Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

From: Patrick Leahy <jpl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 22:06:35 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Hal Finney wrote:

>> Does anybody believe that this is consistent with the many-worlds
>> interpretation of QM?
>
> First, welcome to the list.

Thanks!

<SNIP>
>
> However, particularly as we look to larger ensembles than just the MWI,
> it becomes attractive to define observers and observer-moments based
> solely on their internal information.
<SNIP>

I wondered if that's what was meant... hence the last para of my
message, and my comments in my follow-up to Quentin Anciaux. But you
explain it better (in a bit I snipped!).

Mind you, I don't understand why you find your definition "attractive". It
would be pretty confusing for physicists to say "there's only one
electron", even though they all are absolutely identical.

And also, as I mentioned to Quentin, if you are going for such a radical
first-person perspective, an OM really *has* no outside so it is a bit
misleading to talk of "pasts" at all.

regards,
                 Paddy
Received on Wed May 18 2005 - 17:10:45 PDT