Jason Resch wrote: > On 1/28/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > I don't think this is the way to look at it. It's true that QM > predicts an uncountably infinite number of branchings, even for an > universe containing only a single unstable particle. But these > branchings don't produce different copies of Stathis. As a big > macroscopic object he is described by a reduced density matrix that > has only extremely tiny off-diagonal terms. So he is a stable entity > against these microscopic quantum events unless they are amplified so > as to change his macroscopic state - as for example if he heard a > geiger counter click. The microscopic events just add a little fuzz > to his reduced density matrix - and the same for all of the classical > world. > > > > Although microscopic quantum events don't immediatly produce > macroscopic changes, I think the butterfly effect implies that given > sufficient time, they certainly do.
Maybe. But it is also the case that there is no chaos in QM. And even if Stathis evolves in a way sensitive to initial conditions it doesn't imply that the chaotic evolution carries him far from his classical path - even in chaos the deviations may be bounded. >Consider how brownian motion > could effect which sperm results in a pregnancy. Sure, but this is an example of amplification of microscopic randomness. I agree that produces a split. What do you say to the prediction that the decay of an unstable atom must produce a *continuum* of splittings? > Considering this, I > think that if you looked at two histories that branched a century > ago, you would find two Earths inhabited by entirely different sets > of individuals. > Even if Stathis's brain itself were never effected > directly by quantum events, the fact that he ends up in branchings > that produce different sensory input will no doubt produce new > distnguishable observer moments. > > > > You might be interested in Greg Egan's excellent SF story "Singleton" > which is available online: > > ttp://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/MISC/SINGLETON/Singleton.html > > > Egan says "People who professed belief in the MWI never seemed to > want to take it seriously, let alone personally." So he wrote a > story in which it is taken personally. > > > > Thanks, that was an interesting read. I find it surprising how many > people find MWI so disturbing, perhaps it is the pessimists always > assuming the worst is happening. Instead of focusing on the good or > bad, I look at the variety it produces. Many worlds leaves no rock > unturned and no path untread, it realizes every possibility and to > me this is an amazing and beautiful result. It's not a result yet - just a speculation. I don't think it's even a well defined theory yet. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---