WD said
> 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.
Suppose I said that I said that humans are made of atoms, but that
in my ultimate theory, atoms are 'only approximations'. Wouldn't
that cause some cognitive dissonance? Wouldn't you pester me for
an explanation of what humans are made of, in *non*approximate terms?
Wouldn't you be dissatisfied if I couldn't provide one?
The situation is analogous, except that humans are *part of* a
world, rather than made of worlds. How can one make sense of the idea
that human beings are part of an approximation?
In any case, in the example of Psi = c0 Psi0 + c1 Psi1, there's
nothing approximate about the relationship between Psi, Psi0
and Psi1. What's 'approximate' is the relationship between Psi0,
Psi1, c0 and c1 (through the use of an epsilon-criterion to say,
"Below this point, there's no 'interference'"). If we turn to
Psi0 or Psi1 as individual worlds, is it any easier to find
human beings inside them than it is to find human beings in Psi?
-mitch
http://www.thehub.com.au/~mitch
Received on Mon Feb 23 1998 - 21:36:06 PST