302
M. Svrˇ cek
(which follows from the representations of interacting systems). Nevertheless, there
is a representation in terms of a superposition, each element of which contains a
definite observer state and a corresponding system state. Thus with each succeeding
observation (or interaction), the observer state “branches” into a number of different
states. Each branch represents a different outcome of the measurement and the corresponding eigenstate for the object-system state. All branches exist simultaneously
in the superposition after any given sequence of observations” [17].
One can assume that Everett’s understanding was inspired by Mach’s principle
of psychophysical paralysis [42] which otherwise also might have inspired Einstein
in his theory of relativity. Everett assigns a similar role and position to the observer
as ocurring in Einstein’s theory of relativity. But there is one significant difference:
Whereas in the theory of relativity the observer can be a “body without soul”, quantum theory does not allow this in general. For instance the subject (the observer with
conscious mind) and the object (the physical word) are not completely interchangeable, since there always must remain “something” from the object as well as from
the subject. Goethe was not only a great poet but a great mystic as well. Once he
said: “Alles, was im Subject ist, ist im Object und noch etwas mehr. Alles, was im
Object ist, ist im Subject und noch etwas mehr.” [43] And just this is the reason
why the external reality hypothesis (ERH) should not be valid any more in quantum
physics, which incorporates the roles of both—object and subject, in contrast with
classical physics that concentrates fully only on the external material world. ERH
was reformulated by Tegmark [44] as follows: “There exists an external physical
reality completely independent of us humans.” Hence Tegmark still believes in its
validity and claims, and, if it is true, it is a sufficient condition for the justification of
the MWI interpretation.
The MWI interpretation has recently inspired many physicists in their efforts to
explain classicality as an emergent property of open quantum systems induced by
their environments. This is best known as the quantum decoherence program. Zurek
[45] introduced a new vernacular to describe the process of wavefunction collapse
as well as elucidate the emergence of classical descriptions of reality appearing from
quantum descriptions viz. einselection, the latter standing for environment—induced
superselection. Although an excellent idea, it was inaptly set into the framework of
the Everettian MWI. Such a concept will not work since it leads to a circular argument and therefore was rejected by a large part of the scientific community. Kastner
[46] did perform a detailed analysis of this circularity quote, unquote: “In attempting to derive irreversible macroscopic thermodynamics from reversible microscopic
dynamics, Boltzmann inadvertently smuggled in a premise that assumed the very
irreversibility he was trying to prove: ‘molecular chaos.’ The program of ‘Einselection’ (environmentally induced superselection) within Everettian approaches faces
a similar ‘Loschmidt’s Paradox’: the universe, according to the Everettian picture,
is a closed system obeying only unitary dynamics, and it therefore contains no distinguishable environmental subsystems with the necessary ‘phase randomness’ to
effect einselection of a pointer observable. The theoretically unjustified assumption
of distinguishable environmental subsystems is the hidden premise that makes the
M. Svrˇ cek
(which follows from the representations of interacting systems). Nevertheless, there
is a representation in terms of a superposition, each element of which contains a
definite observer state and a corresponding system state. Thus with each succeeding
observation (or interaction), the observer state “branches” into a number of different
states. Each branch represents a different outcome of the measurement and the corresponding eigenstate for the object-system state. All branches exist simultaneously
in the superposition after any given sequence of observations” [17].
One can assume that Everett’s understanding was inspired by Mach’s principle
of psychophysical paralysis [42] which otherwise also might have inspired Einstein
in his theory of relativity. Everett assigns a similar role and position to the observer
as ocurring in Einstein’s theory of relativity. But there is one significant difference:
Whereas in the theory of relativity the observer can be a “body without soul”, quantum theory does not allow this in general. For instance the subject (the observer with
conscious mind) and the object (the physical word) are not completely interchangeable, since there always must remain “something” from the object as well as from
the subject. Goethe was not only a great poet but a great mystic as well. Once he
said: “Alles, was im Subject ist, ist im Object und noch etwas mehr. Alles, was im
Object ist, ist im Subject und noch etwas mehr.” [43] And just this is the reason
why the external reality hypothesis (ERH) should not be valid any more in quantum
physics, which incorporates the roles of both—object and subject, in contrast with
classical physics that concentrates fully only on the external material world. ERH
was reformulated by Tegmark [44] as follows: “There exists an external physical
reality completely independent of us humans.” Hence Tegmark still believes in its
validity and claims, and, if it is true, it is a sufficient condition for the justification of
the MWI interpretation.
The MWI interpretation has recently inspired many physicists in their efforts to
explain classicality as an emergent property of open quantum systems induced by
their environments. This is best known as the quantum decoherence program. Zurek
[45] introduced a new vernacular to describe the process of wavefunction collapse
as well as elucidate the emergence of classical descriptions of reality appearing from
quantum descriptions viz. einselection, the latter standing for environment—induced
superselection. Although an excellent idea, it was inaptly set into the framework of
the Everettian MWI. Such a concept will not work since it leads to a circular argument and therefore was rejected by a large part of the scientific community. Kastner
[46] did perform a detailed analysis of this circularity quote, unquote: “In attempting to derive irreversible macroscopic thermodynamics from reversible microscopic
dynamics, Boltzmann inadvertently smuggled in a premise that assumed the very
irreversibility he was trying to prove: ‘molecular chaos.’ The program of ‘Einselection’ (environmentally induced superselection) within Everettian approaches faces
a similar ‘Loschmidt’s Paradox’: the universe, according to the Everettian picture,
is a closed system obeying only unitary dynamics, and it therefore contains no distinguishable environmental subsystems with the necessary ‘phase randomness’ to
effect einselection of a pointer observable. The theoretically unjustified assumption
of distinguishable environmental subsystems is the hidden premise that makes the