= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mitchell_Porter comments on Ask an experimental physicist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (294)
If you could look at the wavefunction and count the worlds by inspection, then these claims would have something to them. But you can't. By inspection you can see, e.g., that a particular wavefunction contains two wavepackets, one of which is N times as high as the other. How do you go from that, to one outcome being N^2 times as frequent as the other?
You generally don't. If I may in retrospect reword my argument, I will say that given the Schroedinger Equation there is nothing stopping decoherence from getting macroscopic. Why the Born Rule works, I have no idea, but I am pretty damn certain it has a non-mysterious explanation.
It seems I was confused about what terms were synonymous and what weren't.
But The Copenhagen Interprentation is still stupid.