Recent content by SprocketPower

The weak anthropic principle doesn't seem to be an anthropic principle at all. And a fraction of the multiverse where life like us is possible and exists does not mean it was made for us, contrary to the strong anthropic principle. That is looking at the question backwards and is a very...

The MWI and the Anthropic "Principle" How is it that the MWI and the Anthropic "Principle, " which is especially distasteful, are regarded as compatible? It seems to me they are totally incompatible.

Maui, Dismissing everything that doesn't fit our world view is not rational and reasonable especially if that world view is wrong.

GodPlaysDice, Great, I'll certainly buy the Al-Khalili book.

GodPlaysDice, I can recommend Quantum World by Ken Ford and Introducing Quantum Theory by McEvoy and Zarate, which I have, but also Understanding Quantum Mechanics by Roland Omnès, Quantum World and Quantum Theory by J.C. Polkinghorne, and Quantum: a Guide for the Perplexed by Jim Al-Khalili...

Elvin12, Objective collapse is indetermistic, but what about SD? How would that explain superposition?

There is no conceptual problem in measuring the extent of space, that is not what were talking about, but there is in assigning size to a measure. And you are confusing different types/ definitions of dimension. There is spatial dimension, the size of a matrix, the number of elements in a vector...

By "would collapse the MWI" I meant that the theory would not hold. I take it from your answer it still would.

Measures are of particular objects, the objects have size, the measures do not.

Certainly not. All spatial dimensions are necessarily measured in meters, or derivatives, in the metric system. Did you ever hear of any of the 3 spatial dimensions we are familiar with having size? If a dimension has size it would itself have dimensions, which is impossible.

Dimensions are measures so they can't have size and they can't be curled up. Measuring a dimension is measuring a measure which doesn't make sense.

Time can flow only in 1 directon because you can't have an effect causing a cause and you can't go backwards in time because the very fact that you were back in time would be a change in th e past which would not be there in the 1st place but would if you did which would be impossible. We don't...

So what you're saying, Zargon, is that the object perceives itself or is perceived by its environment, so that there is no real superposition or it's only momentary which would collapse the MWI.

ThomasT and kote, Why would someone simulate reality? And if we are living in a Matrix, then the reality out there would be the same as in here so it doesn't have much meaning whether we are or not. But there is something that seems rather strange to me and that's the supercluster shaped...

Bell says that SD would get rid of superposition. How would it do this?