----Messaggio originale----
Da: Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
Data: 09/05/2016 18.50
A: <[email protected]>
Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI
On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via
Everything List wrote:
Saibal Mitra:
And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are
already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not
either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has
become entangled with the environment, but both branches are relevant
until you get to know the result.
It seems (to me) interesting this quote from Nicolas Gisin "Against Many-
Worlds",
ch. 4 of the paper ' Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time?
Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds" '
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3440.pdf
"On the contrary, I do not see any explanatory power in the many worlds: it
seems
to be made just to prevent one from asking (possibly provocative) questions.
Moreover, it has built in it the impossibility of any test: all its
predictions are identical
to those of quantum theory. For me, it looks like "cushion for laziness"
(un coussin de paresse in French).
It avoids the otherwise puzzling question of, "When does the wave
function collapse? Why is a measurement different from other
physical interactions?" QBism provides one answer, but at the cost
of losing a kind of absolute objectivity. Other solutions, like
Bohm and GRW, postulate truly different physics that produce
collapse.
#### Yes. And I was not aware of the MIW interpretation !"In the Everett or MW
interpretation, the `worlds' are
orthogonal components of a universal wave function .
The particular decomposition at any time, and the identity
of worlds through time is argued to be defined (at
least well-enough for practical purposes) by the quantum
dynamics which generates essentially independent
evolution of these quasiclassical worlds into the future
(a phenomenon called effective decoherence). The inherent
fuzziness of Everettian worlds is in contrast to
the corresponding concepts in the MIW [Many Interacting classical Worlds]
approach, of a
well-defined group of deterministically-evolving configurations.
In the MW interpretation it is meaningless to ask
exactly how many worlds there are at a given time, or exactly
when a branching event into subcomponents occurs,
leading to criticisms that there is no precise ontology Another di ffcult issue
is that worlds are not equally
`real' in the MW interpretation, but are `weighted' by
the modulus squared of the corresponding superposition
coeffi cients. As noted above, in the MIW approach all
worlds are equally weighted, so that Laplace's theory of
probability is su fficient to account for our experience and
expectations." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6144v4.pdf
And there is a second, decisive, reason to
reject
the many-worlds view: it leaves no space for free will."
That's a silly reason. Daniel Dennett, in his book Elbow Room,
explains that even Laplacian determinism leaves us all the free will
worth having.
Brent
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
