Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In recent years there seems to have been a growing discussion surrounding MWI's ontology. In the 2010 volume "Many Worlds?", Simon Saunders has a chapter dedicated to discussing whether the worlds in MWI branch or diverge.

The branching view states that before a measurement there is 1 observer in 1 world, after the measurement there is 2 observers in 2 worlds. The divergent view states that there were 2 observers and worlds all along, but they were identical up to the point of differentiation, so there were no way for you to tell which world you were really in.

Alastair Wilson has written several papers on this in the last years:

Any MWI proponents got any opinion either way?

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by David Z May 8 '12 at 6:34

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The two interpretations only differ in ontology. Neither is bullshit, rather both are standard MWI. When you have an observer, this is a computational entity, and to map it to a wavefunction is a nontrivial task. Whether you decide to say there were "really" two observers that were exactly the same before the measurement or whether there was "really" only one observer which branched is a meaningless question in the sense of Carnap, and has no answer, not even philosophically.

The important principle is that the "number" of consciousnesses is determined by interaction with other entities. If you have a computer running a simulation of a conscious observer, and you decide to do a double-check step on each computational step, do you get a second observer? If you do the double-checking in a different computer, is it a new observer? Observationally, you only get a new observer when you talk to two different people, and this only happens after the two computations are distinct.

This question is entirely about philosophy of mind, and this is where computational and positivist formulation is most important.

locked by David Z May 8 '12 at 15:32

This post has been locked due to the high amount of off-topic comments generated. For extended discussions, please use chat.

I'll just rehash my earlier comment that copying a comment discussion verbatim into an answer is a really bad idea. It doesn't improve the usefulness of the answer because people aren't going to read it through. – David Z May 8 '12 at 6:19
@DavidZaslavsky: If people don't read it, it does no harm. In this case, I know people who care about this philosophy business will read it, because these are pedestrian anti-positivism arguments they hear from others. A positivist will not read it, but that's just saying that someone who already knows the answer will not read an answer. So I disagree. – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 14:41
Actually it does do harm, in that it makes people sort through a lot more information than they need to in order to make sense of the answer. Yes, there may be interesting arguments in the comments, but they should be summarized and organized, not copied verbatim. This conclusion is based on years of experience (not just mine) across the Stack Exchange network and other forums. And in any case, it's a network-wide policy that verbatim copying and pasting of comments is inappropriate - in fact, it's one of the core principles of Stack Exchange. As an official policy, this is not up for debate. – David Z May 8 '12 at 15:25
@DavidZaslavsky: I am debating it, I will never agree to it, it's ridiculous in this case. One must'nt give a rat's ass about votes and policy, or community standards. One must butt heads against these types of things, as they restrict usefulness. This type of discussion is the only way to clearly and briefly explain a philosophical point, as oppose to technical points, since people come in with completely incompatible points of view, and this shows up as a list of "but why this? and why that?". I'm surprised you are using policy and guidelines. – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 15:28
Well, I suppose I can take that as an indication that you're not going to summarize and organize the comments here ;-) If you don't like this particular policy, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that these sorts of contributions are inappropriate here. They would probably be better received on a traditional forum, so perhaps you could seek out an alternate venue for when you want to have extended discussions that will be permanently preserved. – David Z May 8 '12 at 15:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.