4 ms·

> I don't see how relabelling "collapse" to "separation" and adding more or less infinitely proliferating universes solves the problem. MWI isn't just renaming

> I don't see how relabelling "collapse" to "separation" and adding more or less infinitely proliferating universes solves the problem. MWI isn't just renaming the collapse. Copenhagen is fundamentally different in that exactly one outcome is somehow chosen / selected and all others cease to exist. In other words Copenhagen has to add / invent some information: Which world to pick and when to do so. MWI simply avoids having to pick by continuing every branch simultaneously and recursively. Meaning that MWI is actually a simpler theory and shows that the selection is unnecessary and all problems that come with it can be avoided. In that sense, the burden of proof lies with Copenhagen IMO and it just gives handwavy answers that the selection process somehow involves a conscious observer, whatever that is ... > MWI also contradicts itself. Supposedly the universes are independent, but if their influence doesn't define the wave equation they do nothing to help explain it. In MWI the wave function IS the integral of all possible outcomes / worlds / branches. In that sense they don't just influence it, they define it. Not sure how that is contradictory. Btw, the same goes for Copenhagen in the state of super position as well. So, they are identical up to the point where Copenhagen selects one (collapses) and MWI simply carries on.

kgwgk 4y ago
> Copenhagen is fundamentally different in that exactly one outcome is somehow chosen / selected and all others cease to exist. In MWI exactly one outcome / branch is somehow what we see and all others cease to exist to us. MWI just gives handwavy answers about how it is so.
- Lichtso 4y ago
  It follows by contradiction of the opposite statement: Lets say that all "you"s across all branches perceive all the other branches as well. That means that they do influence each other. In other words they are not separated and never where different outcomes to begin with. But, all the interpretations of quantum mechanics start with the axiomatic assumption that the universe is modal and that there are different possibilities / outcomes. They only differ in if they chose to turn hypothetical outcomes into real outcomes or simply let everything be equally real from the get-go. And yes, even superdeterminism has to deal with / model hypothetical outcomes. It just says that some of them cancel out each other early on as they would lead to inconsistencies in the future otherwise.
- The5thElephant 4y ago
  We are seeing all the other outcomes and branches too, we just aren't aware of it since those are separate universes.

kgwgk 4y ago

> Copenhagen is fundamentally different in that exactly one outcome is somehow chosen / selected and all others cease to exist. In MWI exactly one outcome / branch is somehow what we see and all others cease to exist to us. MWI just gives handwavy answers about how it is so.

Lichtso 4y ago
It follows by contradiction of the opposite statement: Lets say that all "you"s across all branches perceive all the other branches as well. That means that they do influence each other. In other words they are not separated and never where different outcomes to begin with. But, all the interpretations of quantum mechanics start with the axiomatic assumption that the universe is modal and that there are different possibilities / outcomes. They only differ in if they chose to turn hypothetical outcomes into real outcomes or simply let everything be equally real from the get-go. And yes, even superdeterminism has to deal with / model hypothetical outcomes. It just says that some of them cancel out each other early on as they would lead to inconsistencies in the future otherwise.
The5thElephant 4y ago
We are seeing all the other outcomes and branches too, we just aren't aware of it since those are separate universes.