3 ms·

Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation of QM

15 points by jackfoxy 15y ago

MarkPNeyer 15y ago
for those interested, everett's son is an indie rock musician who is (in my ever so humble opinion) talented at writing uplifitng music. check out "blinking lights and other revelations" if you ever need a pick me up.
- S_A_P 15y ago
  As a long time Eels fan, I cant say that I would call the bulk of his music "uplifting". Blinking lights has a few "happy" songs, but I would hardly call that a feel good album. Great music, but not uplifting. So I both agree and disagree at the same time :)
archgoon 15y ago
I really don't understand what Motl is objecting to. Everett and Greene seem to be saying that the wave function doesn't collapse, and the emergence of classical phenomenon is due to decoherence. Motl seems to be arguing that the wave function doesn't collapse, and that the boundary between classical phenomenon and quantum phenomenon is purely statistical because of decoherence. The only difference that Greene and Motl seem to have is the idea that the other branches of the wave function count as being real. This seems like a bit of minor distinction (given that both sides are saying that the other worlds cannot be interacted with) to deserve the invective that Motl flings at his opponents.
- MarkPNeyer 15y ago
  i see this article as more of an attack on western liberalism and "moral equivalence" than anything else.
- lisper 15y ago
  I haven't read Everett so I can't speak on his behalf, but Everett's adherents definitely speak of sharp splitting of classical universes. David Deutsch for example argues unambiguously in favor of many-classical-worlds. So whether or not this is what Everett intended, that is the worldview he has fathered. And it is demonstrably wrong.
wnoise 15y ago
Ugh. His insistence that Everettians need to describe a sharp splitting of worlds is like a creationist saying that evolutionists need to describe speciation as sharp splittings.
- lisper 15y ago
  He doesn't insist that they need to describe a sharp splitting of worlds. It is simply a fact that they do. And in so doing they are mistaken.
lisper 15y ago
This blog has to be the poster child for Readability. https://www.readability.com/articles/c4xdmodo https://www.readability.com/articles/c4xdmodo

15 points by jackfoxy 15y ago

for those interested, everett's son is an indie rock musician who is (in my ever so humble opinion) talented at writing uplifitng music. check out "blinking lights and other revelations" if you ever need a pick me up.

S_A_P 15y ago
As a long time Eels fan, I cant say that I would call the bulk of his music "uplifting". Blinking lights has a few "happy" songs, but I would hardly call that a feel good album. Great music, but not uplifting. So I both agree and disagree at the same time :)

archgoon 15y ago

I really don't understand what Motl is objecting to. Everett and Greene seem to be saying that the wave function doesn't collapse, and the emergence of classical phenomenon is due to decoherence. Motl seems to be arguing that the wave function doesn't collapse, and that the boundary between classical phenomenon and quantum phenomenon is purely statistical because of decoherence. The only difference that Greene and Motl seem to have is the idea that the other branches of the wave function count as being real. This seems like a bit of minor distinction (given that both sides are saying that the other worlds cannot be interacted with) to deserve the invective that Motl flings at his opponents.

MarkPNeyer 15y ago
i see this article as more of an attack on western liberalism and "moral equivalence" than anything else.
lisper 15y ago
I haven't read Everett so I can't speak on his behalf, but Everett's adherents definitely speak of sharp splitting of classical universes. David Deutsch for example argues unambiguously in favor of many-classical-worlds. So whether or not this is what Everett intended, that is the worldview he has fathered. And it is demonstrably wrong.

wnoise 15y ago

Ugh. His insistence that Everettians need to describe a sharp splitting of worlds is like a creationist saying that evolutionists need to describe speciation as sharp splittings.

lisper 15y ago
He doesn't insist that they need to describe a sharp splitting of worlds. It is simply a fact that they do. And in so doing they are mistaken.

lisper 15y ago

This blog has to be the poster child for Readability. https://www.readability.com/articles/c4xdmodo https://www.readability.com/articles/c4xdmodo