On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/17/2018 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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]
<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)
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
<https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=326>
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.
