It isn’t a list of questions, it is a list of assertions about state of the state of the universe made by rQM paired with differing ones made by MWI. If you can spot the MWI ones, you can figout the rQM ones. If you can’t, Ill pull out the rQM ones:
There is no universal state.
There is universal basis.
State is a observer’s map,
“Collapse” is receipt of information by an observer, not an objective process.
There is an ontology of relations.
Observers cannot disagree about information, but can have different levels of information.
“There is no universal state.” is barely an assertion about the state of the universe. Okay, there’s no “universal state”. What is there instead? I can’t write a simulation of a universe with “no universal state” without further information.
It isn’t a list of questions, it is a list of assertions about state of the state of the universe made by rQM paired with differing ones made by MWI. If you can spot the MWI ones, you can figout the rQM ones. If you can’t, Ill pull out the rQM ones:
There is no universal state.
There is universal basis.
State is a observer’s map,
“Collapse” is receipt of information by an observer, not an objective process.
There is an ontology of relations.
Observers cannot disagree about information, but can have different levels of information.
“There is no universal state.” is barely an assertion about the state of the universe. Okay, there’s no “universal state”. What is there instead? I can’t write a simulation of a universe with “no universal state” without further information.
Are you having trouble understanding the published materials as well?