On 9/27/2019 12:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
BTW Sabine Hossenfelder just posted her Many Worlds view:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html
Sabine writes:
/The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a
detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into
several universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector
measure”, then the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s
possible with probability 1.”//
//
//This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one
measurement outcome. The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of
course you are not supposed to calculate the probability for each branch
of the detector. Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all
detector branches together. You should only evaluate the probability
relative to the detector in one specific branch at a time.//
//
//That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically
entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate./
This turns on "we only observe one measurement outcome" and this "...is
logically equivalent to the measurement postulate" But the MWI says
that we observe all possible outcomes just as the detector measures all
possible outcomes. She seems to elide the observer splitting, and
assumes there's a "soul" or "person" that doesn't split but instead goes
to only one branch of the MW.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b3361d2-b424-234a-6fc9-45e124355efc%40verizon.net.
