4 ms·
I watched your video. Viewing measurement and entanglement as the same thing or closely related is ineresting, and the EPRG experiment is clever. I've never s
by zeroer 10y ago
I watched your video. Viewing measurement and entanglement as the same thing or closely related is ineresting, and the EPRG experiment is clever. I've never seen that before. Thanks for that! I need to think about it for a bit.
But I think you give too short a shrift to Many-Worlds because it's not intuitive to you. Plenty of things about QM are not intuitive; I don't think that's sufficient reason to reject it.
- lisper 10y agoI didn't reject it (at least I don't think I did -- it has been a while since I watched the video). I believe I said that both "many-worlds" and "zero-worlds" were equally legitimate -- only "one-world" (Copenhagen) is untenable. [UPDATE] Yes, my recollection is correct. Go watch it again starting at the 58 minute mark or a little earlier.
- zeroer 10y agoDuring the end questions yes, but at timestamp 43:20: "But I personally find [Many-Worlds] takes a heavier toll on my intuition than I'm willing to concede."
- lisper 10y agoOK, well, I think it's a little unfair to characterize that as a "rejection." But my thinking has evolved a bit in the past five years. The difference between zero-worlds and many-worlds is the difference between taking a personal point of view or a God's-eye-view. God can see the many-worlds, but I can't, so it makes more sense to me to assign a privileged status to this world, the one I live in. But then I have to make my peace with the fact that this world is not as it appears to be, and I do that by thinking of it as a (very high quality) simulation. But that just my personal approach. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree.