On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:53:29 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/23/2018 9:43 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:28:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. AG >> >> >>> Each 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 >> > > The other subspaces don't vanish. They continue to exist and all possible > measurements are in fact measured according to my proposal. But the > subspace in which the observer exists seems apriori different and more > significant in terms of physical reality; it's the environment in which all > entanglements of all subspaces come into being. > > > The entanglements coming into being is what makes the subspaces become > orthogonal and become separate "worlds". The entanglements are different > (in detail) in each different subspace reflecting the fact that they are > correlated with a different result. >
Yes, I am imagining a different result in each subspace. AG > > It seems metaphysically problematic to give all subspaces the same > existential status, when only one provides the environment for all > entanglements for all subspaces. AG > > > I don't know what entanglements you're talking about. The system measured > has different entanglements with the different environments and observers > in the different "worlds". There is no privileged world which provides a > privileged environment and observer. > I am imagining a superposition of states, and when the measurement occurs, each component of the superposition becomes entangled with the environment in this world, the world in which the measuring device exists. Then, somehow, the subspaces become orthogonal FAPP. AG > > 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.
