= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
endoself comments on The So-Called Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - 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 (20)
Cool, I've thought of that too. The problem with this approach is that it's not obvious how to apply the Born rule or whether it must be revised. Apparently Weinberg wrote a paper on something similar, but I've never been able to find it.
Hmm. I see what you mean - you can end up with a sort of sleeping beauty paradox, where some branches remain more concentrated than others, and over time their 'probabilities' grow or shrink retroactively.
I don't see that being a fundamental issue of dynamics, but rather of our ability to interpret it. If the Born Rule is an approximation that applies except at the dawn of time, I'm okay with that.
Yeah, that's what I meant by 'revised'. I don't even know if it's possible to find an approximation that behaves sanely. Last time I thought about this, I thought we'd want to avoid the sort of situation you mentioned, but I've been thinking about the anthropic trilemma post and now I'm leaning toward the idea that we shouldn't exclude it a priori.