Eugine_Nier comments on Debugging the Quantum Physics Sequence - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 05 September 2012 03:55PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (129)
Tags: meta quantum

Comments (129)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 September 2012 03:06:28AM 1 point [-]

Suppose it isn't, and collapse isn't a real thing. The wavefunction is just doing its thing, and that's all there is. The causal structures in the wavefunction that correspond to people are still there.

Following that logic why not go even further and remove Schrodinger's Equation? All possible observer moments exist, we just happen to be observers whose history happens to correspond to the conjunction of Schrodinger's Equation with the Born Rule.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 07 September 2012 02:42:20PM 0 points [-]

That notion doesn't bother me in the least, but if we're talking about the physics that happen for us, it's the Schrodinger Equation, and the Born Rule is the 'angle' to take on finding us in it. Anything else isn't us, and we can't do experiments on it, so we ought to avoid making strong claims.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 September 2012 01:36:20AM 0 points [-]

Then I don't understand on what grounds you reject the Born Rule but keep the Schrodinger Equation.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 08 September 2012 03:15:35AM *  0 points [-]

Because the Schrodinger Equation governs the absolute dynamics.

Let me draw an analogy to what things would be like if the world weren't quantum.

Schrodinger Equation + form of the Hamiltonian : Born Rule + neuroscience

::

Newton's 2nd Law + force rules : "Some of those masses are what we're made of.." + neuroscience

Comment author: Alejandro1 07 September 2012 04:53:07AM 0 points [-]

Isn't this sort of like the Tegmark multiverse?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit