-3
$\begingroup$

TAP says that the set of observations of things we have is not a random set of all things; there is observer bias.

TMWI of QM says that the universe splits to accommodate every possible collapse state and time of every wavefunction.

These two models seem contradictory to me because if TMWI were true, TAP would predict that we live in a universe in the branch of universes that split at a (near) maximum rate since that branch contains the vast majority of the "many worlds"). We do not live in a universe that has wavefunctions collapse at the (near) maximum rate, thus TMWI is false.

The only issue with the above reasoning for me is that a universe that has wavefunctions collapse at the (near) maximum rate is very unlikely to have observers so no wonder we don't find ourselves in such a branch of universes! But the current rate of wavefunction collapse in our branch is still far below that of the rate that can still avoid destroying us the observers so we should still see a vastly faster rate at least, though not the (near) maximum rate, if TMWI was true. Or is the case really that we do live in the branch that has the highest rate of wavefunction collapse times the rate of asapiogenesis?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In the MWI there is no wavefunction collapse. Your question should be reformulated in terms of measure over branches. $\endgroup$ – Anders Sandberg Nov 24 '19 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ TAP says that the set of observations of things we have is not a random set of all things; there is observer bias. No, it doesn't say this. $\endgroup$ – user4552 Dec 3 '19 at 16:28
0
$\begingroup$

The Anthropic Principle does not rule out the Many World's Interpretation. It just rules out the claim that universes with rapid splitting rates can sustain observers.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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