On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:43:33 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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. > > Jason presented you with a series of claims that need to be addressed > if you wish to refute his argument. Ignoring them and just writing > "idiotic" is not a valid argument. > > I also think you are being fooled by your idea of "creating a > universe". If the MWI is correct, then when the worlds bifurcate, the > memories of the past all come from the same parent state. I would say > that the MWI invites one to model reality more as a tree of states. > There are no entire universes being created out of thin air in the way > you seem to suggest. >
*So you agree that universes created out of thin air fail the smell test? But that's what your words, your "branches" as it were, imply. AG * > > One thing is certain: QM refutes the billiard-balls-colliding model of > reality. Again, any interpretation of it is going to seem extremely > weird when compared to the day-to-day experience of reality from the > spacial and temporal scale that we inhabit. > > > -- > > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
