= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on If Many-Worlds Had Come First - 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 (179)
Ignoring your unhelpful sarcastic derision... You should know better, really.
Take an EPR experiment with spatially separated observers A and B. If A measures a state of a singlet and the world is split into Aup and Adown, when does B split in this world, according to MWI?
In RQM, it does not until it measures its own half of the singlet, which can be before of after A in a given frame. Its model of A is a superposition until A and B meet up and compare results (another interaction). The outcome depends on whether A actually measured anything and if so, in which basis. None of this is known until A and B interact.
I confess I'm not quite clear on your question. Local processes proceed locally with invariant states of distant entanglement. Just suppose that the global wavefunction is an objective fact which entails all of RQM's statements via the obvious truth-condition, and there you go.
Tell me what the basis is, and where it comes from, and I will...
I confess I'm not quite clear on your answer.
Not sure what this means, at least not past "local processes proceed locally", which is certainly uncontroversial, if you mean to say that interaction is limited to light speed.
"an objective fact"? As in a map from something to C? If so, what is that something? Some branching multiverse? Or what do you mean by an objective fact?
You lost me here, sorry.