On 5/23/2018 9:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In the MWI interpretation there is no reason to preference one over the other with the honorific of "exists". They are just projective subspaces that are essentially (FAPP) orthogonal to one another.I can buy that, although tentatively, with difficulty, until I see the mathematics which demonstrates it. AGEach one includes copies of the system, the environment, and the observer(s) which is necessary so that it constitute a classical "world" in which everyone agrees on the result.This I absolutely CANNOT buy, as I have explained numerous times. Cannot decoherence and the MWI have descriptive value without all of this COPYING being assumed, which I find outlandish? Would it be fatal to any of these concepts to affirm that the entanglements which occur in these subspaces are equivalent to measurements in these subspaces? AG
It's fine if you just assume the other subspaces vanish as far as doing physics. Metaphysically it's problematic because you've used a certain theory up to that point which predicts that all the subspaces are equally real (and may be more probable than the one you experience) and there are copies of you and your lab etc which are equally real and now you're going to stop using that theory which was so amazingly successful...why?
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.
