It has been realized that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is essentially the determinate-experience problem. The problem is to explain how the linear quantum dynamics can be compatible with the existence of our definite experience. This means that in order to finally solve the measurement problem it is necessary to analyze the observer who is physically in a superposition of brain states with definite measurement records. Indeed, such quantum observers exist in all main realistic solutions to the measurement problem, including Bohm’s theory, Everett’s theory, and even the dynamical collapse theories. Then, what does it feel like to be a quantum observer? Although these theories, as well as the bare theory, give their respective answers to this intriguing question, it is still unknown what the true answer is. It can be expected that the answer, once it has been obtained, will have significant implications for solving the measurement problem.
In parallel with the Physics of the Observer Program and RFP announced by FQXi, we will host an online Workshop on Quantum Observers from 9th January 2016 to 19th January 2016. The workshop will bring together leading experts in the field, and address the most pressing issues in understanding quantum observers and solving the measurement problem.
Based on the successful experience from First iWorkshop on the Meaning of the Wave Function, John Bell Workshop 2014 and Quantum Foundations Workshop 2015, this workshop will be also self-organized to a large extent. Every member may create a topic in the workshop forum on his own, which gives a concise introduction to his ideas to be discussed, and which also states the date and time of his two-hour discussion. Then other members can leave comments beforehand or participate in the discussions by text chat in the forum in the two-hour duration at the time.
The list of participants and the schedule of this workshop will be announced soon. Selected presentations in this workshop will be published in International Journal of Quantum Foundations.
Note: This is not a public workshop. Group content and activity will only be visible to members of the group, most of who are invited. If you would like to participate in the workshop, please log in or contact us.
Group Admins
The End of the Many-Worlds? (or Could we save Everett’s interpretation)
- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The aim of this discussion is to compare de Broglie’s (pilot wave interpretation :PWI) and Everett’s interpretation (Many Worlds interpretation: MWI) in order to see how both attempt to solve some of the key issues of quantum mechanics.
More specifically, I consider the problem of the ontology, the problem of the meaning of probability, and also the problem of psycho-physical parallelism (to use the vocabular of John von Neumann).
I show that ontology and probability are clearly defined in the PWI but that these concepts are very problematic in the MWI. Concerning the psycho-physical parallelism (the functionalist theory) I give (page 20) an argumentation showing that PWI (or some equivalent model) is the best way to solve the problem.I thank Aurelien for citing my works, but his acknowledgement to me at the end of his paper is misleading. Although I tried to explain my views to him in a couple of e-mails, I failed. Reading his presentation of my views I could not recognize them at all. I disagree with everything I saw in Aurelien paper.
Lev VaidmanDear Lev, don’t worry: my aim was only to recognize the influence that your view on MWI has on mine (your work on bohm with the ‘surrealistic’ bullet and the cat was very great as well). I will add a sentence that you dont share my view.
with best regards AurélienHi Aurelien,
Nice post!
Regarding ontology of MWI, it appears that a preferred structure (partition into subsystems, including virtual subsystems) of the Universe is needed. Otherwise sufficiency of decoherence for defining “branches” and/or reality of “world branching” are at stake. More technically: there exist mutually irreducible, simultaneously decohereing structures that do not provide an “emergent structure” (a “pattern”) that could branch.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
