Neither is the wave function collapse, but it is much simpler a concept. The most common objection “how does it do that?” is now irrelevant, since the collapse is not “ontologically fundamental”.
How does collapse appear as a non-ontological phenomenon?
The “worlds” are a phenomenon...
And now you are talking about it like it is some real thing, not an emotional crutch.
Well it was you who brought up “worlds” in the first place! I’m happy to just talk about a wave function on all of Hilbert space evolving through time.
(EDIT: I just noticed I used “Hilbert space” wrongly in this post and the grandparent. I meant to say something like “classical configuration space”. The Hilbert space is the space of complex functions on the configuration space.
I think. QM has so many vector spaces inside each other my brain sometimes melts.)
How does collapse appear as a non-ontological phenomenon?
Well it was you who brought up “worlds” in the first place! I’m happy to just talk about a wave function on all of Hilbert space evolving through time.
(EDIT: I just noticed I used “Hilbert space” wrongly in this post and the grandparent. I meant to say something like “classical configuration space”. The Hilbert space is the space of complex functions on the configuration space.
I think. QM has so many vector spaces inside each other my brain sometimes melts.)