-PhD Philosophy, University of Edinburgh, Scotland (in progress)
-MA Philosophical Studies, Liberty University
-BS Religion: Biblical Studies, Liberty University
Posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2012 at 11:47 in | RSS feedComments Feed | Respond | Trackback URL
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
« Jul | ||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
December 12, 2012 at 22:19
I think your multiverse views are wrong. By Schrodinger’s theory, there cannot be multiple realities if there is an observer (namely, God). Because there is an observer (God), reality must pick a course, negating the multiverse theory. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
December 12, 2012 at 23:48
Everett shows that the collapse of the state vector, something originally thought to be outside of Schrödinger’s theory, can be show to arise within the universal [Schrödinger] wave function. Everett maintains that, in general, a composite system cannot be represented by a singular pair of subsystem states, but can be depicted only as a superposition of such pairs of subsystem states. For example, the Schrödinger wave function for a pair of particles Ψ(x1, x2), cannot always be written in the form Ψ=ϕ(x1)η(x2), the wave function being equivalent to the state of the two particles. Instead, there is no single state for particle 1 or particle 2 alone, but only the superposition of such cases. The only objection I can find with this is that the Schrödinger equation is symmetrical with regard to a reversal of the direction of time whereas MWI is not. With MWI there is always a corresponding “I” where each version of the observer is equally valid. Thus, there is a valid version of the observer perceiving each outcome; hence, there are many equally valid “I’s.” Everett makes explicit claims that though he will use the language of probability to facilitate his exposition, although he applies mathematical definitions and formulas to his theory without reference to probability models. All versions of the observer are equally valid but I don’t see how that negates MWI in the theistic context. Why must there be one observer, God? If God is the only observer then the wave collapse must be objective. However, Schrödinger’s equation is completely subjective. That is, unless you want to shift the subject to God and reinterpret Schrödinger to an objective determinate collapse. So, why must there only be one observer and why must he only determine one outcome?