On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact >>>>> with each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla >>>>> in the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with >>>>> zero >>>>> grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov. >>>>> AG* >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m not an “enthusiast”. It’s a physical theory not a football team. If >>>> anything I dislike the idea of all those alternative variants of me and my >>>> life. If MWI is disproved I’ll be perfectly happy. >>>> >>> >>> *It can't be disproved because it makes no verifiable predictions! AG* >>> >>> >>>> It’s just that it unfortunately makes more sense in my assessment than >>>> any other alternative, so I entertain it as the most likely explanation for >>>> the observed data. To say it has zero grounding in empirical data is simply >>>> false - it’s the theory that simply takes the empirical data to its >>>> logical conclusion without adding a collapse postulate. The wave function >>>> is the whole thing. Asking what the mechanism is for worlds to interfere >>>> with one another is the same as asking what the mechanism is for the >>>> Schrödinger wave function to interfere with itself. In the dual slit >>>> experiment it’s an observed fact. >>>> >>> >>> *The SE, when solved, give us the WF, which can be decomposed into a >>> superposition of eigenstates in some appropriate vector space. But this >>> superposition is not unique. So in what sense does the SE give us "an >>> observed fact"? In fact, with numerous distinct possible superpositions, >>> the worlds of the MWI seem ill-defined. AG* >>> >> >> I have wondered myself whether basis selection is a problem for MWI. I’m >> less sure now that it is. Environmental einselection may resolve the basis >> problem. We set up an experimental apparatus to select some basis, but >> that’s just a special case of what happens naturally, whereby the >> characteristics of the environment select the basis. >> >>> >>> >>>> It makes no sense for it to behave that way if we stick to the old view >>>> of matter as little hard balls, but there you go. When we talk of “worlds”, >>>> it just refers to a ramifying quantum state, and it is in the nature of >>>> quantum states to interfere with themselves per the dual slit experiment, >>>> even if they become large and complex. Interference ceases when two >>>> branches of the universal quantum state diverge far enough that they >>>> completely decohere. When you say “what is the mechanism?” that really >>>> means “what is the mathematical description?” in physics. Anything else is >>>> just imprecise circumlocution like the word “world” in this context. So the >>>> mechanism for interference is the Schrödinger equation, which predicts such >>>> interference. MWI adds precisely nothing to that mathematical description. >>>> >>> >>> *The problem, of course, is that the MWI offers no concept of the >>> process of interference among OTHER worlds, so it's no surprise that it >>> adds nothing to the mathematical description. AG (More at end of this >>> confusing file.)* >>> >> >> there you go with “of course” again as if your argument were self >> evident. Theres no distinction between worlds (this or other) so of course >> there is interference on and among the other branches too. I don’t know >> what you’re talking about. >> > > *I strongly disagree. IMO, it is self-evident. My response is at end of > this file. AG * > >> >>> *The ontological status of those OTHER worlds is problem, but that's not >>> exactly what I am saying. Rather, I am saying is that the MW hypothesis >>> leads nowhere. It has no predictive value that I can discern. It's just a >>> form of possibly consistent ideology. Compare it to Einstein's postulate of >>> the invariance of the SoL. It's really quite paradoxical when you think >>> about; that the SoL does not depend on the motion of source or recipient. >>> But from it we get the LT and a host of verifiable predictions. SR is a >>> scientific theory since it can be disproven. I don't see that anything >>> verifiable is predicted by the MWI. As such, it shouldn't be regarded as a >>> scientific theory. It can't be so considered since it offer no path for >>> being disproven. AG * >>> >> >> That is not what you said in your initial argument at all. >> > > * It was about Born's rule failing in the MWI because the OTHER worlds > don't interact. AG* > > >> But to run with it, falsifiability is definitely a problem for MWI, but >> it’s not as straightforward as you make out. There are proposals for >> falsifying it but they are technically too difficult to carry out at the >> moment. Falsifiability is not an intrinsic property of a theory but a >> property of the theory in relation to the current state of knowledge and >> technology. Popper was not the last word in the Philosophy of Science. Paul >> Feyerabend has pointed out many cases where the process of scientific >> progress did not proceed according to a Popperian model at all. String >> theory also suffers from falsifiability problems but the advance of theory >> and technique may well (I presume will eventually) resolve the question of >> its validity. The world is the way it is regardless of whether or not we >> can prove it to be that way, and what we can prove or disprove is >> constantly evolving. >> > > *I've never encountered a Many World advocate who indicated a possible > prediction of the interpretation. Can you give one example? But I agree > that theories can exist where some degree of verification of predictions is > presently beyond our technical capabilities, and that could change in the > future. AG* > >> >>>> “There’s no ensemble from which to derive probabilities because all the >>>> other observers are purely imaginary” is thus a circular argument. That is >>>> my point. Please try to get over your abhorrence for MWI long enough to get >>>> it. >>>> >>> >>> *That might be a circular argument, but **I never made it. Rather, I >>> claimed there is no interaction among the OTHER worlds, so EACH world >>> records only ONE measurement. Consequently, no OTHER world records an >>> ensemble and Born's rule fails in those worlds. AG * >>> >> > >> Which still makes zero sense to me. Born’s rule can’t fail in those OTHER >> worlds unless it fails as well in this one because no world is privileged. >> To say otherwise is to add your own weird ingredient to MWI. >> > > *IMO, this is where you've fallen into the delusion. Suppose 10 horses are > in a race and you bet on one to be the winner. When the race finishes, at > that very moment presumably, 9 additional worlds are created according to > the MWI, where each of the losers in the race you witnessed, is the winner. > These worlds are surely NOT equally privileged. 9 of them came into > existence because the race was run in what I will call THIS world. It's the > world where you will win or lose your bet. The other worlds are derivative, > having been derived from the race and world in which you placed your bet. > AG* > >> Are you kidding? “At that very moment presumably 9 additional worlds are created...” it’s so wrong I don’t even know how to start correcting it. That is nothing like what MWI says. But I can see I’m not going to get anywhere with trying to explain this to you when so many before have failed, so I’ll bow out now. > >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e0cfa853-2076-48fc-93fc-1b8076a7244cn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e0cfa853-2076-48fc-93fc-1b8076a7244cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAArMS014TWnA-V9ZMEPiJOM47zd6%2BXf03yfrphi5xZnj0cC0GQ%40mail.gmail.com.
