Then explain what you mean more clearly. Also, how is the observer distinguished from the measuree?
More clearly how? It's pretty simple the way I wrote it. If the "observer" and the "measuree" are different stores of information into which the measurement places the particle/wave in relationship, then they are "distinguished" by that simple fact of their difference.
Let's say you roll a six-sided and it comes up 4. You cup your hand over it so I can't see and invite me into the room. I, having not seen the roll, believe as I enter that the die retains the possibilities of 1-6. I choose to rely on you to tell me what number it is. You tell me it's a 2. Assuming I consider your statement reliable, the die is now a 2 in my mind, a 4 in yours, and 1-6 to anyone who hasn't made any determination yet. There's your "multiverse", right there. No need to get all tangled up in irresolvable and untestable metaphysics.
It could simply be that QM unveils a problem of
epistemology and not a matter of
ontology. In that sense, CI's "incompleteness" is a reflection of the uncertainty between our use of models to predict and explain reality in the bits and pieces by which we observe and organize it in thought, and the totality of the unfragmented flow of energy/matter/whatever that operates aside from thought. It seems incomplete if one shoehorns CI into the box labeled "ontological explanations" and refuses to consider that it might actually just be an epistemological one.
Heisenberg,
Physics and Philosophy:
Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves . . . What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Neils Bohr (credited with originally fashioning CI):
There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.
John Wheeler:
Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists “out there” independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.
You're with Einstein, as are proponents of a purely ontological MWI. They cannot accept that the bits of information we string together for predictive models will never represent the full and true state of the universe, but merely will reflect the way we identify things, relate them to one another and use the information so accumulated. Of course, even Einstein died frustrated that he could never offer a purely ontological solution to the epistemological problem revealed by QM.
If "God" is thought and the substratum of grammar (which I think it is), then "God" does, indeed, play dice.
