tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post617470042277676368..comments2020-11-29T02:07:43.911-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Many Worlds: A brief guide for the perplexedSteve Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-81627309837193909682011-09-30T14:24:23.767-04:002011-09-30T14:24:23.767-04:00I was wondering if you've had a chance to look...I was wondering if you've had a chance to look at Deutsch's new paper:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6223<br /><br />And, if so, what you're initial thoughts are. Thanks.Michael Baconnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-77882863267905094612007-07-24T16:08:00.000-04:002007-07-24T16:08:00.000-04:00MFA:1) Yes, it's hard to think about the qm state ...MFA:<BR/><BR/>1) Yes, it's hard to think about the qm state of the whole system, but completeness requires that even the measuring device be so describable. As I mentioned in the earlier post, theorists who have to think about the universe as a whole (quantum cosmologists) or about an isolated quantum computer are used to this, and they tend to believe in many worlds. (Otherwise, are "collapses" Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-90553751141798940132007-07-24T09:29:00.000-04:002007-07-24T09:29:00.000-04:00Steve,Thanks for the explanation! I realize now it...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the explanation! I realize now it is more subtle than I thought (I agree the "many worlds" adjective does not help).<BR/><BR/>My follow-up questions are:<BR/><BR/>1. This means that the macroscopic observer is described quantum mechanically as well? The Hamiltonian is complicated (persumably the rest of the universe), but the details are irrelevant as long as it is "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com