On 6/18/2018 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 6/17/2018 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <agrayson2...@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.
I think Scott Aaronson has the right attitude toward this:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=326 [3]
As such a strong believer in quantum computers (he's staked $100,000
of his own money on the future construction of large scale quantum
computers), I would love to ask Scott Aaronson what he thinks about
running a conscious AI on such a quantum computer. That trivially
leads to "many worlds" at least as seen by that AI.
If it's so trivial maybe you can explain it. And you don't have
wonder about Aaronson thinks, go check his blog. I'm pretty sure he's
posted about it.
QM also tells us that Wigner's friend, is no different from that "AI
running on a quantum computer".
I get kind of tire do being told that QM tells us this or that. QM
is just another theory. Ptolemy's theory told us the Sun went around
the Earth. You do realize that QM is inconsistent with GR?
Brent
