> On 17 Jun 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Jason Resch < <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, < >> <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >> <mailto:[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) > > Well no, it is an interpretation of the SE, involving the reification of the > wave function. So it is not 'just' the Schrödinger equation.
It is of course the meaning of the SWE, or a solution of it (but here the solutions makes a Hilbert space, and that plays some role). You need a reification only if you believe in an ontological universe, but that is true with Newton too, and indeed, with Mechanism, that cannot work. > >> 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) > > Maybe the collapse is real. Then the SWE is false. Unitarity is false. > >> 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 > > MWI is still a non-local theory. FTL influences or not, QM is intrinsically > non-local. If there is no FTL, there is still d’Espagnat inseparability. OK. Usually, non locality assumes FTL influences, even if they cannot be used to transfer information. But this is mere vocabulary. With the MW, there is no FTL, and I think this is what Jason was pointing to. > >> 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) > > Rubbish. The functioning of quantum computers is not dependent on MWI. Many > worlds is, after all, only an interpretation. Not the reality of anything at > all. 0 world, 1 world, 2 worlds, … omega worlds, 2ômega worlds, … once you mention a world, a god or a reality, that is interpretation.But that can be tested most of the times, albeit more indirectly. > >> 5. Unlike copenhagen-type theories, it attributes no special physical >> abilities to observers or measurement devices > > Which version of the CI are you referring to? There are as many "Copenhagen > Interpretations" as there are citizens of Copenhagen. Bohr's original theory > did not refer to observers or make experiments central. He merely thought > that quantum phenomena were understandable only in the context of a classical > world. Everett leads to a (materialist monism, which fails to address the computationalist measure problem, but do address the quantum measure problem). Copenhagen leads to the unintelligible dualism between the observer and the observed. > >> 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). > > Unfortunately, Russell's attempt to derive quantum mechanics from the plenum > of all possible bit strings failed at the first step. So you don't have much > support from this. > >> Given #6, we should revise our view > > But we don't have #6. See the discussion I had with Russell on this list some > time ago. He had to admit that his derivation of QM failed. > >> 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. > > No, the weirdness of the violation of the Bell inequalities and non-locality > remains, even in MWI. Once there is no FTL, I don’t see any problem here. The non-locality is made explainable, even if this requires the many-worlds, which is the only remaining weirdness , but that is not more weird than when Giordano Bruno suggested the existence of other planets. > >> 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 think other possibilities are still available, and generally more > acceptable. > > MWI has problems of its own. Particularly with the preferred basis problem > and the derivation of Born's rule from within many worlds in a non-circular > way. Gleason theorem solves that problem, but “worlds” should not be taken too much seriously. There are only histories, and eventually only numbers with addition and multiplication. Bruno > > Bruce > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
