> On 25 Jan 2021, at 18:19, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > >> Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is > >> that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a > >> "observer" means, or what a "choice" means because in many worlds ANY > >> physical change of any sort causes the Universe to split. > > > That sounds like a bug not a feature. > > Well then, it should be easy for you to tell me exactly what "measured" > means, and "observer" and "choice". > > > Does every C14 decay in your body instantiate a different world? Every > > photon that's absorbed by that chlorophyll molecule instead of that other > > molecule? > > If the Many Worlds interpretation is correct then yes. And before you bring > up Occam's razor let me remind you that it deals with the simplest > assumptions not the simplest conclusions. Many Worlds assumes Schrodinger's > Wave Equation means what it says. That's it. Hugh Everett did not assume that > many whirls exist, he concluded they did. > > > As Bruno says, "World" and "Universe" become hard to define. > > That's extraordinarily easy to do in Many Worlds, as I said before ANY > physical change of any sort causes the Universe to split. If there has been > no change then there has been no split, and if there is a change then the > universe has split.
… at the speed of light. (Although even saying this is still a bit of a simplification). There is only relative state decohering into sets of parallel histories (which are actually more perpendicular than parallel …). > > > you can't give meaning to "This" > > The difficulty in the above is not with the word "this" it's with the word > "you". > > > You need some way to talk about the quasi-classical world > > Then "you", and all personal pronouns, are a collection of very similar > beings living in very similar worlds. Yes, the definition is not precise and > is a bit fuzzy but that's the price you must pay if you insist on a > quasi-classical world definition in a Quantum Mechanical world. Or use a good textbook in mathematical logic, which provides good definition of indexicals. Bruno > > > Bohr noted, that's where we live > > I don't think Bohr ever said that, but if he did he was most certainly wrong. > We don't live in a classical world or even a quasi-classical one, although > sometimes we can pretend that we do if we only need approximate answers, but > sometimes we can't even get approximations that way even for practical > problems, such as those in solid-state physics; try explaining how your > pocket laser pointer works using nothing but classical ideas, and for > something like cosmology classical mechanics is completely hopeless. > > John K Clark > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2nrF8s%2B2URfxWVK5bDkdvcO4M6M9h%3Dao8T0iyf%3DaXWZg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2nrF8s%2B2URfxWVK5bDkdvcO4M6M9h%3Dao8T0iyf%3DaXWZg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/038EEA47-3A6E-4FB6-AE85-7C283AEDF2FE%40ulb.ac.be.
