everett

It's just convenient that Everett had the only 'in' with the community and so is the de facto expert.

The Everett Interpretation is best thought of as the idea that collapse just doesn't happen.

If you take those ideas seriously, you're forced into the Everett interpretation.

This is merely saying that you believe in Everett style interpretations, which have so far failed to explain the appearance of non-linear processes in quantum mechanics satisfactorily.

I'd love to hear why Penrose really thinks the Everett interpretation is crazy.

And Everett is a famous guy, a physics Ph.

Of course, the usual notation used for l is lambda, and for a while around DC Everett ran Lambda Corporation which did resource allocation problems for the US DoD.

Why is Everett prohibited from going back?

While it is far more likely that Everett is wrong, science has to start somewhere, and Pirahã people exist on this planet and other people could go check the story.

Off topic, but it's pretty funny to watch Everett give a talk to a room full of generative-trained syntacticians, just to see how angry everyone gets during the Q/A section.

I'm personally a fan of the Everett interpretation.

As far as I know (and my knowledge of QM can charitably be described as 'nonexistant') if you ignore intuitions and simply resolve the math, the Everett interpretation is what pops out of the equations.

We are clearly "north" of the lake, and more apart of Everett than say Bellevue.

One example is "Sherlock" by Everett Kaser.

If there are a few hundred "innovators" (in the Everett Rogers/Crossing the Chasm sense) who were so alienated by bad service during the beta that they will never ever use it again, even when it becomes a good service...well, that sucks but has no bearing on the ultimate success or failure of the service.

The first one was in Mill Creek (a rich area south of Everett), the cops weren't allowed to take discounts.

Everett might have some interesting hypotheses, but what he's doing isn't what you could call peer-reviewable.

Everett (the linguist who made the claims) is quite insistent that this is the case, many other linguists are not.