On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:01 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 28-01-2021 01:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > > > >> FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could > >> never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found > >> the > >> correct way to resolve Maxwell's Demon paradox, etc. etc. > > > > FAPP is well-defined for all practical purposes. That is all that you > > require for special and general relativity, statistical mechanics, and > > the rest of physics. You cannot point me to any physical result that > > is not FAPP -- we have only limited measurement precision, after all. > > And that is good enough for real-world physics. > > > Lorentz transforms as interpreted by Lorentz himself, i.e. that there is > one good frame defined by the ether that defines "the real time" was > FAPP correct in 1905: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=67&v=Et8-gg6XNDY > > You can also replace general relativity by an ugly post-Newtonian > expansion of it and promote that to the FAPP correct theory. >
Those examples do not show that the worlds resulting from decoherence are not well-defined. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLQi8j1u%2BnM8ko2iah5v7pzx3emmFt60VAdTQ8G_BRnCzQ%40mail.gmail.com.
