Hacker News Reader

In any interpretation, it seems the same question remains:

Copenhagen: Why did the wave collapse into state A and not B,C,...

MSI: Why am "I" in multiverse branch A, and not B,C,...? (and who am "I" anyway?)

Pilot wave: Why is the pseudo-random seed = A', which I can only see indirectly by observing experiment result state A?

Brilliant - this is perhaps one of the clearest explanations of the disagreement between each of these interpretations I've seen, and it makes crystal clear why we can't hope to observe any differences: the questions are all fundamentally "why" questions, which we can almost never make direct observations to resolve.

At the root, we're always asking why some random variable ended up in a certain state. Our "interpretation" just changes where we ram that annoying random variable into our theory, which largely depends on where we're most philosophically comfortable with uncertainty showing up.

You are in A wondering why you are in A. You are also in B wondering why you are in B, and so on. It's all perfectly consistent.

I am in A, though. Maybe another me is in B, but why is this me in A?

'this me' in your sentence just refers to the one that is in A. Thus you seem to be asking "why is the version of me, that is in A, in A?". It just is by the definition of the object ('this me') your asking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com