Well, you could look at Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Princpiple: (o_x * o_p >= hbar / 2) and try to interpret what it means.
But I’m suggesting something else entirely.
Set that equation off to the side. And then building a model of measurement.
We don’t have a model of measurement actually taking place, by Everett’s standards. Computers have a little ways to go to a model that size. But we will, and in the meantime, any abstract thinker should be able to grok this.
In our models, we have relationships between measurable quantities. In Everett’s model, the measurable quantitites are emergent features, existing an an inner ontology defined by the neural network of an observer that exists as a physical process in the primary ontology.
The idea here is, every measurement the observer makes will be consistent with the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle returns to the model as a pattern in the measurements made.
Well, you could look at Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Princpiple: (ox * op >= hbar / 2) and try to interpret what it means.
I have, and so have other people.
We don’t have a model of measurement actually taking place, by Everett’s standards.
We don’t have a model of what measurement? Quantum measurement?
The idea here is, every measurement the observer makes will be consistent with the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle returns to the model as a pattern in the measurements made.
You’re hinting that the UP will emerge form any notion of measurement, without any other assumptions.
I am not sure you can pull that off though.
That doesn’t answer the question “what is being explained”, it answers the question “how is being explained”.
I don’t follow.
It seems to me, in the Copenhagen interpretation, measurement was a collapse event. Everett is saying, you know, we can probably just model the observer as physical process.
Measurement, to Everett, would be a physical process which can be modeled. A measurment can be said to have objectively happened when the observer creates a record of the measurement.
Not actually a summary, since you introduce elements not present in the original.
Ok, that might be a valid point. What specific elements are not in the original?
Everett is saying, you know, we can probably just model the observer as physical process.
Yes, but youre reading that as a classical physical process, and then guessing that disturbance must be the classical mechanism by which the appearance of quantum weirdness arises.
Well, you could look at Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Princpiple: (o_x * o_p >= hbar / 2) and try to interpret what it means.
But I’m suggesting something else entirely.
Set that equation off to the side. And then building a model of measurement.
We don’t have a model of measurement actually taking place, by Everett’s standards. Computers have a little ways to go to a model that size. But we will, and in the meantime, any abstract thinker should be able to grok this.
In our models, we have relationships between measurable quantities. In Everett’s model, the measurable quantitites are emergent features, existing an an inner ontology defined by the neural network of an observer that exists as a physical process in the primary ontology.
The idea here is, every measurement the observer makes will be consistent with the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle returns to the model as a pattern in the measurements made.
I have, and so have other people.
We don’t have a model of what measurement? Quantum measurement?
You’re hinting that the UP will emerge form any notion of measurement, without any other assumptions. I am not sure you can pull that off though.
In any case, you need to be a lot more precise.
Measurement according to Everett’s PhD Thesis, page 9:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/PhilPhys/EverettHugh1957PhDThesis_BarrettComments.pdf
Summary here:
https://github.com/MazeHatter/Everett-s-Relative-State-Formulation
That doesn’t answer the question “what is being explained”, it answers the question “how is being explained”.
Not actually a summary, since you introduce elements not present in the original.
I don’t follow.
It seems to me, in the Copenhagen interpretation, measurement was a collapse event. Everett is saying, you know, we can probably just model the observer as physical process.
Measurement, to Everett, would be a physical process which can be modeled. A measurment can be said to have objectively happened when the observer creates a record of the measurement.
Ok, that might be a valid point. What specific elements are not in the original?
Yes, but not a non physical event. That would be Consciousness Causes Collapse
Yes, but youre reading that as a classical physical process, and then guessing that disturbance must be the classical mechanism by which the appearance of quantum weirdness arises.
Disturbance