On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the > concept of > > a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mechanics. > > I disagree. The strongest argument is that it removes the need for a > mysterious nonunitary physical collapse process (that may or may not > be driven by a conscious observer). > > A conscious observer (or rather just observer, really) is still > required to define the branches of the MWI, be that mediated by Zeh's > decoherence process, or otherwise. To eliminate observers entirely > requires solving the preferred basis problem without reference to an > observer or observation. >
According to Feynman one doesn't need a conscious observer to perform a measurement, just a detector to record the result. Have I misinterpreted his conclusion? TIA. > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > <javascript:> > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- 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.
