I am writing to check I have my understanding of the MWI interpretation / theory of QM correct, inspired by an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Many-Worlds Interpretation" - see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
I am not a scientist, but have been intrigued, uplifted, shocked and struggled due to the issues and ramifications of QM.
Firstly, a couple of definitions - I say "universe" to be the sum total of all "worlds", so it is the universal wave function / Schrodinger equation of the universe that continues "uncollapsed" on its merry way.
My understanding is, putting aside mathematical and technological limitations, the following is "true" in the theory: 1. A quantum system can be anything (e.g. a human body) - it does not have to be a quantum system that exhibits the "weird" effects of QM (a quantum system can be that, too)
A quantum event is any interaction / entanglement of any quantum systems (e.g. a husband and wife copulating)
The before* and after states of the interaction can be explained by MWI even if both are "very macro" - e.g. the wife did (not) become pregnant. Indeed, both occur with 100% probability, because the husband and wife "split" into "copies" of themselves, but can only experience one of the realities (pregnant / not).
- All before states factor in the wavefunction of the evolution of the quantum system - e.g., for the husband or wife, the history includes factoring in the Big Bang, the fact that all the atoms in the man and lady were created during epochs of the Big bang (e.g. nucleosynthesis); that atoms are stable (per QM explanations re electron shells, nucleus etc); the atoms became molecules became cells became systems, such as musculoskeletal and cardiovascular.
The interaction / entanglement / measurement would be handled by MWI / QM mathematical calculations factoring in the before state and what happens - e.g. ejaculation, impregnation / not etc.
Once an outcome is determined (e.g. pregnant), then that world continues without having to re-measure itself.
I would be very grateful if you could confirm I have this correct, or amend it where not.