Because they keep ignoring consciousness. On Friday, 28 February 2025 at 15:02:40 UTC+2 John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 6:33 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > *>> Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror* >>> <https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~quopt/tow.pdf> >> >> >> >> *> That's to show that a macroscopic object can be in a superposition. I >> don't see how that would test MWI?* >> > > *Greg Egan asked: * > > *"I wonder just what the implications would be if the Bouwmeester et al. > experiment* [*Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror* > <https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~quopt/tow.pdf>] *shows no interference. It > certainly gives an opportunity to falsify Penrose’s theory of > gravitationally induced collapse, and a no-interference result would make > that theory much more credible."* > > *Scott Aaronson responded: * > > "Yes, absolutely, there might be “gravity-induced environmental > decoherence,” of a kind that left quantum-mechanical linearity formally > intact. But even then, if the decoherence were irreversible for some > fundamental reason (e.g., *if the differences in the gravitational metric > in the two branches propagated outward at the speed of light, and the > cosmology was such that the branches could never recohere*), then I’d > tend to say that unitarity “remained on its throne only as a ceremonial > monarch”! In other words,* as soon as we postulate any decoherence > (whatever its source) that occurs below the level of everyday experience*, > and that’s truly irreversible for fundamental physical reasons … at that > point, I would say that *we can now fully explain our experience without > any reference to parallel copies of ourselves in other branches*, and are > therefore not forced into MWIism." > > *So in Scott Aaronson's opinion, the Bouwmeester experiment has the > potential, at the very least, to make the MWI far less credible. That is > probably why, despite Aaronson not being a big fan of MWI he is not a big > critic either, he remains neutral on the issue. And I have never heard > Aaronson say MWI is not a legitimate scientific idea because it is not > falsifiable. * > > *So if you want we can argue about whether Aaronson is right or wrong > about that, but you can't dispute that I was correct when I said that was > Aaronson's opinion.* > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > *8b0* > -- 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/becc07d9-4235-451a-a65b-d4792d6a3db1n%40googlegroups.com.
