[ExI] QM Interpretations was Re: Shadows and the concept of self

[Stuart LaForge]

Giulio wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:59:22 +0200
> From: Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>

> The chaotic path of my quest to better understand fundamental quantum
> physics has taken me back to the ?many worlds? ideas of Hugh Everett & co.
>  I?m republishing this related article that author Richard L. Miller and
> I
> wrote in 2005, with minor edits to fix typos...
>
> https://turingchurch.net/shadows-and-the-concept-of-self-d01ff65ce9f9

Interesting read, Guilio. I am still agnostic about MWI. While I agree
that Copenhagen is dead, there are a lot of other good interpretations out
there.

Perhaps even a new one that I will call the "computational intepretation"
of quantum mechanics which I could succinctly explain by pointing out that
a perfect simulation of a cat, whilst stored on a flash drive in someones
pocket is neither alive nor dead.

In other words perhaps, Schrodinger's cat is in superposition until you
observe it, because the universal machine does not call/process/execute
the object.cat.alive() property code until an observer opens the box. Just
like how in MMORPGs certain NPCs or events won't occur until they are
triggered by some action by the player. So wave-function collapse could be
synonymous with code execution in the "Great Simulation" regardless of
whether or not there is a simulator. Could just be the way the universe
works. But I am skeptical of the Simulation Argument because of the
experimentally meausred smoothness of space-time.

Of course there is also de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave theory which is another
real contender as is Kramer's Transactional Intepretation. So I am
agnostic of the various interpretation of QM even if you narrow it down to
just those which call for an objectively real wave function.

Stuart LaForge

"Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling
will spoil it." -Lao Tzu