Once you accept that there exists something isomorphic to a wave function, it’s more like:
many worlds vs. many worlds and an orang-utan vs. many worlds and an apple tree vs. many worlds and a television vs. many worlds and a blue castle vs. (...) vs. many worlds and a character-of-natural-law-violating process that constantly kills all the worlds except one.
All cases except the last case contain many worlds, but Phil packed them together. I think that’s the intuition Eliezer was getting at.
We shouldn’t be afraid here to sound Orwellian. Copenhagen people believe in the many worldeaters interpretation. We believe in the no worldeaters interpretation.
1 vs. many is a very natural divide, not at all a good example of the packing and unpacking fallacy.
Once you accept that there exists something isomorphic to a wave function, it’s more like:
many worlds vs. many worlds and an orang-utan vs. many worlds and an apple tree vs. many worlds and a television vs. many worlds and a blue castle vs. (...) vs. many worlds and a character-of-natural-law-violating process that constantly kills all the worlds except one.
All cases except the last case contain many worlds, but Phil packed them together. I think that’s the intuition Eliezer was getting at.
We shouldn’t be afraid here to sound Orwellian. Copenhagen people believe in the many worldeaters interpretation. We believe in the no worldeaters interpretation.
Whatever is being done to the words “many worldeater interpretation” and “worldeaters interpretation” does not show up on my screen.
So true—My “8 worlds and an orang-utan” hypothesis never got the respect it deserved.
--Stan Kelly-Bootle
Proper consideration.
Props for the perseverance, man. Props ;-)
That is exactly and perfectly right and I should use this example henceforth.