On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, 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).

I said "one of the strongest"! I know that you want to define QM from the idea of observer moments. I don't think that this will work, and the usual consensus is that one of the strengths of MWI is the elimination of the 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.

That is not true. The basis problem is solved by Zurek's einselection -- the preferred basis is the one that is stable against further decoherence. Observers have nothing to do with it. In Zurek's account, it is the fact that the results of interactions, be they measurements or not, are recorded multiple times in the environment via decoherence, that is the mark of an irreversible quantum event.

Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to