On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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,* > Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a "observer" means, or what a "choice" means because in many worlds ANY physical change of any sort causes the Universe to split. > we get a huge, possibly infinite occurrences of all possibilities > Yes. > *being measured.* > Huh? Being what? *> I can regard this as the extra postulate I have been asking about.* > *No!* If you want to avoid "*a huge, possibly infinite occurrences of all possibilities*" then you're going to have to add an extra postulate because you're sure not gonna get rid of them with the naked Schrodinger wave equation. >> 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. >> > > *> You haven't answered my question; why is this interpretation more > REASONABLE* > What's reasonable to you may be unreasonable to me, it's an entirely subjective matter, but I don't know any physicist who thinks quantum mechanics is reasonable, but they think it's true nevertheless because that's what experiments tell us. > * > or more CONSISTENT WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR* > Occam's Razor Is about a theory having the simplest assumptions, it's not about a theory that produces the simplest results. If you don't like the conclusion that many worlds are produced then you're going to have to add additional assumptions to get rid of them, and that makes your theory more complicated. > > *Also, how does this interpretation tell us exactly WHEN the SWE > collapses* > If many worlds is correct then Schrodinger's wave equation *NEVER* collapses, in fact that's the idea's entire point. > * > since that occurs when the observer * > When the what? *> chooses* > Chooses? Was there a reason for that choice or was there not, was it deterministic or was it random? *> to make the measurement?* > To make the what? 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/CAJPayv0jd72dy_cCVD8y%2B7SmC0rfPf6FMk03xDv7iyndAyW6aA%40mail.gmail.com.
