Submitted by Azmisov t3_11qjmwp in philosophy
platoprime t1_jcdzczr wrote
Reply to comment by dolphin37 in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov
>(“spin is up” + “spin is down” ; apparatus says “ready”) (1)
>[...]
>(spin is up ; apparatus says “up”) + (spin is down ; apparatus says “down”). (2)
>[...]
>We wouldn’t think of our pre-measurement state (1) as describing two different worlds; it’s just one world, in which the particle is in a superposition. But (2) has two worlds in it. The difference is that we can imagine undoing the superposition in (1) by carefully manipulating the particle, but in (2) the difference between the two branches has diffused into the environment and is lost there forever.
When you have a superposition of two states each state is it's own world.
>You’re just using the wrong language when referring to a collapse that’s all.
The only time I used the word collapse in the comment you're replying to is to say MWI's purpose is to explain apparent collapse. Saying it doesn't happen is still an explanation. You're getting tangled in the weeds with this one.
dolphin37 t1_jceuu3l wrote
Yes in that example you already have entanglement/decoherence in (2), at which point I’ve already said the multiple worlds must now exist. Sean’s language in that very article uses terms like ‘we expect the apparatus to become quickly entangled’ and ‘once our quantum superposition involves macroscopic systems’ and ‘proceed to evolve’ and ‘it is as if they have become distinct worlds’. They ‘come in to being’. They ‘occur’. All of the terminology implies the actions are happening over time.
Saying the possibility for all of the worlds is always there is not the same as saying all the worlds are always there. If that’s what is meant, the language should be clearer. Which I will find out.
And yes you were trying to explain ‘apparent collapse’ but you didn’t use that terminology, like the terminology Sean does in the article linked, you just described collapse multiple times, which isn’t happening. I was just pointing out that it’s not ideal and already stated what I assumed you meant, which is exactly what you apparently meant, but you are again doing the thing where you default to telling me I’m wrong when you actually completely agree with me but have an inability to accept your own fault. Kinda tiring tbh.
Edit: It just occurred to me that you said my objection is that there are too many universes. I didn’t realise you still don’t understand my point this far in 😩
platoprime t1_jchbtln wrote
> It’s just not intuitive to start from a position of a potentially infinite number of identical copies.
You did say this after all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments