Recent content by PeterDonis

What is your basis for this claim? Please be specific about exactly what equations or text in the paper you are using.

Please note that you should not require any simulations in order to see the basic idea in the math; for a simplified scenario like measuring two entangled qubits, which is what we've been discussing, everything can be written out in closed form and doesn't require any numerical analysis.

It entangles the measured system with the measuring device and the environment, as I said in post #125. And this would be obvious to you if you looked at the math. No, you're not, if you're not looking at the actual math. Please go do that before posting any further in this thread.

No, you end up in all branches. You do not end up in just one. So there can't be any "hidden variable" that "determines" that you end up in a certain branch--because you don't.

I don't even know what this means. In the sense that the measurement interaction is what entangles the particles with the measuring devices and the environment, and that entanglement, spreading among a very large number of untrackable degrees of freedom in the environment is what leads to...

No, you couldn't, because any such effects would just end up being entangled with everything else, and in any given branch, there would be just one gravitational effect, and the branches are decohered so they don't interfere with each other, so there's no experiment that could detect the...

No, it isn't. See my post #118 just now.

According to MWI proponents, yes. But not all physicists agree with them. So your claim here is interpretation dependent.

Yes, because that's how the state was prepared. The information that only two outcomes were possible, yes. No. It's known because you know how the state was prepared. You don't need any information beyond the state preparation to know that only two outcomes are possible if the spins are both...

Not all interpretations even have anything like what you appear to mean by "pseudo-superposition". You would need to be specific about which interpretation you are interested in talking about. I couldn't say because I don't know exactly what you mean by "pseudo-superposition". It's not a...

Because there is no wave function collapse in the MWI. So you should not expect the wave function in the MWI to behave like there is.

Nothing had to eliminate them, because they were never there in the wave function in the first place.

Not really. The bolded phrase is correct for Bohmian mechanics, but it's not correct for the MWI. In the MWI, all outcomes are determined to happen. There is nothing that determines that you experience any one particular outcome; there is no additional information, beyond the fact that you...

I don't think so; AFAIK there isn't any question about which branches there are. The question is about how MWI explains the branching process in the context of QFT, as opposed to non-relativistic QM.

But in the MWI, all branches correspond to actually occurring outcomes. In Bohmian mechanics, only one does. That's a big difference.