I’m confused about what distinction you are talking about, possibly because I haven’t read Everett’s original proposal.
Everett’s thesis doesn’t give an answer to how an observer makes sharp-valued classiscal observations, and doesn’t flag the issue either, although much of the subsequent literature does.
Eg. https://iep.utm.edu/everett/ for an overview (also why it’s more than one theory, and a work-in-progress).
What’s the evidence for these “sharp-valued classical observations” being real things?
Err...physicists can make them in the laboratory. Or were you asking whether they are fundamental constituents of reality?
I’m asking how physicists in the laboratory know that their observation are sharp-valued and classical?
Same way you know anything. “Sharp valued” and “classical” have meanings, which cash out in expected experience.
I’m confused about what distinction you are talking about, possibly because I haven’t read Everett’s original proposal.
Everett’s thesis doesn’t give an answer to how an observer makes sharp-valued classiscal observations, and doesn’t flag the issue either, although much of the subsequent literature does.
Eg. https://iep.utm.edu/everett/ for an overview (also why it’s more than one theory, and a work-in-progress).
What’s the evidence for these “sharp-valued classical observations” being real things?
Err...physicists can make them in the laboratory. Or were you asking whether they are fundamental constituents of reality?
I’m asking how physicists in the laboratory know that their observation are sharp-valued and classical?
Same way you know anything. “Sharp valued” and “classical” have meanings, which cash out in expected experience.