On Sunday, June 17, 2018, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:29:35 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:26 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * why do you prefer the MWI compared to the Transactional >>>>> Interpretation? I see both as absurd. so I prefer to assume the wf is just >>>>> epistemic, and/or that we have some holes in the CI which have yet to be >>>>> resolved. AG * >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. It's the simplest theory: "MWI" is just the Schrodinger equation, >>>> nothing else. (it doesn't say Schrodinger's equation only applies >>>> sometimes, or only at certain scales) >>>> >>>> 2. It explains more while assuming less (it explains the appearance of >>>> collapse, without having to assume it, thus is preferred by Occam's razor) >>>> >>>> 3. Like every other successful physical theory, it is linear, >>>> reversible (time-symmetric), continuous, deterministic and does not require >>>> faster than light influences nor retrocausalities >>>> >>>> 4. Unlike single-universe or epistemic interpretations, "WF is real" >>>> with MWI is the only way we know how to explain the functioning of quantum >>>> computers (now up to 51 qubits) >>>> >>>> 5. Unlike copenhagen-type theories, it attributes no special physical >>>> abilities to observers or measurement devices >>>> >>>> 6. Most of all, theories of everything that assume a reality containing >>>> all possible observers and observations lead directly to laws/postulates of >>>> quantum mechanics (see Russell Standish's Theory of Nothing >>>> <http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf>, Chapter 7 and >>>> Appendix D). >>>> >>>> Given #6, we should revise our view. It is not MWI and QM that should >>>> convince us of many worlds, but rather the assumption of many worlds (an >>>> infinite and infinitely varied reality) that gives us, and *explains *all >>>> the weirdness of QM. This should overwhelmingly convince us of MWI-type >>>> everything theories over any single-universe interpretation of quantum >>>> mechanics, which is not only absurd, but completely devoid of explanation. >>>> With the assumption of a large reality, QM is made explainable and >>>> understandable: as a theory of observation within an infinite reality. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> *You forgot #7. It asserts multiple, even infinite copies of an >>> observer, replete with memories, are created when an observer does a simple >>> quantum experiment. So IMO the alleged "cure" is immensely worse than the >>> disease, CI, that is, just plain idiotic. AG * >>> >>> >>> >> There are many atoms, many planets, many solar systems, many galaxies, >> many Hubble volumes, and it is believed many universes. On what basis are >> you so certain there aren't many histories? (That is, other states in the >> wave function that are predicted to be there by our well established >> scientific theories, but which the theory explains we cannot see or >> interact with except in very limited controlled manners)? >> >> If you find MWI distasteful you might prefer to think of it as the >> many-minds interpretation as described by Heinz-Dieter Zeh, or the >> "zero-universe interpretation" as explained by Ron Garrett: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc >> >> I think you are hung up on the "creation", I think it is conceptually >> easier to grasp under the understanding that it is all already there. If >> you look at the homepage of Wei Dai (who founded this e-mailing list >> <http://www.weidai.com/everything.html> 20 years ago) he outlines what >> he calls "a very simple interpretation of quantum mechanics >> <http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt>" which is basically this: >> all the states are already there. >> > > *Sounds like Super-Determinism proposed by t'Hooft, and referenced > yesterday by Brent, which proposes the universe knows beforehand what kind > of experiment Joe the Plumber will perform. Too ridiculous for my tastes, > and of course untestable. IMO, one of the "achievements" of quantum theory > is to make otherwise intelligent persons totally gullible in what they > believe as plausible. AG* > >> >> I agree with you about super derterminism being too ridiculous to believe. But super derterminism is a different animal from "block time". Super derterminism is the idea that the universe conspires against all experimenters and knows what they will measure before they measure it, and chooses values they will measure to make things work out. It's reminiscent of Descartes evil demon. It requires an evil God.
But block time, the idea that the future points in time are as real as past and present points doesn't need super derterminism. It's actually implied by special relativity. Block time plus MWI means universes aren't created, they're all already there. We just are able to differentiate which one(s) we end up in when we measure something. What color is your toothbrush? Before the memory enters your consciousness you're in a super position of possibilities. Once you remember now you've isolated yourself to those universes where it has the particular color you remembered. That's all it is. Jason -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
