quote: Dr. Henry Stapp's writings are extremely interesting. He seems to prove, analyzing the brain research, that the quantum choice is coming "from nowhere", from some transcendent "world of mind".
Surely brain research could only show that the "choice" (if there is one - I would think that the "many-worlds" interpretation denies it) does not come from the brain. Which would hardly surprise those who think that it has nothing to do with the mind at all.
If the "choice" is what is more often called "collapse" then:
If "many-worlds" is true every possible outcome happens so there is nothing that could be called a "choice"
Brain research can only show that the presumed "choice" is or is not caused by something in the brain. If it shows "not" then I cannot see how we can jump to a cause coming from "some transcendent world of mind". Not when we don't know that there is a cause or even a "choice". Brain research in itself cannot even rule out causes outside the brain.
I think you missed the point. In that post I equated choice to the collapse of the wave function. Human choices didn't enter into it. And, as I said in a more recent post, I don't believe that there is a significant relationship between the two.
That is irrelevant to your misunderstanding - and I will point out that we can certainly deal with individual cases of collapsing wave functions without considering the entire universe. The brain is not so special that we can consider it entangled with "the entire universe" in any sense that does not apply to other systems.
Even if you are correct that would only mean that isolated atoms and particles in experiments are special in NOT being connected to everything else - and then only for a time. And I don't think that you are correct.
In fact I do agree with it. Note that it states that the only significance to human observation is the change in the observer's knowledge. The shift from an ensemble of possible states to one actual state occurs in the interaction with the measuring device.
Quantum mechanics dictates the probability distribution, having effects at the macroscopic level apparently causes the shift. The nature of the shift is unknown (which is where we find the interpretations of QM)
Offering my hopefully-informed layman’s point of view.
It’s highly plausible that there are multiple (local) universes, likely with variations of physical law.
The idea of diverging timelines is about as good as any other interpretation of QM, possibly a little better than most. So, still plausible.
If there are multiple universes, and the number is insanely huge there would be someone like you. Whether they would be you - even if identical - is a philosophical question.
With multiple timelines you would definitely exist in more than one. The timeline would diverge many times during your lifetime.
Mathematics let’s us construct models of reality. We can use statistics to show how those models reflect reality (if they’re so good that the differences from our measurements are likely to be problems with the measurements then we usually say that the models are true.).
Also, the models can have features that we can’t observe - but if the model is good and the features aren’t tacked on then that is pretty good evidence for those features. That is the case with the “loads of different universes” multiverse, which follows from most versions of Inflation (in the cosmological sense).