I Why is there no consensus about the meaning of probability in MWI?

[Fra]

May I ask - If one entertains the notion of "multiple worlds" that does not interact, why do we care about consensus between them? It seems it's not a problem as long as they don't interact.

What is wrong with the more obvious: We have "many observers" in the same world, but that DO interact. And the quest is to understand how.

QM as we know, does not describe interacting observers. This why therer is a "problem" whenever we put a "classical measurement device" as part of the "quantum side".

I say lets solve the real problem, I dont see how then many worlds concept is constructive in any direction? How does it help?

/Fredrik

 

[kered rettop]

I say lets solve the real problem, I dont see how then many worlds concept is constructive in any direction? How does it help?

/Fredrik

It doesn't. It's not even a well-defined concept. It's primarily a name given to an interpretation, where things which it would be reasonable to call "worlds" emerge from the model and scare the living hell out of us. They also invite a catchy, if somewhat misleading, name for the interpretation. But these worlds are not used in the arguments of the model as far as I know, and they are certainly not postulated a priori.

 

[Fra]

It doesn't.

I think this all the consensus I need.

/Fredrik

 

[kered rettop]

I think this all the consensus I need.

/Fredrik

Really? You must be the only person on PF who regards my opinions as being a sufficient consensus. Even I take them with a very large pinch of salt!

 

[PeterDonis]

QM as we know, does not describe interacting observers.

How do we "know" this?

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[PeterDonis]

After moderator review, the thread will remain closed.