[extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable?

[John K Clark]

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> WROTE:

> Given that Serafino is Italian, I think he might be excused.

I'm sure Serafino is a fine fellow, and his English is far far far far
better than my Italian, but, well, I hope I don't come off sounding like a
xenophobe but, well; explaining why something is unclear doesn't make things
one bit more understandable. Damien, you are an intelligent man, an educated
man, an eloquent man, a man of letters. You are a man I very often disagree
with but you are also a man I very much respect; so do me a great favor and
translate for me.

Near as I can tell he is saying that if an observer sees a particle hit
the large side of a chamber he knows he's not living in a universe where the
particle hits a much smaller target; but my interpretation can't be right
because he has found all sorts of profound philosophical implications from
that mundane fact. My second thought was that maybe he was trying to raise
some ruckus over the fact that the word "simultaneous" is not what common
sense would have us naively assume it to mean; but that can't be right
either as Einstein destroyed that old chestnut a century ago. There is no
doubt about it, I need a translator.

> But what does it take for an interaction to count as a measurement?

I am not a true believer in the MWI, it may eventually turn out to be true,
and if truth be told I have a hunch it probably will be, but I could be
wrong, I know it's hard to believe but I've been wrong before. As I said
I'm not a true believe, at least not yet,  but if I were a true believer I'd
say, that is to say, at least in this universe I'd probably say:

"If 2 universes are identical they merge, if there is a difference between
them they diverge; and I don't know or care what 'interaction' or
'measurement' or 'observation' or 'experiment' or 'intelligent' or 'memory'
or 'record' or 'consciousness' mean".

 John K Clark