= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whowhowho 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)
No mechanism is required, you just get that from the SWE (taken realistically..as it isn't in rQM). Are you a physicist?
This should screen off the title/profession "physicist" entirely, I think. If that's what you meant in the first place, then it wasn't quite clear.
It seems at first like you're asking about academic degrees and titles and tribal levels of authority.
I was surprised at the mistake.
Not sure what SWE stands for.
Schrodinger (Wave) Equation.
Oh. The Schroedinger equation says nothing about the measurement. In all likelihood, a theory of quantum to classical transition would require at least some elements of QFT, as the measurement, as an irreversible process, results in emission of photons, phonons or some other real or quasi-particles. Thus you have to go from the Hilbert space to some sort of Fock space, since the number of particles is not conserved.
Measurement of what? I was responding to your comment that MWI does not explain splitting ontologically In fact the ontology is just "the territory is just what a SWE of the universe says it is".