From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 10:00:27 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Why is that so hard to fathom?
>
> I'm not even sure I understand your statement. Here is a time
> line:
>
> t0: one entity exists
> t1: (Planck time) 1000 entities exist
> ...
> t10^35: each duplicate "observes" a difference
> because finally his neurons have finished
> firing.
No, the 1000 come into existence at t1 already experiencing different
outcomes. That is WHY they come into existence in the first place, as
per MWI.
time t0 is one moment before the observation is made, however you choose
to define observation.
> But recall that the central question for you is
> how it could be at t1 that the original is associated
> with only *one* of the duplicates
And again I draw on the science of MWI to answer that question. Have you
not studied Hugh Everett's theory of MWI?
The chamber is equivalent to an experiment in which 1000 alternates of a
physicist come into existence, each of them experiencing a different
outcome to a 1000-outcome atomic experiment, but in which all 1000
alternates are kept in this same universe inside the chamber.
The key point is this: the alternates come into existence at the *moment
of observation*, not before it or after it. It is therefore not
meaningful to ask about how long it took for the neurons to fire. The
point in time at which the neurons fire IS the moment of duplication.
In an experiment with 1000 equally probable outcomes, my odds of
experiencing a given outcome is .001. I cannot tell you in advance which
outcome (or alternate self) that I will experience, but I can tell you
in advance that I won't experience all 1000 outcomes. I will experience
only one of them.
This is so for the same reason that I cannot flip a coin and get both
heads and tails. I must experience one outcome or the other, and leave
the other side of the coin to my possible alternate in an alternate
universe.
Of you think your argument fails using this MWI interpretation then
please just say so that we can move on. It would then be up to you to
show that a non-MWI interpretation is different.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST