On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 7:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> 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. > > > Ot to Mechanism, as Everett already suggested. > > > > 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. > > > The others happen too, but are not suited for mechanism to develop. There > is no preferred base in the MWI, but only those on which consciousness can > stabilise and allow first person plural reality to make sense can be seen > by machine. > > With Everett, quantum mechanics becomes exactly the physics expected from > mechanism: a statistics on relative indexical first person (plural) > experience. > > Bruno > > PS I agree that hidden variable reintroduces 3p indeterminacy, non > locality, or threaten physical realism (which is impose by mechanism, btw). > Also, making the SWE non linear demolish the QM prediction, without making > the “parallel histories” disappearing. According to Steve Weinberg, it > allows interaction in between the “parallel” branches of the superposition, > and eventually contradict both thermodynamic and special relativity. > > > In this theory, each world branch would have its own population of consciousnesses, branched off from a parent world, a multiplicity of selves: Bruno-.0, then Bruno-0.0, Bruno-0.1, Bruno-0.00, Bruno-0.10, Bruno-0.01, Bruno-0.11, ... no one self anymore.
@philipthrift -- 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/d54f9a54-42d1-4127-a594-4b4f54100505%40googlegroups.com.
