Re: many worlds interpretation

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:11:28 -0800

On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 06:33:32PM +1000, Mitchell Porter wrote:
> Aren't we-here supposed to be part of a world? But how can we
> be part of an approximation? Is there no *exact* concept of 'world' about
> which one can say, not just 'it's an approximation', but 'it's real'?

I don't think there is. I think according to the MWI, only the UWF is
real.

> Yes, my last statement was a silly one, although true - they will "evolve"
> by not changing! But in the specific case we are discussing, I don't see
> how you can defend the claim that they affect each other. Your
> mathematical criterion may possibly measure some form of correlation,
> but that's a non-causal relation between worlds, and one having no
> impact at all on their individual evolutions.

Ok, in that sense you're right, the worlds don't affect each other.
Received on Sun Feb 22 1998 - 16:12:10 PST