Well, you could look at Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princpiple: (o_x * o_p >= hbar / 2) and try to interpret what it means.
But I'm suggesting something else entirely.
Set that equation off to the side. And then building a model of measurement.
We don't have a model of measurement actually taking place, by Everett's standards. Computers have a little ways to go to a model that size. But we will, and in the meantime, any abstract thinker should be able to grok this.
In our models, we have relationships between measurable quantities. In Everett's model, the measurable quantitites are emergent features, existing an an inner ontology defined by the neural network of an observer that exists as a physical process in the primary ontology.
The idea here is, every measurement the observer makes will be consistent with the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle returns to the model as a pattern in the measurements made.
Well, you could look at Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princpiple: (ox * op >= hbar / 2) and try to interpret what it means.
I have, and so have other people.
We don't have a model of measurement actually taking place, by Everett's standards.
We don't have a model of what measurement? Quantum measurement?
The idea here is, every measurement the observer makes will be consistent with the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle returns to the model as a pattern in the measurements made.
You're hinting that the UP will emerge form any notion of m...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Previous Open Thread
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.