From: SMTP%"PSYCHE-D@rfmh.org" 8-OCT-1996 00:26:21.27 To: STAPP CC: Subj: Re: Imitation QM Approved-By: PATRICKW@CS.MONASH.EDU.AU Approved-By: STAPP@THEORM.LBL.GOV Message-Id: <961007100842.222042b5@theorm.lbl.gov> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 10:08:42 -0700 Reply-To: PSYCHE Discussion Forum Sender: PSYCHE Discussion Forum From: Henry Stapp Subject: Re: Imitation QM To: Multiple recipients of list PSYCHE-D Don Perlis(Sept28) asked me to comment on the many-worlds/de-coherence interpretations of QM. I have discussed this interpretation in many of my recent papers including my recent JSC paper, and others available on my web site: [http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html] This interpretation is very attractive to physicists because it does not involve that "damnable" collapse of the wave packet. But as two of its main supporters, Zurek and Joos, have emphasized, it does not really, in the end, solve the problems: Zurek: "In other words, a question that is unaddressed and, indeed, obscured by MWI is the very central question of the interpretation of quantum theory: How does the unambiguous correspondence between the theory and our individual perceptions come about? The Many-Worlds Interpretation avoids this issue by tacitly assuming the "consciousness" will perceive the wave function of the universe "branch by branch." In other words, the properties of consciousness are being in the end blamed for what appears to have happened in the course of the measurement. ...coupling to the environment does not settle all the problems of quantum measurement. ... Environmental superselection appears to me to be a hint about how to proceed rather than a means to settle the matter quickly." Joos: "In regard to the interpretational problems of quantum theory one may hope that these superselection rules [environmental superselection] can be helpful in developing new ideas on what distinguishes measurement process from `normal' physical processes. ... Of course, the central problem remains unsolved: Why are there local observers?" [Ref: New Techniques and ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory. ed. Daniel Greenberger, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol 480. (1986). Joos p. 6-13; Zurek p. 89-97] In my paper "Whiteheadian Approach to Quantum Theory and the Generalized Bell's Theorm" [Foundations of Physics 9, 1-25, p. 18] I said: "The third objection to the many-worlds interpretation is that it pushes the basic problem of quantum theory, which is to reconcile the formalism with the character of human experience, onto the problem of the connection between mind and body, which it leaves unresolved". This is essentially what Zurek and Joos said. In my opinion a satisfactory resolution of the problem of the interpretation of quantum theory is intimately connected with the mind-body problem, and when the two problems are looked at together the interpretation that I have been proposing under the title Bohr/Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner interpretation stands out as the candidate best able to tie together in a rationally coherent and ultimately testable way the physical, phenomenal, and psycho-physical data. As regards the Many-Worlds (I prefer the title Many-Minds) I can appreciate it, having---as so many others have---come upon it myself in conjunction with my study (in 1959) of von Neumann's book. But its original attractiveness fades upon analysis, in tandem with de-coherence studies. I recommend the articles I have cited here for more detailed information. Incidentally, I was surprised to see my theory unmentioned by Robert Wordem (Sept30) as one of the few current candidates, since it has been extensively discussed on this forum, in a book, and in numerous published works: I would like to added it to Worden's list. Henry P. Stapp