A. Neumaier said:
I continue this until the quantum system includes everything in the universe except the observer himself.
- Note "everything in the universe" includes other minds.
A. Neumaier said:
Given the failure of intense efforts to relate it to physics proper, it may well be immaterial and not describable by physics.
- But if it
were describable by physics, it would be observable (within QM formulation). So there would be a positive semidefinite Hermitian matrix associated with it. The Hermitian operator represents (hypothetically) everything we can say mathematically / scientifically about mind within the QM approach. Then we can call the "describable by physics" case "hermitian".
A. Neumaier said:
In {immaterial} case, the final quantum system comprises the whole universe; in {hermitian} case, the final quantum system is still an excellent approximation of the universe.
- Now, you've dealt with only one mind: the observer's.
- With your approach you're forced to assume other minds also collapse wavefunction by observation. Therefore universe wavefunction can't develop unitarily but is constantly subjected to probabilistic projection operators.
- Note that MWI approach and others are specifically designed to avoid this "collapse" problem, so they can evolve the universe by unitary schroedinger's eqn, (and similar equations / fields as appropriate - Dirac, Klien-Gordon, etc.)
A. Neumaier said:
The quantum dynamics of the whole universe, suitably approximated, leads to an objective, reduced dynamics of the single small system in terms of a piecewise deterministic process (with unitary dynamics interspersed by quantum jumps at random times) when a discrete variable is observed (e.g., when particles are counted or the energy level is monitored),
- the "quantum jumps at random times" are caused by many observers making measurements. Between these events (which we can optimistically suppose countable) are "piecewise deterministic" interludes when / where the universe is allowed to evolve unitarily. Fine, but solving (approximately) these piecewise equations is very difficult. Whereas in MWI, it's easy to solve the (one-piece) unitary Universe wavefunction equation.
- On the other hand MWI-type approach misses the meat of the matter, the collapse, so I prefer your approach.
A. Neumaier said:
Averaged over many subsystems, these stochastic processes lead to a deterministic dynamics for the density operator, given by a Lindblad equation.
- I'll have to look at it someday, no doubt it's pretty difficult. But, after all, evolution of entire universe is a non-trivial problem.