On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is >> that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a "observer" >> means, or what a "choice" means because in many worlds ANY physical change >> of any sort causes the Universe to split. > > > * > That sounds like a bug not a feature. * > Well then, it should be easy for you to tell me exactly what "measured" means, and "observer" and "choice". * > Does every C14 decay in your body instantiate a different world? Every > photon that's absorbed by that chlorophyll molecule instead of that other > molecule?* > If the Many Worlds interpretation is correct then yes. And before you bring up Occam's razor let me remind you that it deals with the simplest assumptions not the simplest conclusions. Many Worlds assumes Schrodinger's Wave Equation means what it says. That's it. Hugh Everett did not assume that many whirls exist, he concluded they did. > *As Bruno says, "World" and "Universe" become hard to define. * > That's extraordinarily easy to do in Many Worlds, as I said before *ANY* physical change of any sort causes the Universe to split. If there has been no change then there has been no split, and if there is a change then the universe has split. > > you can't give meaning to "This" > The difficulty in the above is not with the word "this" it's with the word " you". > *You need some way to talk about the quasi-classical world* Then "you", and all personal pronouns, are a collection of very similar beings living in very similar worlds. Yes, the definition is not precise and is a bit fuzzy but that's the price you must pay if you insist on a quasi-classical world definition in a Quantum Mechanical world. * > Bohr noted, that's where we live * > I don't think Bohr ever said that, but if he did he was most certainly wrong. We don't live in a classical world or even a quasi-classical one, although sometimes we can pretend that we do if we only need approximate answers, but sometimes we can't even get approximations that way even for practical problems, such as those in solid-state physics; try explaining how your pocket laser pointer works using nothing but classical ideas, and for something like cosmology classical mechanics is completely hopeless. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2nrF8s%2B2URfxWVK5bDkdvcO4M6M9h%3Dao8T0iyf%3DaXWZg%40mail.gmail.com.
