boundless

Ok, I see. But IMO, while decoherence - for all practical purposes - explains why we see definite outcomes in experiments, it doesn't explain why expe...

Regarding the 'parallel' idealism-realism debate, I think that physics - and science in general - is, well, silent on that issue as well. For instance...

Hi, I read your linked post and I enjoyed it. But still I don't understand how 'classicality' 'comes to be' in your view. Let's consider a less crude ...

:up: Glad to hear that! I think that, what is common to all physical theories is that they are predictive tools with an extraordinary range of practic...

Note, however that Hoffman does not really say that. He says, more or less that QM suggests that 'physical reality as it appears to us' comes into bei...

Hi apokrisis, all, I think that the problem of this view is that it does not explain how those 'complex' objects/processes like 'enzymes' or 'respirat...

Nice! I believe that it depends on how you define SR. In the usual definition, both preferred foliation of spacetime and retro-causality are incompati...

Well, there have been attempts to reconcile SR and PWT. To my knowledge, they involve the use of preferred foliations of space-time or retro-causality...

Ok! Fine, then we agree :smile: Considering that the 'wave-function' is a 3N-dimensional (N being the number of particles) object and the theory predi...

Ok, I can see the problem! Even the presentism you referred before as compatible with SR seems to imply a unique, well-defined state of the universe (...

Yeah, sorry! I am not sure I am following you. In fact, I just am saying that the cause precedes the effect in all reference frames without FTL. Isn't...

Ok, I see!

Well, yeah, this would explain the silence :smile: Another curiosity: what do you think about the problem of interfering branches in MWI (and maybe in...

+ 1 :wink: (More precisely, I believe that there is something in maths that is discovered. It cannot be totally invented) Well, possibly! :razz:

Ok! Agreed! :smile: Well, I think I see where you are getting at but I am not sure you can really avoid the paradox if you say that all events in the ...

:up: I completely agree! Well, I worded it badly. I simply meant that without the selection postulate, it seems that RQM implies the splitting. Anyway...

:up: Well, that's another good argument IMO against the view that decoherence is enough to solve the measurement problem (even in MWI).

Yeah, sorry. I was a bit flippant. The point is that in your example the interaction would give you some information of the other world(s). In MWI, yo...

... But you can explain regret in that way only if you accept the concept of parallel universes, i.e. if you accept the idea that whatever is possible...

Well, more or less I always understood RQM in that way! :smile: ... After my dialogue with noAxioms, I am not sure about it. In fact, the 'relativizat...

Hi, In MWI, you need an additional axiom AFAIK to include the Born Rule. I know that there have been some attempts to derive the Born Rule but I do no...

Thanks for the very informative answer, again. I hope I'll can answer tomorrow (if not, I will on Saturday). I am still confused about regarding 'obse...

Agreed! Until yesterday I did not fully understand RQM, I believe. My confusion was about the treatment of the ontological status of Alice: for me the...

To summarize, I believe that RQM has two serious problems. 1) I believe - as I said previously - that there are indeed too much 'perspectives'. If eve...

Well, yeah in that case it might be a possibility. Who knows :smile: BTW, regardless unicorns, I believe that the ontological status of possible yet u...

For those, like me, that are not averse to a Kantian-like sub-interpretation of CI, I suggest also this article by Cuffaro: http://philsci-archive.pit...

There is also a parallel discussion in Physics Forums about this experiment: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-realization-of-a-basic-wigners-fr...

Ok let's keep 'information', then! :smile: Yep! Correct! There is a spectrum of views here. Tegmark's position is that the Hilbert space is the only t...

I'll now explain why I believe that replacing 'conscious observers' with 'sufficiently complex physical object/system' does not solve anything IMO. In...

No worries! I see what you mean and IMO this is a good argument against a 'non-representional' reading of the wave-function: it is difficult to accept...

I believe that the de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory should be given more attention. I am not a dBB-supporter but I believe that it is a valid alternative....

I believe that if you say that something 'not real' describes 'a real thing' you're just re-asserting a realist/representational view. The 'unreal'/'n...

Ok, I see. For 'Wigner's friend' only one outcome occurs. For 'Wigner' there is still a superposition (of both his friend and the physical system). Ye...

Very good point! If true, I wonder if this is the reason why in CH, the universal wave-function is considered unreal. As I said previously, I am sorry...

Well, yes, with this I agree. Again, I agree. But this is IMO the position of RQM. On the other hand, I do not believe that there is only one 'version...

, Just a curiosity: has anyone ever suggested an interpretation where the 'universal wavefunction' is real (like in MWI) and a single branch is 'selec...

This is actually my understanding of Rovelli's own view. Also, Rovelli makes a similar point in this article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0604064.p...

Well, I agree with was said by Andrew M. Ok, I think we agree on this :smile: I agree with what you said here. But I am not sure that it solves the 'm...

Well, maybe you are right. But IMO, it suggests that the only that 'Alice' can know about herself is to consider herself in relation to 'someone else'...

Thanks for clearing up the issue of the interference. It makes more sense now. Very interesting point :up: Ok, I see. Much confusion about this arises...

I am too fascinated by panpsychism, pan-experientialism etc. But it too does have problems IMO. In case you are interested, for a criticism of panpsyc...

In my opinion Wheeler's view is a bit ambiguous. At times he suggests some form of 'panpsychism'. In other places, he seems to suggest that an 'observ...

Well, I am not persuaded that it says just that. As I said to noAxioms in my previous post, it seems that the only way for O to have 'information' abo...

After some reflection, I am not convinced by this explanation. The first section says: In other words, from its own perspective, O is 'meta-theoretica...

Sorry, I can understand this but only in part. But I am just not sure that this is satisfactory. I mean, according to RQM, measurement involves an int...

Well, according to Rovelli there is no 'observer problem' in the sense of CI. According to his interpretation, 'observer' is actually an excessively a...

Ah, ok! I see. S can have a 'partial knowledge' of its own state, but not complete. This makes sense. No worries! Well, I think that you actually poin...

, Just a curiosity... Interestingly, it seems that RQM agrees with the Consistent Histories interpretation about the lack of a 'single history'. From ...

Mmm, I see! Also, both she and Shimony are in fact clear that 'potentialities' for them are in some sense non-local. Agreed! Let me, however, ask you ...

Yes, you are right. That's one difference between Wigner's original proposal and Bitbol's take (other than a less 'ontological' take on what the 'coll...