Brent, How can you speak of "worlds vanishing" if, in the single-world framework, those possibilities never truly existed? If they are purely conceptual and lack ontological reality, nothing disappears because there was never anything there to begin with. The "vanishing" is a metaphor, but one that seems to smuggle in the idea of something real being discarded, which contradicts the premise of possibilities being merely notional.
In the single-world view, the orthogonal states in your Meeker equation are, at best, theoretical constructs with no causal or actual role in shaping the realized world. So, when you say they "vanish," it implies they had some form of existence prior to this vanishing—which your framework explicitly denies. If the possibilities don’t exist, there’s nothing to vanish. This highlights the inconsistency in invoking these possibilities to describe outcomes while simultaneously denying them any real status. In contrast, in a multiverse framework, orthogonal states are real branches of the wavefunction that exist and evolve independently. They don’t vanish; they continue to exist in parallel. This consistency avoids the need for metaphors like "vanishing" and provides a coherent explanation for how probabilities emerge from the structure of reality. If your framework relies on the idea of things "disappearing," it seems to contradict the notion that these possibilities are purely notional. How can something unreal "vanish"? This is precisely why the single-world interpretation feels conceptually incomplete—it borrows the language of existence without granting it any real grounding. Quentin Le jeu. 9 janv. 2025, 14:02, John Clark <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:06 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> *>>>> I propose Meeker's equation, which is the same as Schrodinger's >>>> equation except that the worlds orthogonal to our own disappear when they >>>> become orthogonal. Meeker's equation has also shown to be correct by all >>>> known tests. * >>> >>> >>> *>>> You're too late, the objective collapse people have already >>> modified Schrödinger's equation by adding a nonlinear randomly determined >>> term to it that makes an already difficult to solve equation far far more >>> difficult. * >>> >>> *> >Hence the advantage of the Meeker equation which is no harder to >>> solve than Schroedinger's equation.* >>> >> >> *> If you have really found such a marvelous equation you should publish >> a paper and let the world know about it! * >> >> *>It's just the Schroedinger equation plus the rule that once your world >> is orthogonal to others, they vanish.* >> > > *What a disappointment! By adding that one unnecessary rule you've > implicitly added an astronomical number, and possibly an infinite number, > of assumptions; William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave at close to > the speed of light. Even worse, you've made it impossible to understand why > physics has two sets of laws, one set works when you're looking at > something, and the other set works when you aren't.* > > * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > wda > > -- > 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/CAJPayv14%2B%2B6O%3D3mxCwuVb4S79PzL7wKCb2hZsXn3-dmznG-8qw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv14%2B%2B6O%3D3mxCwuVb4S79PzL7wKCb2hZsXn3-dmznG-8qw%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAocDepsLoddg%3DJADpC39PN7112yx2HqB%2BqcmenxWu9%3DWg%40mail.gmail.com.
