+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Alternative Theories (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-130.html)
+--- Thread: Article Many minds, not many worlds, constitute quantum reality (/thread-20378.html)
Many minds, not many worlds, constitute quantum reality - C C - May 6, 2026
Many minds, not many worlds, constitute quantum reality
https://iai.tv/articles/many-minds-not-many-worlds-constitute-quantum-reality-auid-3565?_auid=2020
INTRO: A century after the birth of quantum mechanics, many are still puzzled by the idea that Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously alive and dead. The mystery drives some of our most prominent physicists to embrace the bizarre idea that reality constantly splits into a near infinity of parallel worlds, of which ours is just one. Philosopher of physics Nadia Blackshaw argues that this “many worlds” interpretation goes wrong not only in its extravagant multiplying of entities, but in its attempt to adopt a “view from nowhere,” describing reality from no particular perspective. She proposes instead a “many minds” interpretation, in which the cat is alive from one perspective and dead from another. It’s time physics took conscious perspectives seriously. (MORE - details)
OTHER (scivillage): Emergent particles are real
RE: Many minds, not many worlds, constitute quantum reality - Syne - May 6, 2026
That seems like a very "philosophical" attempt at physics. Talking about "first-person perspective" doesn't explain why we observe the effects of superposition (interference patterns, etc.), because the objective view, shared by many observers, is not "first-person." Trying to abandon the measurement problem for one of "personal identity and metaphysics" sounds like woo.
I have a lot of sympathy for how unparsimonious the Many Worlds interpretations is. I'm not sure MMI succeeds any better, especially compared to other interpretations.
RE: Many minds, not many worlds, constitute quantum reality - stryder - May 6, 2026
I still stick to my current theory.
One visable universe where small paradoxical deviations can be exploited. These deviations however can not be used to catalyse a new universe, doing so would undermine thermodynamics as it would either require new energy from no where or the universe to run on less than the amount it normally has to compensate for two different universes with two distinct states. While it could be implied that a wavecollapse would lead to one or other outcome, there is a third option that neither outcome is picked, which would lead to entropy.
However this one visable universe was born from one very big bang at the beginning (at least in name sake), in that particular instance many distinct worlds could of been forged using the available energy in which the universe we exist has a finite quanta from.
In a nutshell, we could potentially exploit paradoxes for certain uses but can't deviate our universe too far or will suffer from competion over which one remains. And other parallels universes could exist but would require being born at the same time as our universe (we'd be in a different physical space due to timespace shift even if we were very close neighbours originally).