>>12710075>Is it even hypothetically possible to prove the many worlds interpretation? Personally I'm sticking to Copenhagen, as it seems to gel more accurately with reality, Physicists are largely well educated in positivism, and the ideas of many-worlds are nearly identical to Copenhagen once you accept positivism? it is the observations that define what the words mean, not the ideas that are produced in your head. So it doesn't matter if many-worlds sounds out there and Copenhagen seems to "gel more accurately with reality", they are talking about what amounts to the same thing.
Many-worlds is a cleaner and more complete explanation of how Copenhagen works in detail, it motivates quantum computation and decoherence more clearly, and both of these things make interesting physics. So many-worlds makes it easier to understand quantum mechanics, and before you are fully positivist, it is useful pedagogically, so that you don't worry about philosophy. It's a quick and dirty explanations of what is going on, without any philosophy.
An observation in Everett is simply entanglement of an observer with a quantum system, and the selection of which branch becomes "real" is a mental event, analogous to the consciousness "choosing" which way to go absolutely randomly according to the Born rule (so it's not a conscious choice in any way).
There is nothing particularly strange about this, as it involves the embedding of mental states into a physical description, something you always need to make sense of positivism and science, how do the sensations map onto physical things? It doesn't matter if it's a person, a cat, or a computer.
The positivism means you can also reject the other branches as "nonexisting", whatever you want.
Many worlds, Copenhagen, Many minds, Ensemble, quantum logic, Consciousness causes collapse, Shut-up and calculate, Decoherence, Consistent Histories.. They're all the same.
