ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ต่อไป
เล่นอัตโนมัติ
Sheldon Goldstein: Pilot Wave Theory and Bohmian Mechanics | Robinson's Podcast #170Robinson Erhardt
มุมมอง 8K
David Albert: The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics | Robinson's Podcast #157Robinson Erhardt
มุมมอง 20K
Sean Carroll on Physics, the Multiverse, and Quantum Mechanics | Closer To Truth ChatsCloser To Truth
มุมมอง 61K
ดูซิของใครใหญ่กว่ากัน!! กรรมตามสนองพี่ดีเจขี้อวด #ดีเจ #funny #shortsคิดดีทีวี | Kiddee TV
มุมมอง 616K
ร้องเพลงสั่งข้าว Ver.หนมครก - Ananped x Fahcry #หนมครก #bietheska #บี้เดอะสกาBie The Ska
มุมมอง 2M
ไฮไลท์ฟุตซอล Continental Futsal Championship 2024 | ทีมชาติไทย พบ ทีมชาติอัฟกานิสถานช้างศึก - ฟุตบอลทีมชาติไทย
มุมมอง 159K
มองพี่ไมจ้ะ #motoplaza #ตลก #แกล้งMotoplaza
มุมมอง 2M
Sean Carroll: The many worlds of quantum mechanicsNew Scientist
มุมมอง 158K
Does Quantum Mechanics Imply Multiple Universes?World Science Festival
มุมมอง 269K
David Albert & Tim Maudlin: The Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Theory | Robinson's Podcast #67Robinson Erhardt
มุมมอง 34K
Mindscape 253 | David Deutsch on Science, Complexity, and ExplanationSean Carroll
มุมมอง 54K
Tim Maudlin & Sheldon Goldstein: The Copenhagen Interpretation and Bohmian Mechanics | RP#188Robinson Erhardt
มุมมอง 14K
Slavoj Žižek & Sean Carroll: Quantum Physics, the Multiverse, and Time Travel | RP #118Robinson Erhardt
มุมมอง 174K
Saturday Morning Physics | The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics - Sean CarrollMichigan Channel
มุมมอง 109K
Секрет летающего стула! #shortsРоман Magic
มุมมอง 21M
🔴Live สด! 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐆 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐂𝐔𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 วันที่ 1 l พับจีทีมชาติPUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS THAILAND
มุมมอง 232K
Zoo-Happy จระเข้ไม่ใช่ลิง #zoohappyanimalsHEROPHET
มุมมอง 283K
การแข่งขัน RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | รอบเก็บคะแนน Week 4 Day 1Garena RoV Thailand
มุมมอง 291K
MISS GRAND SARABURI 2025 | Swimsuits Saraburi in Wonderland ✨GrandTV
มุมมอง 134K
Wait for end 😂 | Best family game 😜 #shortsashok soni vlogs
มุมมอง 65M
Cute kitty gadget 💛💕FunkyFlock
มุมมอง 9M
ตามล่าหา โค้กโอรีโอ้ VS โอรีโอ้โค้ก #tiktokพากิน #เช้งกับร็อค #chengandrock #luckytreeCheng and Rock
มุมมอง 75K
Could listen to David all day, provocative stuff, many thanks.
Thank you David for attending unto our OWN!
Robinson and Pins never disappoint. Many worlds …yes please ! Appeals on so many levels. First time hearing David ..impressed! Thanks so much Robinson, Pins Podcat 🐈and guest snout dog Mishka.
David remembering ye once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now. David thy feet resting upon the very tip of time in FRONT! David at least I can do is to washed thy shared Feet to be given New feet. David mileage from thy feet is recognize! Love you beloved!
Likewise as HE is lifted up. Will draws all Men unto HIM!
David remember ye are worth RESPECTING, HONORING, LOVING, AND GIVING MY LIFE FOR A FRIEND KIND OF LOVE.
Remembering who said if ye LOVE me! Thank you for attending unto our OWN! Love you too!
My Host David all ye need is thy shared "i" AM came with sincere conversations given just for thee! Come take a Seat with Me! Now bring all in front of thee! Will be with Thee!
So much respect to both of you, gentlemen. Thank you for a thought stimulating episode. Your cat loves you! :)
Was waiting for this one. Such clarity of thinking! Thanks.
David bring all in front of thee! With thee!
