On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*>>> While they're generally idealizations which depend on measurements for > verification, the EP fails straight out in most cases, with accurate > measurements. The EP depends on poor measurements, unlike the other cases. > AG * > > > *>> I am unable to make any sense whatsoever out of the above word salad. * > > > *> The meaning is obvious. One requires poor measurements to affirm the > EP, whereas, say for other laws, the better the measurements, the more sure > we are of those laws. AG * > *I am unable to make any sense whatsoever out of the above word salad. * > * >> Einstein didn't believe in the Everett interpretation, but he didn't > disbelieve in the Everett interpretation either. That's because Everett > didn't come up with his interpretation until 1957. Einstein died in 1955. * > > > *> I am aware of those dates, but I seriously doubt Einstein would have > accepted Everett's interpretation* > *Your "serious doubt" means absolutely nothing. We will never know what Einstein would've thought of Everett's interpretation, or of Bell's inequality which Bell didn't discover until 1964. * > *> if he denied the final form of QM, and its general philosophy of > indeterminism. AG* > *Then that's reason to believe Einstein might have liked Everett's interpretation because it is deterministic, as deterministic a Schrodinger's equation is. But as I say we will never know for sure. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* eec -- 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/CAJPayv3hBUUsuYP6bE%3DJg_v7d_XgZkVDCaUkGvf71k_yiCSnww%40mail.gmail.com.
