On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the
fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone
else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world
of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between
them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws
and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of
worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden
variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very
much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting.
MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized
to this day - assumptions built in at the start.
?
MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without
collapse).
It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a
multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe,
a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a
multiverse though).
It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal.
Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence
of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of
the tensor products.
But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we
perceive,
As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive" locality by
itself.
and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens
when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark
is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that
everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right
out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are
upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take
place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together.
We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality
it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that
it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is
against that.
Personally, even without comp and without QM, "everything" is
conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always
needs much more particular assumptions.
There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are
duplicated "as is" between higher and lower macrostate layers.
MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is.
Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words.
Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that to
bet on different one?
When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6
denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have
happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived
clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical
strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things
like local realism.
I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a consequence
of the SWE.
They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal
theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing
progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving
theory structure alone.
MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was
only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the
greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it,
because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion
like MWI could be taken seriously at all.
Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from
assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary
evolution.
MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to
quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism.
Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any other
(sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE "seen from
inside", restore not classical determinism, but also, well, local
locality and well local realism.
It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are
that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles,
That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just
science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will remain
with us, indeed.
hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right
here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A
theory sterile for all time, placed all around the boundaries beyond
the frontiers of science, that can never be discoverex, never be
passed through, never be built over, or under. It's an act of murder
of the human and scientific dreamss
Hmm...
I don't want to defend the truth of QM, or the truth of comp, or the
truth of the MW. But I do believe that QM, or just comp, implies the
Many World.
Now, let us be careful. Computationalism implies that we don't need to
assume more than the natural numbers and their + and * laws. So,
strictly speaking, it is a 0-world theory, or a 0-physical-world
theory. With comp, worlds "made-of-matter" are only a first person
plural view, but then that inside view is, from inside arithmetic,
structured as a multiverse. So no universe at all is "real", but our
"physical universe" is not more real than the "parallel universe".
It is reassuring for me that you seem to have the same difficulties
with Everett than with comp's consequence. That is at least coherent.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
