Le dim. 16 févr. 2025, 00:18, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > 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 > Brent, Yes, interpretations are only retrospectively justified by their ability to lead to better theories. Decoherence was indeed a major success, and it helped MWI clarify why we experience classical-like worlds. But the Born rule remains the central challenge. Saying the Born rule can "eliminate all but one world" is just another way of smuggling in collapse, why would unitary evolution suddenly favor one outcome? Pearle’s and Barandes’ ideas introduce additional ontic structure, but at that point, you're just building another hidden-variable theory. The question isn’t whether multiple worlds "show up in the math", it’s whether treating them as real provides a more natural, self-consistent explanation than postulating that only one is "chosen" without mechanism. If the wavefunction is fundamental, then calling some parts "real" and others "just mathematical machinery" is an arbitrary distinction. Quentin > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/48f0d600-a441-43f2-8942-7bf7d68bbc5e%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/CAMW2kArz4dqTnnXD2wQH3-Wk-MrtJZLw9hAKeB1mYHwX94XoAg%40mail.gmail.com.
