Debate The Many-Worlds Interpretation

[John E. Spencer]

Good day! As an uneducated autodidact, I've always wondered... what made Hugh Everett's Many World's Interpretation different from say, the Copenhagen Interpretation?

Also, if multiverses exist by default, wouldn't every second be considered a new universe? As the person I was yesterday isn't me, nor the me a few minutes ago eating a tuna sandwich.

My regards!

John E. Spencer

 

[PaulaJedi]

Are multiple worldlines related to consciousness? When you create a new one, is everyone else changing to that new timeline or does their consciousness remain in their current one? What keeps our consciousness in THIS timeline, anyway? Do we have multiple consciousnesses. (Sorry, what is the plural of that???? haha).

No, I have no answers. Food for thought.

 

[Harte]

Good day! As an uneducated autodidact, I've always wondered... what made Hugh Everett's Many World's Interpretation different from say, the Copenhagen Interpretation?

Also, if multiverses exist by default, wouldn't every second be considered a new universe? As the person I was yesterday isn't me, nor the me a few minutes ago eating a tuna sandwich.

My regards!

John E. Spencer

IIRC, the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) involves quantum events, not sandwich events.

The biggest difference between MWI and Copenhagen is that MWI postulates NO wave form collapse, while Copenhagen postulates wave form collapse happens upon observation.
In MWI, the observation is made in one universe, which puts that action of measurement into the universe where it was observed. The probability wave is unchanged everywhere else.
Copenhagen says that observation causes collapse, meaning the probability wave is changed for the observer. No other universe required.

Both are damn faulty interpretations, by the way.

As an aside, "observation" in both interpretations are simply measurements and have nothing to do with consciously observing something. Both interpretations allow for measurements made by automation, and "measurements" made post-observation by inanimate material - like a photon increasing the energy of an object it strikes can be a "measurement."

Harte

 

[lamdo263]

Good day! As an uneducated autodidact, I've always wondered... what made Hugh Everett's Many World's Interpretation different from say, the Copenhagen Interpretation?

Also, if multiverses exist by default, wouldn't every second be considered a new universe? As the person I was yesterday isn't me, nor the me a few minutes ago eating a tuna sandwich.

My regards!

John E. Spencer

Lamdo' what the Hell are you doing here having teas with Pamela Moore. Yeah' she explained the many worlds theory, also said as world lines, but I did not want you to have a sit down teas with here in this thread. Like what's wrong with you? Are you like a meld between a Republican and Democrat..?!!

 

[John E. Spencer]

IIRC, the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) involves quantum events, not sandwich events.

The biggest difference between MWI and Copenhagen is that MWI postulates NO wave form collapse, while Copenhagen postulates wave form collapse happens upon observation.
In MWI, the observation is made in one universe, which puts that action of measurement into the universe where it was observed. The probability wave is unchanged everywhere else.
Copenhagen says that observation causes collapse, meaning the probability wave is changed for the observer. No other universe required.

Both are damn faulty interpretations, by the way.

As an aside, "observation" in both interpretations are simply measurements and have nothing to do with consciously observing something. Both interpretations allow for measurements made by automation, and "measurements" made post-observation by inanimate material - like a photon increasing the energy of an object it strikes can be a "measurement."

Harte

I see, then what would be an Interpretation best describing this nature in retrospect?
Hugh Everett III wouldn't have lived quite so near the end of his life nor would those who've contributed to the Copenhagen.
Wouldn't it imply, classically and philosophically that the observer is the only one who can witness a change in its observation?

I am quite clueless on the matter and I give my apologies in advance.


And another note: the Tuna Sandwich statement is subjective, as for that matter I could've easily chosen Chicken.

- Spencer

 

[Einstein]

I came across an interesting video by Don Lincoln. Quantum Mechanics appears to defy analysis. You might have to watch this several times just to realize you are still confused.

 

[Harte]

Chicken? Why didn't you say so?

Now, a chicken sandwich is different. Chicken sandwiches fluctuate in and out of reality constantly.
Until your teeth measure them.

MWI and Copenhagen both have a myriad of related interpretations.
As of today, none of them are complete. Which one is "right" is anybody's guess - if any of them are.

At that level, these interpretations are just attempts to form a model anyway. There will never be any way to tell if the interpretation of a model is correct, and it doesn't really matter which way you choose to interpret what's actually happening, as long as the model works.

Harte

 

[PaulaJedi]

IIRC, the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) involves quantum events, not sandwich events.

The biggest difference between MWI and Copenhagen is that MWI postulates NO wave form collapse, while Copenhagen postulates wave form collapse happens upon observation.
In MWI, the observation is made in one universe, which puts that action of measurement into the universe where it was observed. The probability wave is unchanged everywhere else.
Copenhagen says that observation causes collapse, meaning the probability wave is changed for the observer. No other universe required.

Both are damn faulty interpretations, by the way.

As an aside, "observation" in both interpretations are simply measurements and have nothing to do with consciously observing something. Both interpretations allow for measurements made by automation, and "measurements" made post-observation by inanimate material - like a photon increasing the energy of an object it strikes can be a "measurement."

Harte

If that action of measurement remains in the universe it occurred and the wave only changes for the observer, then that techincally creates a new timeline for that person, because they would be living in a different reality than everyone else. So, yes, it does get tricky, if not faulty.

 

[Harte]

If that action of measurement remains in the universe it occurred and the wave only changes for the observer, then that techincally creates a new timeline for that person, because they would be living in a different reality than everyone else. So, yes, it does get tricky, if not faulty.

Not if a second observer in the same universe observes. They would see what the first observer measured.

It's all just a fancy way of saying "We don't know until we look."

Harte