Comment on I'm good, thanks
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 day agoI don’t know, Many Worlds always led to more confusion than Copenhagen for me. But I suppose that’s a matter of taste since they’re equivalent.
As per the relationship between measurement and entanglement, from an empiricist viewpoint all quantum mechanical terms are related to measurement. If entanglement didn’t affect the outcome of measurements, it wouldn’t exist.
Indeed, you can disentangle an entangled system, which of course will change the outcome of measurements - that’s how you know it’s been disentangled.
bitcrafter@programming.dev 1 day ago
I think to some extent we have been talking past each other. Very roughly speaking, I think that am more worried about what happens in the middle of an experiment, where you are more worried about what happens at the end. I actually completely agree with you that when a conscious being performs a measurement, then, from the perspective of that being, both interpretations of what happened when it performed the observation are equivalent. That is, the being has no way of telling them apart, and asking which interpretation is true at that point is, in my opinion, roughly along the same lines as asking whether the objective world exists.
(Just to be clear, it’s not my intent to get mystical here. I think of consciousness as essentially just being a way of processing information about the world, rather than positing the existence of souls.)
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Interesting framing. But without measurements there isn’t really a need for different interpretations, is there? If that’s what you mean by “in the middle of an experiment”.
I will happily agree that before measurement, it’s very useful to think of the system as existing in many states at the same time.