Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > > Perhaps someone can clear something up for me.
> > > > Does the MWI solve the observer problem? As far
> > > > as I can tell it simply replaces the question,
> > > > "why do I observe this state", with, "why do I
> > > > observe this world".
> > >
> > > It answers that question as well, by random chance.
> > So it doesn't answer the question.
> Why is that not a satisfactory answer? You don't like
> that God plays dice with the universe?
It's currently a show of intellectual bravado to claim that one is comfortable with randomness. Perhaps some believe that we're so 'in touch' with the universe that our only unsolved problem is that of getting something from nothing. This, to me, seems arrogant to the point of being wrong.
It's not that I don't like that God plays dice it's that I'm not eager to attribute everything to indeterminacy at such an early stage. To accept chance as doctrine is to give up on a problem.
(The reason I asked the original question was because I had been given the impression that MWI gave a better explanation of the observer problem than other interpretations. Clearly it does not.)