On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:13:02 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 17-09-2019 16:04, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is [1]
> >>
> >> John K Clark
> >>
> >> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
> >> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory,
> > math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to
> > call it) in computational quantum mechanics:
> >
> >
> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>
> >
> > If MW were important, it would be there.
> >
> > @philipthrift
>
> The fact that computational quantum mechanics works at all is very
> strong evidence for the MWI. That the MWI in the sense of the idea that
> you have copies out there that have experienced different things, has no
> practical applications is similar to saying that the idea that you are
> ultimately reducible to only chemistry has no practical applications.
> The question whether or not biology is merely a branch of chemistry has
> been answered and this has some applications, but at the level of human
> beings in the way they interact with each other, this is just an
> academic question. The same is pretty much true for quantum mechanics
> and the MWI, or at least the "Many Words" part of the MWI, as the some
> details if the MWI still need to be fleshed out.
>
> Thing is that if the MWI is wrong then that implies new physics in an
> area that no one is expecting. Physicists are expecting new physics to
> appear at high energies, e.g. supersymmetry may be discovered. But no
> one expects that quantum mechanics will fail to hold up. What's
> unexpected may still happen, but it's just not plausible given
> everything we do know.
>
> Saibal
>
>
That there is a a different kind of "probability "space" underlying QM does
not imply MWI.
In fact. MWI is a probability ("extended" or not) eliminative theory (or
framework, or interpretation, or formulation, or whatever word physicists
are happy with).
@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3693709d-2981-4a70-91b2-9e5f9ebf80db%40googlegroups.com.
