On 31 Oct 2011, at 06:30, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:

On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standish<li...@hpcoders.com.au>  wrote:

My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it, you remain in

- Show quoted text -
I thought that in the everett interpretation everything was unitary?

best wishes

Right. In Everett's interpretation Nick's consciousness exists in many superpositions and there must be some additional mechanism of consciousness that accounts for the separation of these conscious streams of experience.

That is just memory of the experiencer. It is not conc"eptually different than the mechanist first person indeterminacy.
I agree that in Everett everything evolve unitarily.

This would be the same mechanism that collapses the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation - something like decoherence except that when the cross terms become sufficiently small they become exactly zero.

Decoherence is just entanglement, as see from a chosen basis.

This would be a "small" non-unitary step. But it requires that there be distinguished variables in which the density matrix becomes diagonal - the "pointer basis".

If reality is discrete. If, not matrix might never become diagonal, and in that case QTI follows, and first person, from their first person view cannot be annihilated. With mechanism, it is trivial that only this happen (no first person annihilation) and mechanism favor the existence of some continuous (real) observable. I think.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to