On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated so we know >> for sure that in the Many Worlds Interpretation, just like every other >> quantum interpretation, at least one of the following must be wrong: >> >> > 1) Realism (things exist in a definite state even if they are not measured) >> 2) Determinism >> 3) Locality >> The Many Worlds Interpretation is realistic so if it's true then nothing >> determines if the universe splits or not (it's random) >> > > > > It's not random! >
MWI is realistic and if it's deterministic too then we know from the violation of Bell's inequality that for it to be true it must be non-local; and to my mind that is far more disturbing than if some things were just random. > > > The whole point of MWI is that it all happens, and the randomness arises > from which branch "you" end up in (ah, the pronouns again!). > No, Everett didn't develop the MWI because he was desperate to find a deterministic theory, he did it to explain quantum weirdness, and randomness is one of the least weird parts of it; in fact I don't think that's weird at all, but non-local is weird. You'll never find something if you don't look for it so for practical reasons it is often useful to have "every event has a cause" as your default position, and in many cases events do have causes, but there is no logical reason to think all of them do. John K Clark -- 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.
