David Wallace | The sky is blue, and other reasons physics needs the Everett interpretation

Abstract: The quantum measurement problem is often described as a standoff or a case of underdetermination – perhaps between Everett, Bohm and GRW, perhaps between Everett, Copenhagen and QBism. (It depends on your audience.) The background assumption is that these various alternatives are all compatible with the quantum formalism, and so any question as to which is preferred turns on second-order issues: distaste for action at a distance, worries about probability, competing intuitions about simplicity. I argue, by contrast, that very large swathes of modern physics, from the exotic to the mundane, rely on the Everett interpretation or something very much like it. Specifically, they rely on something like: unitary, the eliminability of collapse except as an approximation, decoherence-type approaches as an explanation of the macroscopic, the ability to use quantum theory far outside the classic predict-evolve-measure paradigm, and the applicability of the theory to many systems at many levels, not just to a supposed ‘fundamental’ level – at which point we’re most of the way to Everett. Other interpretative strategies might point the way to exciting physics in the future, but only Everett-style approaches can make full sense of the physics of today.

[amihartz]

5:55 where does RQM fit into this trichotomy? It does not modify the theory, it is not merely operational as it is explicitly a physical interpretation, but it also does not uphold that "everything is unitary." MWI in fact fits into the first category as it does indeed modify the formalism by trying to give an underlying derivation for the Born rule rather than just accepting it at face value like the RQM does.

[HaydnArlene-iy]

Hernandez Margaret Smith Jose Young Angela

[TheCbreland]

This channel is such a hidden gem on youtube. I understand it is mainly for the purpose of sharing research and ideas within your academic circles, but irregardless I really enjoy listening to the in-depth discussions. Why I'm so fascinated with Everett's interpretation of our reality is a mystery. Growing up in rural America and attending one of the poorest school districts; my science interests were always met with, let's just say, an apathetic response. All I ever wanted was someone of whom I could just talk and discuss ideas such as this. To this day, I'm still all alone in that To have such excitement and interest in something and have no one to share it with is a shame. After reading Sean Carroll's latest book, I was left with more questions than answers. I'm still trying to understand why some of the conversations that I know are being had in private are treated so esoterically. I read all of Dr. Everette's biographical sketches and obviously he thought deeply about some of the implications the theory had on our perceived reality. I'm sure colleges on the other side of the argument must try and attribute such things to metaphysics or religion, but how can this be? Is it not the opposite? I guess my understanding was that as philosophers, you would be encouraged to think deeply and openly about any and all real world applied outcomes. Is that not something that is needed in order to come up with experiments to try and falsify the gray areas of the theory? I now realize there is so much yet to be nailed down. It's probably my own ignorance, but based on the argument Dr. Deutsch gave in the conversation section of Dr. Saunders video on proposed method for branch counting, I was amazed that even a consensus on the probabilities of what is 'likely' to be perceived had not been reached; if that is a question that can even be asked at all. Is there really no anthropic reasoning that can be applied from an ontological perspective when assessing our experience as a subjective measurement? I realize under classic probability theory the idea would fall under something like the gambler's fallacy, but from a QM perspective this has to point to some deeper truth about where we are, how we arrived here, and where we are going. Is our current experience not the most likely outcome? As an observer, would our continued subjective experience in the future, based on probabilities, exist on the branch with the highest amplitude of all the ones where we could exist? I'm truly humbled by it all. I really look up to all the physicists, philosophers, and cosmologists for the work they are all doing. Being so deeply involved in such an amazing profession has to be the most fulfilling experience one could have as a human. If anyone knows where I could find some accessible information about my curiosities I would forever be grateful.

[thedouglasw.lippchannel]

CIG Theory offers a reasonable solution to the Measurement Problem. What about CIG Theory?

[Vld]

Do you guys believe Superdeterminism could be the answer to QM?