Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!tmb From: tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: QM and Multiple Worlds Message-ID: <486@talcott.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 13:04:33 EDT Article-I.D.: talcott.486 Posted: Tue Aug 13 13:04:33 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 08:35:47 EDT Organization: Harvard University Lines: 25 In article <1031@sdcsvax.UUCP> , davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP (Greg Davidson) writes: >> From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) >>> The multiple worlds interpretation has some severe problems ... >> Not all the alternate worlds are equiprobable! There is no >> observable difference between the alternate-worlds QM and the >> Copenhagen QM. It happens that there IS a small chance that > The probability of the multiple worlds is irrelevant to the dwellers > therein. Each world is a complete spacetime continuum separate from > the others. In some moments, at some places, in some of them, there is > Maybe the latter worlds are less common, or maybe your thoughts fo > normality, including your notions of what is probable, are due to > the peculiar accidents of your world. Once you accept the multiple The 'multiple worlds interpretation' of QM is not a physical theory: you cannot design an experiment to disprove it, since it postulates that there is not interaction between its different worlds. It makes no sense to speak of 'observing differences' among worlds, or to generalise notions of normality to a fictitious ensemble of such separate worlds. WE are the dwelles of THIS world, and by the very defition of the word 'world' (in this context), the best thing that natural science can do is to describe statistically the physical laws that govern this world. Thomas.