On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 9:07:08 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/13/2024 6:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote: The fact that a theory does not claim to explain consciousness does not mean that it cannot be useful, or explain other things within its domain of application. The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not actually explain anything that does not already have a simpler explanation in terms of some other, less extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds theory does not explain why we get only one result on any measurement, and it does not explain why we get the observed result rather than any other. This observed fact is easily explained in standard quantum mechanics as the result of a stochastic process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that we get only one result for any experiment, and that result is an eigenvalue of the measurement operator, randomly selected from the possible eigenvalues. Bruce It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be derived from anything else in the theory. Bruce It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG Another observational fact which is not an axiom, and key to the MW illusion, is the assumption, allegedly from S's equation, that every possible outcome must be realized in some world. A hugely simpler assumption (not an axiom) is the frequentist interpretation of probability; namely, if an experiment is repeated a large number of times, the measurement probabilities calculated using the wf, will be realized arbitrarily closely. AG MWI's claim to fame is that applying the Shroedinger equation to the instrument and environment in addition to the system of study produces an orthogonal world for each measured outcome. However this is done treating the instrument and environment as macroscopic objects ignoring the details how the instrument interacts with the system, using only a schematic interaction. That other analyses are possible is shown by the retro-causal interpretation. Brent I'm not interested in MW for the reasons I explained above. The Many Worlds of the MWI are just *way too many*, and based on a claim I see as false, and *not* implied by S's equation, which is just epistemic with frequentist probability assumed. What I am interested in is the mystery you claim exists, implied by Bell experiments. BTW, I looked, but can't find the link to a video which featured Roger Penrose and another physicist (whose name I cannot recall) who claimed, based on Bell experiments, that we are on the verge of an historical advance in our concept of space. AG -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81a2ebc9-dc35-4b24-9f48-c0f59abd0660n%40googlegroups.com.
