If you have some actual reason for thinking that the Everett interpretation is bad, why don’t you give it here rather than just saying you don’t like it?
[EDITED to add: Ah, I see that what you dislike isn’t the Everett interpretation but de Witt’s formulation of it. Fair enough, but the same remark applies mutatis mutandis.]
Here is one reason, you say “Everett Interpretation” and “DeWitt’s Formulation”, but you’ve got that crossed.
Everett provided the Relative State Formulation. That’s what he called his paper, which is a bold and provocative attempt to mathematically model two ontologies, absolute and relative state, unlike one that is traditional in mathematics.
DeWitt provided the Many Worlds Interpretation, that was the name of their paper.
While the MWI lends itself to some interesting things, far and away, Everett’s models lend themselves to the stuff we actually work on today, computer vision and computer hearing. He left theoretical physics to work on machine learning. Because that’s how reality worked to him.
The type of thing he writes about on Page 9 is coming within our grasp, technologically, for the first time.
This idea seems to be anticipated by Leibniz, and Plato, and Kant, and a great many other traditions wherein our objective reality is a relative reality based on an absolute reality.
So Everett’s Formulation gives us new mathematical territory to explore, which we have been exploring independently as machine learning. And the result is model that contains an observer that produces a measurement record. Probably not far off.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/
Ugh. DeWitt strikes again.
If you have some actual reason for thinking that the Everett interpretation is bad, why don’t you give it here rather than just saying you don’t like it?
[EDITED to add: Ah, I see that what you dislike isn’t the Everett interpretation but de Witt’s formulation of it. Fair enough, but the same remark applies mutatis mutandis.]
Indeed, I should.
Here is one reason, you say “Everett Interpretation” and “DeWitt’s Formulation”, but you’ve got that crossed.
Everett provided the Relative State Formulation. That’s what he called his paper, which is a bold and provocative attempt to mathematically model two ontologies, absolute and relative state, unlike one that is traditional in mathematics.
DeWitt provided the Many Worlds Interpretation, that was the name of their paper.
While the MWI lends itself to some interesting things, far and away, Everett’s models lend themselves to the stuff we actually work on today, computer vision and computer hearing. He left theoretical physics to work on machine learning. Because that’s how reality worked to him.
The type of thing he writes about on Page 9 is coming within our grasp, technologically, for the first time.
This idea seems to be anticipated by Leibniz, and Plato, and Kant, and a great many other traditions wherein our objective reality is a relative reality based on an absolute reality.
So Everett’s Formulation gives us new mathematical territory to explore, which we have been exploring independently as machine learning. And the result is model that contains an observer that produces a measurement record. Probably not far off.