JGWeissman comments on Why Many-Worlds Is Not The Rationally Favored Interpretation - Less Wrong

15 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 29 September 2009 05:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (98)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JGWeissman 29 September 2009 07:40:56PM *  1 point [-]

Many worlds is favored. It is what you get if you just apply the same laws of physics which correctly describe the observed behaviors of microscopic systems on a large scale without postulating any additional laws of physics which are not suggested by the evidence. If you model a measuring device as a system of particles, then measuring a particle in superposition puts that device into superposition, and if you model a human observer as a system of particles then observing the results of that measurement on the device in superposition puts the human in superposition. Supposing additional physics, that the behavior is different when the number of particles gets large, or worse, are in a special configuration called a "mind", makes the theory more complicated for no reason. Supposing that quantum physics for small systems can be derived from a simpler theory which predicts something different in large systems, without actually presenting such a theory, is just an appeal to logical ignorance. And if we had such a theory, we would, at least in principle, know what experiment would distinguish it from many worlds.

Comment author: Peterdjones 20 July 2013 09:08:39PM *  0 points [-]

on a large scale

Which is to say, MWI is what you get if you assume there is a universal state without an observer to observe the state of fix the basis. As it happens, it is possible to reject Universal State AND real collapse.