As Robinson seat following Him. Great catch! From the fisher of MEN.
1:11:00 (and afterwards): Even if we think about a single unstable nucleus, we have already continuous infinite branching ( except if we assume that time is discretized but that's only speculation).
Concerning You and my creation made just for thee!
David Wallace!
Many multitudes hungers following HIM my "AM"! A little child born "i" holding a basket of bread and a Fish! Jesus Christ took the basket and lifted up and BLESSED!
David basically what ye see from thy shared eyes to see! Thy friend is in plain view! Not hidden
Remember dead can't have sincere conversations!
"The de Broglie-Bohm theory is a very nice toy model to explain a few very simple quantum things but we are many, many decades behind the current stage of the empirical success of physics." Really? David's confidence in making a plainly false remark is admirable.
Robinson thank you!
David keep watch!
What is a patent? Nor You? Who can bring forth clarity, coherence, adequacy, evidence, and witnesses concerning? You!
David thy friend surrounding about many wise and scribes of this world!
Remember thy shared Seat will follow thee!
All was desired 1st! And not a wishful thinking! Resting upon easily can be blown away in front!
Really interesting. Probably need to view this several times to internalize the concepts.
nice kitty!
Would be great if you have David Deutsch
Bravo! Another deep and engaging podcast on the foundations of QM.
Students will say, many old minds came before HIM!
My left hand who are ye? Lord thy "i" AM left hand! Right hand who are ye? Lord thy "i" AM Right hand! Gratitude and Honor
Many professors with their CLIPBOARDS came before HIM!
If quantum mechanics is getting the vacuum energy wrong, then shouldn't we be looking for another theory at low energies?
This is why I'm skeptical of attempts that are consistent with QM. QM isn't getting it quite right.
As far as I can tell, QM has yet to produce microscopic theories of gravity/dark energy/dark matter, either.
Einstein strongly believed QM is not quite right, there are good reasons to think so. Some of Einstein's points have been criticized, but people forget aobut Einstein's other arguments in his letters, and despite Bell refuting his criticism in the EPR paper, Bell himself also was not convinced QM is quite right. Look up the paper "Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states" which reformulates Einstein's argument in a way that is stronger. I would also point out that it's just wrong to say that Many Worlds is the "simplest interpretation" where they just "take the wave function seriously." The relational interpretation does the same thing yet does not arrive at the existence of a multiverse. The contextual/perspectivist interpretation by Bitbol and later made more explicitly realist by Pris is very similar to the relational interpretation as well. "Taking the wave function seriously" does not inherently entail believing in a multiverse, it's just a gimmick MWI advocates love.
@@amihart9269 The math of multiverses is the same as the math of probabilities.
I just think it's a moot point whether or not many worlds exist. It's in a superposition of existing and not existing.
It's the dynamics between the two positions that's interesting.
Also, the math works. It doesn't have to be real.
And, actually, what I'm advancing is that surreal math is going to be more precise than real math when it comes to measurement.
Throw away your arguments for real things that exist, you're not going to establish either reality or existence at this scale.
What I'm proposing as substitute is that randomness is the intersection of reality and the imaginary.
It's a quantum solution to the mind body problem!
This will be left field, but for the early deleuze the key shift required is understanding that fundamental ontology is not univocal but differential, where the former is a faulty, as in an ungrounded presupposition....or again ontology is pluralistic at bottom with different stratas or kinds of being as a feature of the universe itself.... similar in kind to davidsons anomalous monism....thìs framing might help dissolve some of the problems which now provoke confusion (bc we assume fundamental reality is univocal)
Can't separate!
@1:45:00 the incredulity objection has better legs, you should rephrase it under parsimony as you do around @1:47:00. Why should I accept MWI when I can easily (I wanted to say probably, but I can personally say easily) find better more parsimonious interpretations of QM or even more well grounded explanations of QM? Or that at least such explorations are still on the table.
The reason to reject Minkowski spacetime for gravity/GR is valid parsimony. David seemed incoherent here. There totally is a parsimony objection to MWI if you've got a more assumption bare explanation for QM. Which we do. The issue is to find empirical evidence to scientifically reject one or the other alternatives --- to find where there is a difference, then you do not need to fall back on parsimony.
Shared "i" AM come forth! Here "i" AM the Living WORD.
