Quote:
Originally posted by CSflim
Well, I don't think that this experiment would work at all. (Even with the assumption that many worlds is correct).
A radioactive decay occurs/doesn't occur. It is detected by a quantum amplifier and the universe gets split in two. In one of those universes the amplifier clicks, in the other one it doesn't.
"You" are in one or the other of these universes. A few moments later you get shot in the head and die. It will surely be of little consolation to your carcas breathing its last breath that somewhere else there is some "other you" that is enjoying a great stream of luck, while you are lying here bleeding.
|
Ayep, most of "you" die.
However, the Multi-Universe theory says that at least "one" of "you" will walk out of the room. And that "one" of "you" will indeed know that the Multi-Universe theory is correct: every other interpritation says "nope, this really can't happen".
Second, do you care about the universe you no longer have contact with? Remember, you don't exist in most of them. Hell, humanity doesn't exist in most of them. It has even been postulated that Galaxies or Stars might not exist in most of them...
Quote:
Originally posted by final_identity
Your probabilities are non-modern. They are Hume's. I like that. 
Well, you said "any thoughts?" so I gave you my thoughts.
When you surmise that something is so highly unlikely that, for all practical purposes, it becomes an impossibility, you are saying something that many statisticians would rebel at. But I agree with it. Hume explained, for example, that we don't KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that we might as well assume it will, because for all practical purposes, we have a good ENOUGH proof that it will. You're doing the same.
This unfortunately puts you at odds with most quantum mathematicians and physicists, who largely have not read Hume and mostly tend to believe there is no wheel that they cannot reinvent. Your use of quanta to get unquantized is an odd cart-before-horse-without-wheel construction, therefore.
Please, rephrase yourself in light of this complaint of mine.
|
The difference is, the QM Philosophers are saying that those "unlikely" events might all happen, for a definition of happen that is strange.
It changes it from "the sun might not rise tommorow" to "the sun will not rise tommorrow and the sun will rise tommorrow". Both will "happen" if the interpritation is correct.
Now, nobody knows if the interpritation is correct. There are other competing interpritations, and no 'decent' way to distinguish between them. Multi-universe has some nice properties which make it tempting to believe in.