. Every world that exists has had contact > with each other in the past, they I'll have a common ancestor, they just > won't have any contact in the future. > How is this implied by the SWE? Isn't this an additional postulate of your interpretation? AG > > >> * > Also, since in the race there are exactly 10 possible winners,* >> > No, there are *NOT* exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical number to > an astronomical power number horses that won that race with only a > submicroscopic difference between them, and there are also an astronomical > number to an astronomical power number of Alan Graysons that won his bet on > that race. > So instead of all possible outcomes being measured in some other world, we get a huge, possibly infinite occurrences of all possibilities being measured. I can regard this as the extra postulate I have been asking about. It must be additional since it doesn't seem implied by SWE. AG > > *> Why not avoid all this confusion and creation of worlds with zero >> energy sources, and accept that the wf collapses,* > > > Because Schrodinger's Equation says nothing about the wave function > collapsing and nobody, except for Many Worlds, seems to be able to come up > with consistent coherent rules to tell us exactly when it collapses and > when it does not. And if you will not be happy until there is an > explanation for quantum mechanics that is not confusing and weird then I'm > afraid you're destined to be unhappy. G > You haven't answered my question; why is this interpretation more REASONABLE or more CONSISTENT WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR compared to the collapse hypothesis since gives it gives no clue whatever about the energy sources required to create these other worlds? It seems to create hugely more problems than it solves. AG Also, how does this interpretation tell us exactly WHEN the SWE collapses since that occurs when the observer chooses to make the measurement? Nothing to do with the SWE. All to do with the observer's behavior or choice. AG > > 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/34437856-7eb0-49d2-a390-2599970c7420n%40googlegroups.com.
