RE: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:36:53 -0000

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:58 AM
>To: Brent Meeker
>Subject: Re: many worlds theory of immortality
>
>
>
>Le 14-avr.-05, à 13:53, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>> Before drawing drastic conclusions, like QTI, from the multiple-worlds
>> (or
>> better, the relative state) interpretation of QM, it would be good to
>> remember
>> that it is just one of several intepretations. Bohm's interpretation
>> will
>> leave you as dead as classical physics. So will Penrose's and other
>> modified
>> theories with real collapse of the wave-function. My personal
>> favorite is
>> decoherence (Zurek, Joos, Zeh, et al) with a lower bound on non-zero
>> probabilities as outlined by Omnes.
>
>Omnes is just everett + a new axiom asserting the uniqueness of the
>universe.
>Bohm is everett + a new axiom based on a (non covariant) potential
>guiding some
>prefered observable result (particle's positions).
>Decoherence $is$ everett (as people can understand by reading his long
>text.
>
>Bruno

That's essentially my understanding; except that now decoherence and
einselection are understood to be responsible for the emergence of classical
behavoir - which I think Everett did not consider.

Brent Meeker
Received on Sat Apr 16 2005 - 01:33:02 PDT