4 ms·

My rule of thumb with regard to objections to Many Worlds is that if the article discusses consciousness, or brains, in any way, it’s not about Many Worlds, but

My rule of thumb with regard to objections to Many Worlds is that if the article discusses consciousness, or brains, in any way, it’s not about Many Worlds, but about consciousness, or brains, and I will stop reading it at once.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
Your comment enticed me to actually read the first few paragraphs of the article, skim the rest, and ctrl+f for "conscious" and "brain". In my humble opinion, your rule has raised a false positive here. The post is extremely well written and sourced, weaving a story straight from highly technical research papers. I'd suggest judging this article by itself, not a string-matching filter. Besides, isn't discussion of brains and consciousness perfectly relevant in the context of QM, given the requirement for rigorous definitions of observation, observers, etc.?
- Igelau 7y ago
  Sure. Relevant insofar as pointing out that brains and consciousness aren't required for a quantum measurement to take place.
- mdemare 7y ago
  Following your suggestion, I’ve read it now in its entirety and I’m considering adding “subjective experience” to my axiom, but that might be too aggressive.
  - lisper 7y ago
    It is the nature of subjective experience that is the source of all the trouble with interpreting QM. If you ignore subjective experience, there is no problem at all: the universe is quantum, and that's all there is to it. But most people want to know why, if the universe is quantum, does it present such a convincing illusion of being classical.
empath75 7y ago
I suspect that a lot of physics on the edges of our understanding is as much about consciousness as it is about reality.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  You shouldn't need to invoke consciousness to discuss physics. It's ultimately an attempt to describe reproducible observation using mathematical objects and concepts that are sufficiently commonsense that they can be communicated to fellow physicists and agreed upon. You can still ask if there are other methods that convey understanding about reality than this method, but it's not in the purview of physics. With respect to Many-Worlds, it is better understood as a formal problem. It stands in opposition to a formulation of quantum mechanics that cannot be used to model the universe as a system because what constitutes measurement was not described by that formulation, but measurements affected the system.

EForEndeavour 7y ago

Your comment enticed me to actually read the first few paragraphs of the article, skim the rest, and ctrl+f for "conscious" and "brain". In my humble opinion, your rule has raised a false positive here. The post is extremely well written and sourced, weaving a story straight from highly technical research papers. I'd suggest judging this article by itself, not a string-matching filter. Besides, isn't discussion of brains and consciousness perfectly relevant in the context of QM, given the requirement for rigorous definitions of observation, observers, etc.?

Igelau 7y ago
Sure. Relevant insofar as pointing out that brains and consciousness aren't required for a quantum measurement to take place.
mdemare 7y ago
Following your suggestion, I’ve read it now in its entirety and I’m considering adding “subjective experience” to my axiom, but that might be too aggressive.
- lisper 7y ago
  It is the nature of subjective experience that is the source of all the trouble with interpreting QM. If you ignore subjective experience, there is no problem at all: the universe is quantum, and that's all there is to it. But most people want to know why, if the universe is quantum, does it present such a convincing illusion of being classical.

empath75 7y ago

I suspect that a lot of physics on the edges of our understanding is as much about consciousness as it is about reality.

jhanschoo 7y ago
You shouldn't need to invoke consciousness to discuss physics. It's ultimately an attempt to describe reproducible observation using mathematical objects and concepts that are sufficiently commonsense that they can be communicated to fellow physicists and agreed upon. You can still ask if there are other methods that convey understanding about reality than this method, but it's not in the purview of physics. With respect to Many-Worlds, it is better understood as a formal problem. It stands in opposition to a formulation of quantum mechanics that cannot be used to model the universe as a system because what constitutes measurement was not described by that formulation, but measurements affected the system.