How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe

Post by finchisko » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #27

fallingfrog wrote: post #8

You can do a really simple thought experiment that provides a persuasive argument in favor of the many worlds theory. Or at least, it shows that wave function collapse is relative to an observer, not universal everywhere. Start with Schroedingers cat: the cat is in a box, it’s in a state of quantum superposition. It’s 50/50 alive or dead. Now a researcher opens the box: the cat is found to be either alive, or dead, a…

The problem with many worlds is why do I think I'm in a particular timeline? If many worlds is correct, there is no "I", there are many rapidly branching "I"s, which intuitively doesn't make sense. Of course, each "I" will have the perception of being the sole "I", but the overall view that there is no singular "I" is very counter to my self conception. I prefer to preserve intuitions over conjectures, so I count tha…

Post by jbay808 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

ridewinter wrote: post #60

lisper wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a quote from David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality": "When I introduced tangible and shadow photons I apparently distinguished them by saying that we can see the former, but not the latter. But who are ‘we’? While I was writing that, hosts of shadow Davids were writing it too. They too drew a distinction between tangible and shadow photons; but the photons they called ‘shadow’ include the ones I called ‘tangi…

MWI provides a clear, comprehensive explanation for all of the “weird” quantum phenomenon. Beyond that, this quote from FoR [1] convinced me: “To those who still cling to a single-universe world-view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor’s algorithm works. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor’s…

Post by yters » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

faissaloo wrote: post #52

yters wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with many worlds is why do I think I'm in a particular timeline? If many worlds is correct, there is no "I", there are many rapidly branching "I"s, which intuitively doesn't make sense. Of course, each "I" will have the perception of being the sole "I", but the overall view that there is no singular "I" is very counter to my self conception. I prefer to preserve intuitions over conjectures, so I count tha…

This whole idea of observers just brings to mind things like culling in graphics rendering, perhaps that's what's happening

Post by gizmo686 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

platz wrote: post #22

fallingfrog wrote: post #8

You can do a really simple thought experiment that provides a persuasive argument in favor of the many worlds theory. Or at least, it shows that wave function collapse is relative to an observer, not universal everywhere. Start with Schroedingers cat: the cat is in a box, it’s in a state of quantum superposition. It’s 50/50 alive or dead. Now a researcher opens the box: the cat is found to be either alive, or dead, a…

The wavefunction is the thing that is in a state of quantum superposition. It all depends on whether you think the wavefunction describes the macroscopic world (MWI), or the wavefunction merely calculates amplitudes&probabilities for things that happen in the macroscopic, classical world (Copenhagen) Is the electron it's wavefunction (MWI), or is the electron a particle/field that is influenced by the wavefunction (C…

Post by akvadrako » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #2

I'm not sure if the Aeon article explains what Everett really meant, at least I still have questions. Suppose we're eternally branching, as in the example about the up/down spin. If there's no way to visit other branches, how will we ever confirm this? Second, what is the benefit of the branching interpretation? It seems to simply be a way to think about probabilities?