Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Blimey, Rimey (QM & Many-Worlds)
Message-ID: <424@umich.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 02:46:15 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.424
Posted: Tue Jan 28 02:46:15 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 04:46:03 EST
References: <408@umich.UUCP> <11524@ucbvax.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU> <419@umich.UUCP> <11561@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 39
Summary: 

Ken:

You obviously know a lot more quantum physics than I do.  I don't know the
mathematics of Hilbert space, for instance.  But I'm still going to argue
with you...

In article <11561@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> rimey@ernie.UUCP (Ken Rimey) writes:
>>You can try to get out of "wave packet collapse" by
>>saying that measuring devices exist in an "uncollapsed" state too, but when
>>you get to the experimenter your position breaks down.  The experimenter
>>thinks "aha, the result was E1" or "aha, the result was E2", but not both,
>>not neither, not in-between (etc.).  (Unless you start postulating multiple,
>>branching universes, but you said you weren't going to do that.) [TOREK]
>
>You misunderstood me.  Both happen.  In one universe.
>
>It is very wrong to say that the various possible outcomes take place
>in corresponding independent branching universes.  The possible
>outcomes constructively or destructively interfere with each other.

In other words, I *didn't* misunderstand you:  you *don't* want to postulate
multiple universes.

You assert that in one universe, the experimenter BOTH thinks "aha, the result
was E1" and "aha, the result was E2".  But that's manifestly false -- at least
it's manifest to the experimenter, because he knows damn well that he's only
thinking ONE of those thoughts.  UNLESS:  unless you suppose that after the
experiment, two consciousnesses inhabit the one body (presumably corresponding
to two brain states superposed in the same brain).  Well, you can avoid
contradictions that way, but the resulting view is -- to put it nicely -- 
weird.

I note, not quite in passing :->, that your position can be entirely recast in
multiple-universe talk if one allows that the branching universes can interfere
with each other.  This may constitute a slight redefinition of the word
"universe", but I think it shows that your position is not really so different
from the branching-universe notion after all. 

--Paul V. Torek							torek@umich