On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:46:31 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 18 June 2018 at 05:04, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 11:43:33 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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 > > I have the impression that you insist on the classical view of > reality. If this view were correct, universes would have to be > "created out of thing air" for the MWI to work. In the sense that all > the actual particles and their properties would have to be physically > copied to create a new world where Joe the Plumber witnesses a certain > experimental outcome. This does not pass the "smell test" indeed, > because then one would have to explain the copying mechanism. But: >
*No "but's" about it! That's the 800 pound gorilla in the room that Many Worlder's studiously ignore. There's no proposed mechanism to explain the copying! They will appeal to the mathematics, which they rely on uncritically. But it's obvious that such reliance can lead to ridiculous results if taken literally. For example, Maxwell's equations have plane wave solutions, but plane waves don't exist! Think about what a plane wave is; all peaks and troughs extend to infinity, advancing along an infinite plane in every direction. And No, I don't have a classical view of reality, but neither do I fall in love with BS. AG* > > For a long time there has been overwhelming experimental evidence that > the building blocks of reality are not akin to billiard balls > colliding. They are something else, something that necessarily we > cannot make sense of by applying our experience of reality at our > level of observation. Objects that we directly observe are not in two > different states at the same time, nor do they interfere with > themselves to create waves. So any hope of coming up with an > explanation that does not feel weird to us is far away in the > rear-view mirror. > > Many people, me included (not that that is worth much, I'm not a > physicist), feel that the MWI is the simplest explanation so far. It > posits that the universe is even bigger than we thought (a common > theme in scientific progress throughout the ages), *If you accept inflation, which I more or less do, the universe is likely immensely bigger than we previously imagined; by many orders of magnitude. I have no problem with this conclusion. AG* and in fact it has room for all possible outcomes of all events*. * *Some argue that if time is infinite in the past, and space infinite in all directions, all possible outcome must occur, and with infinite repetitions. I am not convinced of the premises or the conclusions, but I don't rule this out categorically. My gut says universes are unique. No infinite repetitions. AG* But Joe the Plumber can > only perceive one outcome at a time. For me this gets rid of all the > magic, namely observer effects and randomness. > > The billiard ball model accepts physical laws that work like this: > > U -> U' > > Some event takes place in the universe at state U, and the universe > moves to the next state U'. > > Once you get rid of this model (which cannot be right), you can > conceive that physics allows for things such as: > > U -> U' ^ U'' > > In this case the event has two possible outcomes, and both outcomes > are real. Furthermore, Darwinism explains why this would feel weird to > us -- and why such feeling has no bearing on the truth of the matter. > We evolved in a world that is very effectively approximated by > classical physics. > > Telmo. > > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. > >> > 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-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.
