From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 10:36:56 MST
gts writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> >> Correct, and in MWI *the observer splits* when
> >> that measurement is registered in the observer.
> >> It happens at the moment of actually observing a
> >> measurement (i.e.., the firing of neurons as you like
>
> >> to say.)
> >
> > Dead wrong.
>
> No, I'm dead right, I'll prove it by posting as many
> third party references as necessary, starting with the
> one below taken from the MWI faq posted at
>
> http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm
You are now even resorting to taking me out of context.
What I really responded with was
Dead wrong. In QM the splitting refers to a *physical*
split, and in our hypothesis occurs at or around 10^-43
seconds.
where I am *clearly* referring to our particular experiment.
But thanks for quoting from Hedweb. And that is a fine FAQ
(I read it many years ago).
> I'm not going to muddy up this message by quoting and
> replying to every paragraph of yours. We need to get
> this fact straight before we go on. I think you're
> going to owe me an apology.
I'm not going to engage you in a discussion of quantum
mechanics and MWI. You are invited again to go to FoR
for that. You've already proved to me that you don't
understand essential fundamentals, such as the difference
between observation and measurement, and I'm not going to
waste my time trying to convince you, when I can't even
convince you of the most elementary facts concerning the
**subject line** of this thread.
For the 4th time, I ask (which is really RELEVANT TO THIS
THREAD)
Therefore it is better to stick with classical duplicates.
Also, we have a physically completely symmetrical 1000-way
fork, and you have yet to say in what way any one of them
could have a special property.
Do you have a problem sticking with classical duplicates?
I have said why I don't want to muddy the waters with MWI.
Why should I have to write a paragraph such as the above
four times? Why do I and one other participant to this
discussion have to tell you that we think QM irrelevant
to the nuts and bolts of this discussion more than several
times?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:20 MST