Re: many worlds interpretation

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:49:06 -0800

On Tue, Feb 24, 1998 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Mitchell Porter wrote:
> 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?

But I've already said that according to the MWI, in non-approximate terms
we're part of the UWF. The concept of the many worlds is only used to
explain why, if we're part of the UWF, we would see what we see (and not
see, for example, macroscopic superpositions).

> 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?

Depends on what you mean by easier. Computationally it should be easier;
information theoretically it isn't.
Received on Mon Feb 23 1998 - 22:49:31 PST