On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 6:23:58 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:40 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 2:56:42 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:01 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> And you forgot 3- it's always the same matter in w0 and w1, just seen >>>> from another POV, like a circle in a 2d plane could be thought to be from >>>> a >>>> sphere or a cylinder intersecting a 2d plane, so if you see the many 2d >>>> planes intersecting the cylinder, they see each a part of it, no new >>>> circle >>>> are created on each plane. >>>> >>> >>> That seems similar to the view of Chad Orzel: >>> >>> https://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/11/20/manyworlds-and-decoherence >>> >>> His idea is that there aren't many worlds, just the wave function of the >>> universe. So there is no splitting and no multiplication of worlds, there >>> is just the wave function. And our world is just our path through this wave >>> function. This is, therefore, a single world interpretation since we see >>> only one world. The other parts of the wave function may exist, but they >>> are not worlds like ours. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> Philip Ball talks about Hossenfelder's take, then Orzel's take: >> >> >> https://philipball.blogspot.com/2019/09/just-how-conceptually-economical-is.html >> : >> > > Ball's analysis is very much to the point -- there is no compelling > evidence for many worlds and, despite the claims, Everettian approaches > make just as many extra assumptions as other approaches -- they are just > not as open about their additional assumptions/postulates. > > "Here, then, is the key point: you are *not* obliged to accept the “other > worlds” of the MWI, but I believe you *are* obliged to reject its claims > to economy of postulates. Anything can look simple and elegant if you sweep > all the complications under the rug." (Ball) > > Bruce >
via BackReAction (by @skdh): http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569595660330#c5108725356973561367 Phillip Helbig "What is your explanation as to why many people who are obviously very smart like ... Sean Carroll, etc. subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation?" Replies: Sabine Hossenfelder *"I'm a physicist, not a psychologist."* @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/c404b671-0abb-4cf0-891b-89b3d0a20c6a%40googlegroups.com.
