On 2/15/2025 1:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le sam. 15 févr. 2025, 22:02, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a
écrit :
On 2/15/2025 12:19 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le sam. 15 févr. 2025, 02:49, Brent Meeker
<[email protected]> a écrit :
*>> Many Worlds says everything always obeys
Schrodinger's equation including the observer,
therefore there will always be self-location
uncertainty, it can't be avoided.*
Fallacious reasoning. There won't be any self-location
uncertainty if only one world happens...as a properly
interpreted Schroedinger plus Born rule says.
Yes, and there wouldn't be any if the Earth were flat, either.
But that doesn’t mean reality conforms to the simplest
assumption. The fact remains: quantum mechanics, as it stands,
predicts self-location uncertainty
No it doesn't. QM as it stands, in textbooks and universities and
poles of practitioners is still majority neo-Copenhagen. We're not
talking about "reality" here, just an /interpretation. / That's
where Everettians get out over their skies.
Brent
Brent,
Self-location uncertainty follows naturally if you take the
wavefunction as a real, evolving entity, whether you call that MWI or
not. The fact that neo-Copenhagen is still dominant doesn’t change
that QM itself doesn’t specify an interpretation; it just gives the math.
Everettians aren’t "out over their skies", they’re just following
unitary evolution without adding an arbitrary collapse. If reality
doesn’t conform to the simplest assumption, then what justifies adding
a non-unitary collapse rule beyond personal preference?
Interpretations are only "justified" in retrospect when they are found
to lead to better (more accurate or more comprehensive) theories. MWI
did that in the sense that it inspired the development of decoherence
theory. But it relies on decoherence of produce the multiple worlds and
the Born rule to make the in the right proportions. The Born rule can
apply just as well to eliminating all but one world as a consequence of
decoherence. That's what Pearle's idea does. Barandes idea is to split
an epistemic wave-function from an underlying ontic state. The
mulitple-worlds just show up in the wave function as part of the
mathematical machinery to assign a probability to ontic states. Does
that make them really real?
Brent
Quentin
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c57ca40-47e1-4d19-8728-777c407b27a5%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c57ca40-47e1-4d19-8728-777c407b27a5%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAq-sajyAWDYf1aUon1rkYzLeZfwXP2544VY5a4vGZY5Hg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAq-sajyAWDYf1aUon1rkYzLeZfwXP2544VY5a4vGZY5Hg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/48f0d600-a441-43f2-8942-7bf7d68bbc5e%40gmail.com.
