> On 17 Jun 2018, at 12:15, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com > <mailto:agrayson2...@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 > <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.
I agree. The fact that independent approach leads to the same conclusion put much weigh on the MWI. Computationalism implies it, and without assuming anything more than elementary arithmetic. The problem here is that most people continue to work in the Aristotelian paradigm, with mechanism in the background, but that is logically inconsistent. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
