On 14.05.2012 10:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse. When
you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start
thinking about it.
On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one reason
really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative argument. Science is
not a question of majority vote.
My empirical observations just shows that the easiness and obviousness
that you stress to accept multiverse seems to be overestimated. The life
seems to be more complex.
Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time and
I would say they have been already successful without a multiverse.
No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to talk
In my view, your position that chemists have used multiverse all the
time contradicts to historical facts.
with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent for
themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid the
contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to avoid
looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain personal
conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM = multiverse. The collapse
of the wave is already an invention to hide the multiverse, and it has
You should look what molecular simulation is. It has nothing to do with
the collapse of wave function. Whether wave function collapses or not,
for chemists it does not matter. They use quantum mechanics according to
instrumentalism and, as I have written, they have been successful.
Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse
interpretation, they will start working more productively?
They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he taught
chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true only on
little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate Bell's
inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he revised his
opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true macroscopically, and
that it makes the weirdness a real fact of life. De Broglie behaves like
ghat too. This illustrates that people can use a theory, without taking
it seriously, because they follow their wishful conviction. It is
typical for humans to do that.
Again, you need to look at what molecular simulation is. What you write
has nothing to do with molecular simulation, nor with the way how
chemists develop new molecules and materials.
That was my point, try to apply multiverse ideas to develop a new drug
more productively. I would say that it will not work, because the
collapse of wave function is irrelevant at this level.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at