On 11/22/2023 12:40 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:59 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
/> You pretty much ignored everything I wrote/
What the hell?!I went over what you said point by point.
/> and were exercised to refute the idea of Heisenberg's cut,
which neither Bohr or I endorsed. /
I don't know about you but Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as
quantum objects but our measuring instruments as classical objects. He
also insisted that human observers were classical objects, but he
never specified exactly where the dividing line between the quantum
world and the classical world was. And if that dividing line isn't the
"Heisenberg cut" then what is? But to be fair to you it's difficult to
know exactly what Bohr endorsed because much of his philosophical
prose is virtually unreadable; that's one reason the Copenhagen
adherence can't agree about fundamentally important things even among
themselves.
The point is that Bohr (unlike Heisenberg) didn't regard the "cut" as
part of physics. It was a choice of our description. It could be
chosen anywhere up to the macroscopic result recorded or by consciously
recorded. This more like QBism (without knowledge of decoherence) than
you version of the admittedly diverse Copenhagen interpretation.
/> Do you deny that science relies on definite recorded results/
Experimental results are necessary but they are not sufficient, you
also need a theory to make sense of it all, otherwise it's just a
bunch of numbers.
Experimental results include theoretical interpretations which get
written up in arXiv.org, all of which are macroscopic and classical so
we can all read them and agree on what they say. They are never in a
superposition anymore than a cat.
Experiments can never prove that a theory is correct but it can prove
that a theory is wrong, and it can prove that some theories are less
bad than others.
Which has nothing to do with my point; which is that it's
all*/necessarily classical/*.
/> and simply postulating an evolving wave function/
Postulating "an evolving wave function" is one way to put it, and a
way to say the same thing with different words is "Schrodinger's
equation is correct". You're the one who postulates that Schrodinger's
equation must be wrong because all those other worlds simply couldn't
exist, that would just be too strange; so despite what the equation
says the function must collapse for some reason. But neither you nor
anybody else knows how to fix the equation. As for me, I say if
something isn't broken then don't fix it.
/> does nothing without a theory of how we see definite events? /
I've already gone over that in some detail, if you disagree with what
I wrote that's fine but be specificabout your objection, I refuse to
just keep repeating myself.
/> Many world has no clear explanation of how many worlds there
areand how they get weighted or divided/
I've already gone over that in some detail, if you disagree with what
I wrote that's fine but be specificabout your objection, I refuse to
just keep repeating myself.
I have been explicit and I refuse to repeat myself too.
/> Decoherence theory at least gives us an idea of why a
measurement in the general sense produces an apparently classical
world.
/
Decoherenceis fully compatible with Many Worlds, in fact the
interpretation simply wouldn't work without it. Simply put, when
decoherence occurs the universe splits, and when the universe splits
decoherence occurs.
And then the Born rule magically applies as a probability...or is it a
weight?...or is it a frequency among splits? Anyway you're sure Many
Worlds is better than than just noting that probability means one thing
happens and others don't.
Brent
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
w3q
eba
--
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/CAJPayv1RMf-LQmshU13PO2swHtG_V-fWq85GzKiFWx8rzfdOyg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1RMf-LQmshU13PO2swHtG_V-fWq85GzKiFWx8rzfdOyg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/905588af-c221-47bb-b783-090f42380016%40gmail.com.
