(October 12, 2018 at 11:38 am)Grandizer Wrote: What do you think of Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation?
I don't like it
It is invents a "real" multiverse of parallel universes, branching infinitely. It has two main problems
1) there is no description of when the branches occur (there could be an infinite number, just for one quantum event), and
2) it doesn't solve the collapse problem (though neither do any other interpretations, except the self-collapse models that actually say that QM is slightly wrong). i.e. in an Everett universe, there is no explanation for why you find yourself in only one of those branches (and why that particular branch), and aren't still entangled with the other ones.
My favorite interpretation is the Montevedeo interpretation, because it proposes an "apparent" collapse due to the effect of quantum gravity and our ability to measure.
It is funny that one reviewer thought that it was similar to Many-Worlds. I disagree. Instead of having many universes, interpretations like this say that all those variations on reality actually exist within our own universes. Is there a difference, or are they indistinguishable? I'm not sure.
