Recent content by Quantumental

Surely whether the change is macroscopic or microscopic does not have any bearing on whether or not there's several branches in MWI? If I throw a tennis ball against the wall in virtually every world it will bounce back, it doesn't have tunnel through the wall for it to be counted as having...

Even in a single universe there exist very real 'worst of the worst' kinds of experiences etched into the eternal space-time block universe. So while it is legitimate to feel bad that there might be nightmare branches, we don't really have a good reason to worry more about it than we worry about...

The jury is still out on this. Just 2 weeks ago this paper was published: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06755 which has implications if shown to apply

Their 'treatise' on Many Worlds also did not make much sense to me.

Well, if you accept those premises you could always go Bohmian; real particles, a pilot wave guides them (explaining the wave properties of ensembles) and it is indeed non-local. It is also fully causal and deterministic.

How does it not model QM compared to all other interpretations?

This post deserves a lot more attention than it has received thus far. I was privileged enough to have a couple of short interactions with Zeh before his passing (this was ~decade ago) and he seemed quite fervent that the original Everett + Decoherence was all you needed. The last paragraph you...

I disagree. Copenhagen's "there are limits to what we can know about reality, quantum theory is the limit we can probe" is no different from "reality is made up of more than quantum theory" which SD implies. It's semantics. As for MWI, yes, but by doing away with unique outcomes (at least in the...

I have never understood why there is such a visceral oppositional response to superdeterminism while the Many Worlds Interpretation and Copenhagen Interpretation enjoy tons of support. In Many Worlds the answer is essentially: "Everything happens, thus every observation is explained, you just...

In your view, what does this mean? Either Person A becomes Person B and C, or they don't. There is literally no other option. If both outcomes (persons) are equally real, how can you say that either of them is 'more likely' to experience a certain outcome? This is where MWI has not progressed...

These videos makes it very clear that Hartle and his Consistent/Decoherent Histories are just a synonym for Everettian Many Worlds: 1 2

It sounds to me like CH is then by default just a more elaborate "Shut up and calculate using these tools" rather than an actual interpretation of QM

I'd say that the biggest problem causing this is the intrinsic 'hive mentality' of humans; students of professors almost always end up becoming a proponent of X view that he/she holds. Foundational topics also spread very geographically; look at how Everett's resurgence happened almost...

Unless you're injecting a 'slight of hand' indeterministic element, how does CH derive a singular clear history which represents reality?

This I do agree with and in many ways were the inspiration for the title of this post; even among the most ardent proponents of MWI there is fierce disagreement on this topic. Decision-Theoretic approach by David Deutsch and David Wallace vs Lev Vaidman's view for instance, another one that...