1:01:47 MW is a "pure interpretation" of QM only if we assume that it is compatible with the Born Rule... that's not exactly self-evident.
As with my Host Robinson!
What should HE DO?
Where are they?
How do you get such luminaries on your show?
Now who are these principalities sitting upon my True Owner Seat?
Singularity the I AM!
A punching bag sitteth upon the lowest seat LASTS! To absorbed all punches from all accusers nor mockers in front!
What is illusion?
Remember increase belongs unto a little Child "i" longing to LEARN!
@36:00 QM says you _cannot_ have a Cat dead & alive at the same time, it would violate unitarity, and all conservation laws known. What QM says is that there is an amplitude for either Cat Alive or Dead. But that's not reality, it is probability (non-Kolmogorov, due to interference). To "change the philosophy" you need to come up with an account for those amplitudes. Not for real "Dead" and "Alive". Rather, why P(Dead) and P(Alive). MWI does not do this for us, since it claims both states are _real_ which is nonsense, or if you take it seriously it is the biggest hail Mary of all time --- appeal to what we cannot observe (the other branches, notwithstanding what Deutsch says).
No, that’s an AND not an OR.
David thy Friend "i" AM!
Why? Beloved rather not to take advantage of thy tiredness to finish Thee! Rather to carry thee 1 footprint! Just know I have loved thee! Instead of 6 feet under.
Specially unto these principalities who deceiveth knows HIM?
Basically can approach anyone!
What is old?
@21:00 good Q from Robinson. But I think "realism" is simpler. If you wish to do science you have to be realist. But you do not have to presume your account of reality is true, it's just a model. You assume, and figure out consequences, you *_do not presume._* Science never _presumes._ Thinkers _can_ (and do) presume, to arrive at a scientific hypothesis for instance (which is not a scientific process last time I checked). The "real objects" in your model, for science, only need to be plausible accounts of reality, not dead true reality. It is grand hubris (or what is also called "being a string theorist" ;-) to think otherwise (hence unscientific).
Nonsense
From HIM. Some will say, only the Father knows the time?
Obviously will replace the old hands to be made NEW hands!
Nice Mola. Have you visited the San Blas isles? GREAT PODCAST!
@1:00:00 good critique by David of Pilot Wave stuff, but the SOH does work "scientifically", phenomenally well, so is immune to David's critique. Want magnetic moment of electron? Here it is! Want any scattering amplitude (up to several loop orders)? Wait a minute... here it is! You cannot just dismiss SOH. You have to argue the final and initial states are not "explained" by "all the possible paths". But there are models and approaches to this, such as decoherence and whatnot. Don't just dismiss this more conservative humble approach and grasp at Everett or MWI. Not before doing the hard work to check the pretty good established ideas that predict with amazing accuracy so many fundamental processes.
I mean... work on alternatives for sure, but pay dues to those who make progress with SOH and approaches like Positive Geometry of scattering amplitudes (PGSA let's say).
Thanks ❤ great episode.
what causes the world to split according to many worlds theory?
Because they dont like the evidence and are driven by beliefs
World splitting in MWI is not an objective physical phenomenon because the notion of "world", as David Wallace said in the video, is emergent and (to a degree) conventional. Decoherence is the objective physical phenomenon, which has its own uncontroversial theory accepted by all physicists (and which doesn't presuppose MWI).
According to MWI (or, if you prefer, pure unitary quantum mechanics without the additional measurement postulate), we can describe the quantum state of the universe, when decoherence has occurred enough after a given quantum measurement, as being the superposition of several states each instantiating a relatively sharply defined macroscopic reality, and which are orthogonal to each other (this means they don't interfere in the technical sense).
What's decoherence intuitively? It's the process by which a quantum system gets entangled with a complicated environment with tons of degrees of freedom and somehow "leaks" its "information" into it.
@@dadsonworldwide3238: Whatever that means, I think you should listen to people that actually know what they're talking about, whether pro-MWI such as David Wallace or against MWI such as David Albert, instead of watching youtube videos by, say, Sabine Hossenfelder ;-)
@@rv706 So there aren't actually many worlds according to the theory? I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that many world theory is just ... decoherence theory? there is nothing novel about it then. I have no idea what you mean by "when decoherence has occurred enough after a given quantum measurement". You can't solve the measurement problem by appealing to decoherence which you in turn define through measurement, the whole issue is that "measurement" should not enter as a concept into our fundamental theories, and in any case, decoherence is fully unitary, it doesn't need any "measurement" to take place. In my opinion the many world theory is the laziest of all the alternative approaches.
