3 ms·
The randomness in MWI is observer-centric. It's trivially obvious. You reside in one world of many. The theory doesn't explain why your consciousness follows a
by goldenkey 5y ago
The randomness in MWI is observer-centric. It's trivially obvious. You reside in one world of many. The theory doesn't explain why your consciousness follows a specific bifurcation. The supposed copies of you are irrelevant.
- tsimionescu 5y agoThe theory does not allow for 'your consciousness' to exist as a meaningful concept that experiences more than one moment. Say you are going to flip a quantum coin. Before you flip it, given MWI, you know that there will be two copies of you, each experiencing one of the outcomes. After you flip it, one copy sees tails, the other heads. Each copy is perfectly identical except for the new observation. Each may ask itself 'what were the chances that I am seeing heads/tails?', and with MWI in mind, they should answer 1: the chance that the copy-that-sees-heads sees heads is 1, and same for copy-who-sees-tails seeing tails, since there is no other way to identify them as separate entities. This also corresponds to the mathematics of QM: if you want to give proper predictions, you need to 'update' the wavefunciton to have value 1 for the observed outcome and value 0 for any other outcome. Doing that for 'your branch' is precisely how MWI works.
- goldenkey 5y agoFfs, I understand the linearity of the Shrodinger equation under a model which MW entails. However, you are sidestepping the randomness involved in the choice of world that you reside in. You can dress it up all you want, but your consciousness is bound to one world of the many worlds. And that is defacto random.