<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Adrian Tymes </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:atymes@gmail.com" target="_blank">atymes@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>MWI isn't the only<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>possible explanation of the wave function.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​<font size="4">What needs to be explained is quantum mechanical behavior, the wave function</font></div><font size="4"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​is ​just a way to perform quantum mechanical calculations and it's not the only way, if you don't like it you can use </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Heisenberg <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​</div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">Matrices​ and you'll get the same answer. MWI, Copenhagen, Transactional, Pilot Wave etc are all attempts to give a physical intuition about what is going on and not just crunch numbers. Many, perhaps most,  ph</div></font><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">ysicists​<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​don't care about that and belong to the "shut up and calculate" school; assuming you're not a member of that school which physical interpretation do you think is less weird than the MWI?</div></span></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>Also, the way you're phrasing it seems to suggest you think quantum<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>computers have been proven to be general purpose, rather than usable<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>only for a few specific types of problems.  There is hope that they<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div>are, but they aren't yet, and we don't know for sure that they can be.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">​<font size="4">True, but if general purpose ​</font></font><font size="4"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">quantum</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">computers are possible then there is a way to tell if Copenhagen or MW is correct. Yes that would be hard to do but that's Copenhagen's fault not the MWI fault. </span>Copenhagen says conscious stuff obeys different laws of physics than non-conscious stuff, consciousness can collapse the wave function but non-conscious stuff can't. MWI says both obey the same laws of physics. So to tell who's right you need an AI that operates on quantum principles. And that would be very difficult to make but it's starting to look like it's not impossible.   </font></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>And yes, QM does produce fundamentally random results,</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​<font size="4">True, and yet ​</font></div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​both ​</div>Schrodinger's <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​W​</div>ave<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ Equation and ​</div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Heisenberg </span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Matrices are 100% deterministic, one of the many weird things about quantum mechanics.</div></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div> </div></div><br></div></div>