On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:43:33 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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. > > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <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 [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.
