From: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although with different motivation. Thee result of an experiment, obviously depend of what you measure, but when you embed the observer in the wave, you get that what they find is independent of the choice of the base used to describe the “observer” and the “observed”. If not, the MW would already be refuted. In that case, MW is refuted. Clearly, what the observer finds is dependent on the basis in which he is described. Or else experiments would not have definite results when described in the laboratory from the 1p perspective. Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- which is, I agree, independent of the basis in which it is described -- the view of any observer embedded in the multiverse is totally basis-dependent. That is, after all, what we mean by 'worlds' -- the view from within, or the 1p view. But that view depends on how you describe it: the way in which you partition the multiverse itself. Only certain very special bases are robust against environmental decoherence -- how else do you resolve the Schrödinger cat issue? Bruce*So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time? AG*
Decoherence has resolved the basis question long before the cyanide has hit the cat.
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 [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.
