[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

[scerir]

Stathis:
> It's weird if you assume there is only one real world. You might ask,
> even if there are multiple worlds, why should you end up meeting with
> the co-experimenter who makes the matching measurement rather than one
> of the other co-experimenters in another world? 

In the Everett-faq there is something like ...
"... MWI requires that the wavefunction obey 
some relativistic wave equation, the exact form 
of which is currently unknown ..." and this 
may have something to do with our problem.

I'm not an Everettista but - as far as I remember -
in MWI states are physical entities, even if 
they are "relative" (Everett's "relative state") 
to a certain specific observer, to a certain specific 
measurement apparatus.

Now, in MWI and in Copenhagen, many nonfactorizable 
states are direct consequences of fundamental
conservation principles used in quantum mechanics.

More than that, many nonfactorizable states,
being direct consequences of fundamental conservation 
principles used in quantum mechanics, can be - perhaps - 
the "carriers" of these fundamental conservation 
principles, or the "software" to process/implement 
these principles. Who knows?

An example could be the singlet state
|u+>|v->-|u->|v+> which is an entangled state.
Up/down, or viceversa.

Now if we consider that states like the singlet 
state are (in MWI) physical entities, and are 
consequences of fundamental conservation principles,
and are - perhaps - also the software which implement
these principles, we can be close to understand how,
in MWI, the matching can happen in such a way as 
to give the correlation between Alice's outcomes
(at her location, in her worlds) amd Bob's outcome
(at his location, in the same worlds). 

In other words, it can be the singlet state itself 
(nonseparable and physical) which "selects" Alice's 
& Bob's "world", upon measurement, given the fundamental 
conservation principles "imaged" and "implemented" 
by the same singlet state.

[Not so profund this time, I know :-)]