Does the Many-Worlds interpretation avoid the Copenhagen instantaneous collapse problem

[swansont]

This came up in another thread

 

The copenhagen interpretation is cursed with an infinitely fast waveform collapse. To some, this is more unappealing than infinitely many universes. While the CI is more economic, the MWI doesn't have infinitely fast communication mechanisms.

 

I'm not sure that's true. The MWI requires the instant formation of a new "world", orthogonal to all existing worlds with each "decision". How does that information get there?

[SamBridge]

This came up in another thread

 

 

I'm not sure that's true. The MWI requires the instant formation of a new "world", orthogonal to all existing worlds with each "decision". How does that information get there?

I think the issue is that if you observe matter, then when you observe it, it cannot possibly be in another state and thus cannot comprise another universe as two different states or locations, you would call it an Eigenstate.

Edited June 3, 2013 by SamBridge

[md65536]

I'm not sure that's true. The MWI requires the instant formation of a new "world", orthogonal to all existing worlds with each "decision". How does that information get there?

Is that a requirement, or just an interpretation (or sub-interpretation)? Aren't there MWIs that have all possible worlds "already existing", like a block multiverse? There must be interpretations that don't require any information communication at all. Each possibility could exist independently, regardless of what happens in other worlds, and when.

 

Not that I think there's any meaning to this... I feel like I'm discussing the rules of a make-believe world.

[swansont]

Is that a requirement, or just an interpretation (or sub-interpretation)? Aren't there MWIs that have all possible worlds "already existing", like a block multiverse? There must be interpretations that don't require any information communication at all. Each possibility could exist independently, regardless of what happens in other worlds, and when.

 

Not that I think there's any meaning to this... I feel like I'm discussing the rules of a make-believe world.

 

Im not that well-versed in MWI (or deeply in any interpretation) but I've always heard it as with each "decision", two new worlds are created. Having all possible worlds exist would get around that problem.

[J.C.MacSwell]

This came up in another thread

 

 

I'm not sure that's true. The MWI requires the instant formation of a new "world", orthogonal to all existing worlds with each "decision". How does that information get there?

I think the same way it gets there in a one World interpretation. Both the new paths have common "ancestors" with exponential creation of Worlds. It is a very "busy" theory.

[swansont]

I think the same way it gets there in a one World interpretation. Both the new paths have common "ancestors" with exponential creation of Worlds. It is a very "busy" theory.

But my question is how a remote area of a newly-created world "knows" what it's state is, given that it came into existence because of a decision very far away, instantly.

[J.C.MacSwell]

But my question is how a remote area of a newly-created world "knows" what it's state is, given that it came into existence because of a decision very far away, instantly.

 

Each World would be a total re-creation/addition of every possible affected frame including all mass and energy in a consistent manner. What would be considered remote or very far away in a process such as this?

 

Occam would very quickly need a chainsaw to shave with...

 

Essentially, same way it "knows" locally, since it equates to the same thing

Edited June 4, 2013 by J.C.MacSwell

[SamBridge]

The initial notion that other universes are "created" as a result of decisions makes no logical sense. I mean in order for that to happen there would have to be a big bang in a plane of existence, that plane of existence would have to be created first anyway, then the universe would have to be sped up in a purely deterministic manner such that the only thing that varied for certain was that specific outcome. Instead, a better interpretation is that there are an infinite number of universes existing in which independent matter and energy exist which thereby expresses all possibilities at all all times.

[md65536]

Each World would be a total re-creation/addition of every possible affected frame including all mass and energy in a consistent manner. What would be considered remote or very far away in a process such as this?

 

Occam would very quickly need a chainsaw to shave with...

I think that when dealing with interpretations, it is best to consider the most general cases. As soon as you start specifying details in a way that makes it more complex, without it *needing* to be complex (ie. where you can prove that there can be no other way but the complex one), then you're going down the wrong path. With an interpretation you're basically filling in the missing details, and there's no point in deciding on things that can't be proven.

 

In this case, the "worlds" of a MWI might simply be the superposition of all possible states of the universe, and each world is simply a consistent instance or observation of that. There's no need to assume they're persistent, or that there's a certain number of them, or that anything physical happens in order for one to be defined.

 

I don't know much about it either, or what can be derived from assuming a MWI, but if you speculate on ways that it's confusing or impossible, consider whether there are other possibilities that make it simple.

[MM6]

But my question is how a remote area of a newly-created world "knows" what it's state is, given that it came into existence because of a decision very far away, instantly.

 

They already exist and have and will exist regardless of time. Infinite universes to encompass infinite possibilities, thereby deleting the need for the Copenhagen model.

Edited June 8, 2013 by MM6