On 6/17/2018 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <[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, 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
It is important to make the distinction between our intuition and
common sense and actual formal reasoning. The former can guide the
latter very successfully, but the history of science teaches us that
this is not always the case. You don't provide an argument, you just
present your gut feeling as if it were the same thing as irrefutable
fact.
I think Scott Aaronson has the right attitude toward this:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=326
Brent
--
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.
