On 14 May 2012, at 22:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

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.

But that is true for any conception. 0 universes, 1 universes, etc.


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.

They have use it without knowing. They use the collapse methodologically, and they are not interested in reality, but in practical applications. But they do use "state superposition", and they do know the equation is linear. A cosmologists asked me a long time ago if it makes logical sense to apply QM to the cosmos. I said "yes" if we abandon the collapse of the wave and refer him to Everett. In his paper he just added a tiny footnote referring to Everett. Some ideas are shocking, for cultural reason, and are accepted in some silencious way.

If you study the UD Argument, you can understand that elementary arithmetic leads already to many worlds, with very weak version of comp. This shocks some of us, like the idea that the Earth is round, and turns around the sun can be shocking. But it is just much simpler for the big picture sense.

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
never work.

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.

Sure. This is because they focuses on the accessible reality, and for them, an electronic orbital is like a map where to find an electron. They use both the wave, which gives the shape of the orbital, and the collapse, to describe the result. They don't focus of what is real in case QM applies to 'them + the electron', for they focus only on the electron. Now, if one say that there is a collapse, then one just use an inconsistent fuzzy theory which has never really work. here we discuss everything, not just electron.

They use quantum mechanics according to instrumentalism and, as I have written, they have been successful.

For their result, yes. With respect to the big picture, they don't ask. It is their right. We are just not tackling the same question.

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.

But this is a different job. I am not interested in electron, but in question like what is an electron, is it real, where its appearance comes from, etc.

That was my point, try to apply multiverse ideas to develop a new drug more productively.

Using QM, and being aware the collapse is non sensical (or could be) means that you use the multiverse idea, because that is QM (without collapse). People can easily use theories, without trying to get the deep and annoying (for them) consequences. It change also the picture of possible after-life, in which case we are all using it all the time.

I would say that it will not work, because the collapse of wave function is irrelevant at this level.

It is not so much a question of level, than a question of personal interest. You don't need to have the correct interpretation of a theory to use it, like you can drive a car without knowing anything in thermodynamic. Instrumentalism is fine for application, but our goal here is not application, but more like attempts toward possible truth contemplation.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to