[ExI] Everett worlds

Dylan Distasio interzone at gmail.com
Sun Aug 16 16:41:44 UTC 2020

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 12:24 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Incidentally, we know from experiment that Bell's Inequality is violated,
> therefore we know for a fact that if an atom of Uranium decays now and not
> an hour or a century from now because of hidden variables those hidden
> variables can't be local. But if the universe is not local it's very hard
> for me to understand why we've been so successful at explaining so many
> things about it, it seems to me we would have to understand everything
> before we understood anything.
> John K Clark


Doesn't the fact that quantum effects are not a factor at a relatively
small size of matter explain why we are able to under as much as we have
been able to about the universe (classical physics, chemistry,
spectrography, even relativity)?

I feel like once we get down to concepts like entanglement, it continues to
point to a very fundamental lack of understanding of what quantum effects
actually are showing us.  For me, non-local effects remain one of the more
baffling aspects of quantum mechanics, although the entire theory would be
hard to believe in any interpretation of it if we didn't have experimental
evidence of it.

The idea of needing an observer to collapse a wave has always bothered me,
but I also don't like the idea that the many world's hypothesis seems very
hard to test.

Are there any good recent books presenting the latest quantum theory that
are non-mathematician friendly, yet still scratch the surface?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200816/97f35d66/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list