= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ata comments on On Being Decoherent - 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 (77)
Let me join all those observing that these are great explanations of QM. But I don't get why we need to invoke MWI and the Ebborians. If the wavefunction evolves into
(Human-LEFT * Sensor-LEFT * Atom-LEFT) + (Human-RIGHT * Sensor-RIGHT * Atom-RIGHT)
but we only observe
(Human-LEFT * Sensor-LEFT * Atom-LEFT)
then it makes far more sense to me that, rather than conjuring up a completely unobservable universe with clones of ourselves where (Human-RIGHT * Sensor-RIGHT * Atom-RIGHT) happened, a far more empirical explanation is that <i>it simply didn't happen</i>. Half of the wavefunction disappears, nondeterministically. Why, as Occam might say, multiply trees beyond necessity? Prune them instead. Multiple "worlds" strike me as no more necessary than the aether or absolute space.
This is addressed in Decoherence is Simple.
(Also, the <i> tag doesn't work because Less Wrong uses Markdown formatting for comments; if you click "Help" under the comment box you can see a reference to some of the more common constructions.)
(Also, welcome to Less Wrong!)