> On 20 Jun 2018, at 00:28, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/19/2018 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 16 Jun 2018, at 22:41, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/16/2018 10:16 AM, John Clark wrote: >>>> > Another universe comes into existence when Joe the Plumber performs, >>>> say, a spin measurement. >>>> >>>> But a measurement (whatever in the world that means) does not need to be >>>> made and there is nothing special about Joe, if Everett is right the same >>>> thing happens every time an electron in Joe's skin encounters a photon, or >>>> for that matter whenever an electron anywhere encounters anything. >>> >>> That's where MWI gets fuzzy. >> >> Not more than QM itself. We can define a world by a branch of the universe >> wave. But such world will be “world” only as part of a personal history. >> Everett disagrees, but his “relative state” is a better wording than >> “many-worlds” which is often confusing. >> >> >> >>> Do all the submicroscopic events that make to macroscopic difference create >>> different worlds? That can't be right because "worlds" are classical >>> things. So the Heisenberg but problem seems to reappear in different form. >> >> Heisenberg cut disappear, it is just that worlds differentiate from our >> perspective when they make difference for us, like when they can no more >> interfere. There is no cut, only the quantum wave (in the Schroedinger >> picture) and relative state related to macroscopic irreversibility, which >> needs only the classical chaos to be irreversible FAPP. Histories are >> internal things, already a form of first person plural notion. > > Right. But how FAPP does it have to be, how irreversible, in order that it > constitutes a conscious distinct state? That's how the Heisenberg cut > problem reappears at a different level.
Very quickly, like when you mix milk in the coffee. Pure statistics theory provides the numbers, like when we can use Gauss e^(-x^2) instead of Pascal triangle. You don’t need 0 on the diagonal, only tiny numbers. You don’t need purely orthogonal state, the big numbers and classical chaos will lead to the right quasi classical phenomenology, for most relative observers. We don’t need to kill all white rabbits, just to make them relatively rare. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
