On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 02:44 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
>
>> In weaker forms of the MWI, where it's the early state of the Big Bang
>> (for example) which are splitting off into N universes, De Witt and
>> others have speculated (as early as around 1970) that we may
>
On 04-Sep-02, Hal Finney wrote:
> Brent - FYI you sent your comment just to me again. I
> don't know if you intended to send it to the list or not.
> But I will reply just to you based on how you sent it.
Sorry, Hal - my mistake.
> You wrote:
>> I have always had two problems with the MWI. Initi
OOPS! I sent this reply only to Hal - instead of the list.
So here's the fwd to the list.
Brent Meeker
On 04-Sep-02, Hal Finney wrote:
> I think on this list we should be willing to seriously
> consider the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum
> mechanics as the ontology for our universe
Dear Tim,
Thank you for the reply but ... Well, I did not mean to imply that we
should "look to Egan's fictional character for actual theories" or any other
novel or fiction... I think that I asked you a similar question before
regarding the idea that Egan is discussing using the fictional ch
hi all. Ive started a group dedicated to finding a sequel
theory to quantum mechanics focusing on local hidden
variables. now 1 year old, almost 3000 msgs already,
100 subscribers. several graduate students, one practicing
QM physicist working in superconductors etc., hope to
see you there. will
Tim May wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Hal Finney wrote:
> > There are a few objections which I am aware of which have been raised
> > against the MWI. The first is its lack of parsimony in terms of
> > creating a vast number of universes. We gain some simplification in
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Hal Finney wrote:
> I think on this list we should be willing to seriously consider the
> many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics as the ontology
> for
> our universe.
I remain agnostic on the MWI or EWG interpretation. While I don't
Hal Finney wrote:
>Quantum randomness does not exist in the MWI. It is an illusion caused by
>the same effect which Bruno Marchal describes in his thought experiments,
>where an observer who is about to enter a duplication device has multiple
>possible futures, which he treats as random.
>
Cou
I think on this list we should be willing to seriously consider the
many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics as the ontology for
our universe. In particular, we should not assume that wave function
collapse is anything more than an illusion caused by decoherence
of formerly interacti
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 07:47 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Tim and scerir,
>
> I am VERY interested in this discussion! ;-) It seems to me that
> fact
> that the amplitudes of observables in QM are complex valued and thus
> do not
> obey trichotomy may be at the root of
Dear Tim and scerir,
I am VERY interested in this discussion! ;-) It seems to me that fact
that the amplitudes of observables in QM are complex valued and thus do not
obey trichotomy may be at the root of the difficulty. When we attempt to
make sense of situations such as those we obtain in E
Hi Dave, welcome to the list!
At 0:31 -0400 3/09/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In other words, does Cantor's Absolute Infinity not only have
>Mathematical Existence; but, does it also have Physical Existence in terms of
>the total number of universes?
Cantor referred himself to his absolute i
12 matches
Mail list logo
