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.
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