On 2/15/2025 4:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
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,
"Smuggling in"?? One world is what is observed!
why would unitary evolution suddenly favor one outcome?
Because, as I keep repeating, that's what probability means. Something
happens and other things don't happen. If everything happens then you
need think of a new meaning for "probability", and so Everttians had to
invent "self-locating uncertainity". Note that Everett didn't invent
that. He referred to a "relative state" which was more ambiguous.
Pearle’s and Barandes’ ideas introduce additional ontic structure, but
at that point, you're just building another hidden-variable theory.
You haven't read the papers. Pearle's is a mechanism for the Born rule,
something that MWI needs too. Barandes "Minimal Modal Interpretation"
is separating an epistemic part from an ontic part, which he argues
should be different in a density matrix formulation where you don't have
perfect information.
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.
But without being able to derive the Born rule the wave function can't
be fundamental. The mantra of the Everettians has been "It's just the
Schroedinger equation." But it seems it's not.
Brent
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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArz4dqTnnXD2wQH3-Wk-MrtJZLw9hAKeB1mYHwX94XoAg%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/3ef7bb40-c004-49f4-8c7e-084e33a6e125%40gmail.com.
