On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 5:38 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:20:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> Part of the dislike of the MWI is that its proponents assume a purity >> that is not an evident virtue of the intepretation. For example, >> interpreting the squared amplitudes as probabilities seems to be assumed, >> along with the existence of the preferred basis in which the amplitudes are >> defined. Together these are almost the same as CI. If you ask >> "probabilities of what?" in MWI the answer can't be probability of existing >> because MWI has committed to all solutions, however improbable, existing. >> So it becomes probability of finding yourself in a particular world...which >> depends on a theory of consciousness and seems to regress to von Neumann >> and Wigner. >> >> Zurek's envariance attempts to answer these questions and provide a >> justification for preferred bases and what probability refers to. But >> notice that to the extent he succeeds he is justifying taking a simple >> probabilistic view and saying one of those preferred states happens and the >> others don't. >> >> Brent >> >> >> > In the single-particle double-slit experiment*, an observer could see a > dot appear anywhere on a screen where path interference does not reduce the > probability to zero. So with the literal many-world-branching theory, how > many different worlds are produced, each on with its own observer seeing a > dot on the screen? > According to MWI, an infinite number. Each world will have the dot at a different place on the screen. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ8_FYfnAba8e%3D24UwUZrL2yAD%3D5dJ7-5tjw2M%2B8oi04A%40mail.gmail.com.