@@rv706why would someone 40 years older than the theory who's followed the developments bother with all that ?
It wasn't that long ago inflation theory and evolution was still in darwinian single cell orgin for me.
When you been around a half a century you'll spot the crusades of beliefs science and you won't need anyone to tell you what to think
Why?
excellent! thank you!
@1:07:00 basic confusion?? You do not need all the blather about macroscopic superposition. They do not occur in nature. Macroscopic systems are almost everywhere mixed states. Our probabilities for them are almost entirely classical (except where entanglement might exist within parts). Mixed states are not superpositions in the quantum sense because they lack the coherence that is key to quantum superposition. In a mixed state, the phases of the component states are not well-defined with respect to each other, which is necessary for interference effects. For superposition of _an entire system_ you need persistence or coherence of states. That is very, very fragile, and most macroscopic systems bigger than bacteria will thus not be in any superposition. Small sub-parts of them might.
Of course, it does no harm to suppose a large system might be in superposition if you do not have any measurement data for it, but once you make a few measurements and find no interference effects you knew the thing was actually not in a superposition of states. So best not to bet on interference of basketballs going through hoops.
Decoherence does not work like he describes. Breakdown of superposition is empirically known to be too "rapid" (too severe) for decoherence to be the explanation, I believe. It is a nice idea, and effects of decoherence are real, but it does not explain enough of macroscopic reality. Cats and dogs are simply not in a superposition, not ever. It is not that they have sufficiently decohered that they appear classical, it is that the amplitudes for a crap load of alternate states of their microscopic parts simply are exactly zero.
@@Achrononmaster If you mean the non diagonal terms, well, they are not exactly zero.
Decoherence is FAPP, not fundamental.
his explanation of decoherence at 1:09:00 is incorrect. He says it is impossible for the ice cube to fall down. That is wrong. U can theoretically calculate the probability. It will be insanely small. But non-zero
Yes. That is why he was careful to use the words ‘in practice’ impossible
"One last thing...." --- at halfway through. :D
Hate Everett interpretation, but love David Wallace. Bring it!
Hahaha, yeah me too!
I used to find the MWI distasteful and ad hoc. Then I read Wallace's book and he somehow managed to convince me that it's beautiful and completely natural. :-)
(Btw, you have to have some familiarity with university-level basic QM in order to appreciate it though. But any interpretation really)
Yeah, his essays are great in my view, I just prefer Bohmian, and if not that then maybe something like GRW. MW is just too ontologically far-fetched for me.
@@rv706 which book? I know he wrote 'a short introduction to philosophy of science' and co-edited some books, but does he have his own book?
@@Robinson8491: it's called "The emergent multiverse" or something like that. (I think they mentioned it also in the video?). It's all about the MWI.
Who is the Father?
Anyone nor anything under the SUN nor creation itself!
Even Time knows?
Thanks!
Started to quake!
Great episode! Loved it!
It seems like "many worlds" is a bit of a misnomer if "worlds" is taken too literally, as "worlds" like our own -- almost as though "many worlds" is a metaphor or linguistic device. Am I way off base?
You are right that it is not mean to be taken too literally. Many worlds is not supposed to be taken to mean a world exactly like the universe (universe in this case being totality of reality that we have access to) we experience. Rather, and perhaps slightly confusingly, it it more of a technical term physicists use when applying this particular interpretation of QM and refers to how humans perceive results in quantum experiments. You might be interested in this paragraph from the article on the MWI that appears on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
''Obviously, the definition of the world as everything that exists does not hold in the MWI. “Everything that exists” is the Universe, and there is only one Universe. The Universe incorporates many worlds similar to the one the layman is familiar with. A layman believes that our present world has a unique past and future. According to the MWI, a world defined at some moment of time corresponds to a unique world at a time in the past, but to a multitude of worlds at a time in the future.''
@@MontyCantsin5Thank you! But the meaning of "worlds" in this context still escapes me. If it's not as the world the "layman" knows and it is in "de Sitter space", how can we meaningfully think of this? Or does mysterianism kick in at this point?
