I Why don't hardcore realists use MWI as their safe haven?

[tzimie]

Just wanted to check if my understanding is correct.

So, it is not important who makes the measurement first of the entangled pair, Bob and Alice decohere the particle with each other independently, creating a "spectrum" or Alices and Bobs on each side. This is trivial, local and there are no surprises.

Without any communication between Alice and Bob, the sets of Alices and Bobs appears to be independent, however, when they communicate they decohere into pairs where some extra correlation reveals.

Is this sketch correct?

 

[mfb]

Yes.

 

[tzimie]

But why hardcore local realists don't use MWI as their safe heaven? Is it because they are not actually interested in saving local realism, but rather classical view of the world?

 

[Jilang]

I'm a hard core realist and there is nothing about MWI that I would describe as a safe haven.

 

[tzimie]

I'm a hard core realist and there is nothing about MWI that I would describe as a safe haven.

But why? It is local...

P.S.
I was thinking you (hardcore realists) are extinct already.

 

[Ilja]

But why hardcore local realists don't use MWI as their safe heaven?

Because for a hardcore realist MWI is hardcore nonsense. It is simply not a realistic interpretation of QT. Which follows logically from the claim that it is also Einstein-local but recovers quantum predictions. So, or the claim that it is Einstein-local or the claim that it is realistic is wrong - else Bell's inequality would follow. Given that above claims are made by MWI proponents, it is simply nonsense. And, given that there is indeed nothing in it which could be claimed to violate Einstein locality, it is simply not realistic.