On 18 Nov 2012, at 09:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01:49PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
In a recent paper entitled
“Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation”:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447
Jan-Markus Schwindt has presented an impressive argument against the
many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The argument he presents is not new, but, in my opinion, nobody ever
presented this argument so clearly.
In a nutshell, the argument is this:
To define separate worlds of MWI, one needs a preferred basis,
which is an
old well-known problem of MWI. In modern literature, one often
finds the
claim that the basis problem is solved by decoherence. What J-M
Schwindt
points out is that decoherence is not enough. Namely, decoherence
solves
the basis problem only if it is already known how to split the
system into
subsystems (typically, the measured system and the environment).
But if the
state in the Hilbert space is all what exists, then such a split
is not
unique. Therefore, MWI claiming that state in the Hilbert space is
all what
exists cannot resolve the basis problem, and thus cannot define
separate
worlds. Period! One needs some additional structure not present in
the
states of the Hilbert space themselves.
As reasonable possibilities for the additional structure, he
mentions
observers of the Copenhagen interpretation, particles of the Bohmian
interpretation, and the possibility that quantum mechanics is not
fundamental at all.
source <http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=4289>
Rather than Copenhagen observers, the many minds of Everett fits the
bill.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
As I see it - the argument is not new,
Yes old argument keep getting copied and pasted, probably due to
"perish or publish".
and has been adequately
addressed within the Everett framework.
Absolutely so. Even in Everett original long version text (his thesis).
What surprises me are people
like Deutsch sticking to their preferred bases...
I agree, although I thought that David changed his mind on this.
People does not read the original work of Everett which shows clearly
the independence from the choice of a basis, even if the global
picture remains unclear. About this, with comp we know why (there are
no global physical picture a priori).
Best,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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.