@@jps0117 The answer is that nobody knows. Sean Carroll says the worlds do exist, and they are out there, but they don't exist in space. They exist in Hilbert space which is abstract.
I am not smart enough to have a strong opinion on it. I just think the physicists get so deep into the mathematical thinking that they all become Platonists, and think that these structures must exist in a real sense
In the future, we will all be Everettians..
David many will say hide us from HIM!
Is there such a thing as observer independent spacetime?
Newton's spacetime, on the face of it, appears to be observer independent.
However, I think you could construct the same spacetime as observer dependent, by hypothesizing infinitely many, infinitely sensitive observers in order to fill the spacetime with points.
How did we sum infinitely many observers and end up with something observer independent? It seems like it's the other way around - it's entirely observer dependent, we just have a disagreement on how to integrate observers.
This is the funny thing about spacetime. It appears a bit like magic, because the way Newton used it, it was! It's a useful bucket of unrealistic assumptions that allows one to begin a geometric analysis. You kind of need a magical observer that can instantly travel anywhere at any time to construct the simplest mathematical geometries, and proposing a more realistic observer leads to more complicated geometries. Of course, this is why mathematics is useful, because it's unrealistic. For example, a cosmological theorist doesn't need a rocket ship and gigayears to see the universe from another perspective.
Is this observer/spacetime duality perhaps a way to frame a fundamental precision/accuracy trade off of physics? These kinds of relationships seem really fundamental, to me.
Yes, if ye get tired along the way. I will carry thee! 1 footprint.
Their seats sitteth upon started to quake!
Many Worlds is not the most bare bones interpretation of the wave function any more than the most bare bones interpretation of the normal distribution is that everything lies everywhere on it. This will one day be widely viewed as one of the dopiest approaches to probability ever.
This "subjective" approach to probability needs as an assumption a " conscious observer", just like other subjective approaches to probability ( e.g. Qbism).
The obvious problem with that is that observers have to be described by the same laws of QM , they're not primary, they are emergent.
Also, in the MWI , the observer doesn't know beforehand in which branch she'll find herself afterwards, that's irreducibly random in principle ( no hidden variables in MW !)
So, this "self- identity ( or self location) uncertainty" is irreducible ( so it's also fundamental in a sense) , it is Objective, not Subjective.
Thus QM Probabilities cannot be subjective as in the Deutsch/ Wallace approach.
How can we avoid the obvious circularity?
P.S. It's not clear what "subjective" even means, physically, in their approach:
The Born Rule Probabilities have to do with the whole branch, the whole semi-classical "World", not only with what an individual believes...
what's fascinating for me is that particles ( us ) are struggling to understand themselves - can we ever trust our claims to be sure about objective reality when we cant adopt a gods eye view ever and stand out ourselves
For God of the Living is not God of the dead. But of the Living!
From God of the Living by grace. Forgiveness, salvation, and the Redeemer sitteth.
Fascinating stuff! Thanks, Robinson.
I've been waiting for this one!!!!
Isn't many worlds basically the idea of other life forms existing in other galaxies AND/OR the thing that makes humans exceptionally different to other life forms in other galaxies? The "thing" being that human evolution or creations stories may all have the probability of being true but not necessarily occurring within the known historic discoveries from archeological evidence? But then wouldn't it suggest that this Earth had more than one ice age? OR could it be that our understanding of the long seperation periods of Pangaea did not consider the different types of breakaway creation stories that would evolve (be experienced) in isolation from other continents? 🤔 I feel like thats a tall one even for me to swallow lol.
One thing is for sure... the energy mass had several upticks as each population increasingly became more technologically advanced either because of off planet intervention or through human symbiotic intelligence with natures gifts aka early plant and mineral toxicology.
Does this mean we are fighting to maintain our intelligence but the only way to do that is to use the Pangea starting point as though it were one end of the clasp where all strands of each continent had reference back to its one story, but as it grew further apart, the strands widen and became less familiar with the beginning or each other. So now (today) and if I could suppose the strands are near its widest point... will we be expecting the downward return as we move forward and toward the other end of the strands where another clasp would be positioned?
Except it makes me wonder🤔 would we perceive the other end as paradise again or another Lumeria? hmm. Im curious too, does the other end of the strands matter in this math work? Why would there be another clasp? What can be known in maths that quantum physics cannot know today regarding the seed problem? Eternity is not like infinity... characteristically how do they work together and what is our field of limitation in terms of human development? Like seriously, not the as far as the eye can see version.
No. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
What is my 2 hands left and right? Punching one another in front! Not knowing punching my FACE day and night!
Please look me up to see how QM fails.
But if the dead hear HIS VOICE? Shared "i" AM come forth!
The evidence is clear and so is the driving beliefs behind those who struggle to rationalize it.
Remember my shared "i" AM are the LIVING! From God of the Living.
Illusion come here in front and remind! Is the "i" AM OLIVER Illusion? No LORD! Indeed
Many religious came before HIM!
What?
David from here ye are? Thy life was desired 1st! And many shared "i" AM was desired 1st!
@1:50:00 disingenuous! phurrrhkrissake. The theory of evolution by NS is more parsimonious than rivals. It is not a valid analogy. A valid analogy is MWI ~ Ptolemaic epicycles, orthodox QM ~ Kepler before Newton, or Newton before Einstein. Yeah, we await the "Newton for QM". I'll concede that. But we still reject the epicycles once getting Kepler & Copernicus.
I'm tired of the many worlds interpretation. It's great inspiration for science fiction, but there are so many unreasonable assumptions in it that don't offer new physics...
The objective of MWI, according to fans and critics alike, has never been to "offer new physics" but to solve the measurement problem.
I think you should listen to people who actually know what they're talking about instead of, say, Sabine Hossenfelder. For example, if you want to learn about serious criticisms to the MWI, you could look at David Albert and Tim Maudlin.
@@rv706MWI doesn't solve the measurement problem, though.
And it has the well known issue with probability.
Stochasticity is irreducible at the macroscopic level, it cannot be deduced from the deterministic Schrödinger equation.
Moreover, all attempts for deriving the Born Rule ( for almost 70 years!) have been either circular or they need (implicitly) extra assumptions, so the consistency ( and the claimed parsimony/ simplicity) of this interpretation is questionable.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622: If there's one thing that the MWI does unquestionably, that is solving the measurement problem! It exactly explains what happens during any physical phenomenon whatsoever: just unitary evolution, period.
Do you have any reference by a serious author (not a random youtube creator) that disputes that the MWI solves the measurement problem?
I'd be honestly interested in knowing the argument.
The other aspect (probability), well, yes, that's disputed. But, as Wallace says in the video, you should disentangle general foundational questions about probability, that have nothing to do with MWI, from aspects possibly specific to MWI.
What's my take on that? I don't like the "operational" bent Wallace gave to the question: I think it defies the spirit of MWI of aspiring to be a realist* theory (as opposed to an epistemic one, or something like that).
* Just reminding that realist is not synonymous with realistic.
The issue with probability/ the Born Rule is inseparable from the measurement problem, because probabilities appear exactly in measurements!
It's understandable that proponents of MW are trying to separate the two ( almost 70 years of failed or unconvincing attempts are not something we could ignore...)
Just declaring that "there is only Unitary evolution, period", is one thing.
Reproducing what we observe in empirical reality is another, much more difficult task!
One obvious issue with interpretations of QM in general, is that there are many divergent opinions in the same "camp" for some basic things.
In the Everettian camp, there's no agreement even for the Objectivity ( or Subjectivity) of Probabilities.
Some proponents think that the Born Rule cannot be derived, but has to be postulated , similarly to the "textbook" version of QM.
But, if you can't derive the probability rule without being circular or referring to "agency" ( just like Qbism...) and then you have to postulate it, then the overclaimed "parsimony" of the Everettian interpretation is just not there anymore.
There's no agreement also about the local or global nature of the "splitting of the emergent Worlds"...
The Schrödinger equation alone doesn't say anything about that...
And there's the subtle but important issue that , although the global State Vector ( the Wavefunction of the Universe) is evolving deterministically , the Stochasticity that appears at the "macroscopic level" is irreducible, it cannot be deduced from the Schrödinger equation !
Perhaps this is the deeper reason that all attempts for deriving the probability rule have been futile so far...
You’re probably tired of it because you’re likely a liberal arts major who watches way too much tv and has no idea what he’s even talking about.
Need not to marvel beloved!
Seats will say, who is that Voice so FAMILIAR? Who is that Voice so FAMILIAR?
Woooo!
Don't waste your time