Oh. Well, then, it’s no longer ‘obviously false’ as far as that goes (i.e. we haven’t done that experiment but I would be shocked at anything but one particular outcome), but the whole point of MWI is to not restrain QM to applying to the tiny. Unless something happens between there and macro to get rid of those other branches, stuff gonna break hard. So, yeah. As an approximation, go ahead, but don’t push it. And don’t try to use an approximation in arguments over ontology.
Oh. Well, then, it’s no longer ‘obviously false’ as far as that goes (i.e. we haven’t done that experiment but I would be shocked at anything but one particular outcome), but the whole point of MWI is to not restrain QM to applying to the tiny. Unless something happens between there and macro to get rid of those other branches, stuff gonna break hard. So, yeah. As an approximation, go ahead, but don’t push it. And don’t try to use an approximation in arguments over ontology.
Sorry, I forgot for a moment that the notion was designed to be untestable. Never mind.
What? All you need to do is falsify QM, and MWI is dead dead DEAD.
As I said, you identify QM with MWI. This is not the only option.
What is it, then?
Either the branches we don’t experience exist, or they don’t.
If they don’t, then what made us exist and them not?
Not this discussion again. Disengaging.
It’s never this discussion, since it never gets discussed, but OK!