4 ms·
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 classica
by 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 agoi see this article as more of an attack on western liberalism and "moral equivalence" than anything else.
- lisper 15y agoI 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.