3 ms·

Well, for starters it requires an infinite number of universes, each with zero 'weight.' Secondly, it causes problems for materialist views of the universe. (

Well, for starters it requires an infinite number of universes, each with zero 'weight.' Secondly, it causes problems for materialist views of the universe. (I wrote a long term paper about this as an undergrad, but that was, like, 15 years ago and I don't have the cuneiform tablets anymore.) Briefly, there's no way to explain the statistical correlations between spin polarization states: if we measure the polarization of a photon in a basis that's only, say, 5 degrees offset from its known polarization, the statistical breakdown between the two resulting polarization states is something like 9:1; what if it's only a few arc-seconds off? Then the universe must divide more and more finely. You quickly realize the universe must be infinitely-divisible (because quantum collapse occurs so often, and each collapse anywhere in the universe must divide the universe, it can't even be discretized at, say, some Planck-like scale). That said, it does neatly solve local realism. But you have to believe in an immortal soul or something non-material -- I believe that has to be the 'weighting factor'. (Again, that was the uncomfortable conclusion of my paper, wish I could conjure more of it.)

norea-armozel 11y ago
I think that materialism is a dead concept anyways. It just doesn't seem to support itself under the weight of evidence in physics which seems to contradict it. So, either materialism goes or physicists are going to have a fun time with new experiments overturning old ones.
- ryandamm 11y ago
  Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I use it to mean that there are no outside forces describing the state of the universe beyond what's materially measurable/describable; in other words, probably we have no transmaterial soul. That's a strong assumption for anyone who's religious, but it's sort of gospel for atheists. That said, it's the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't square with a totally-naive interpretation of Bell's Inequality and materialism/atheism. So... are you saying that we have to admit there's a God/transmaterial soul / some other magical thing because we don't understand the implication of Bell's inequality? If so, that's a big jump, but I can't say it's wrong. Just that I don't take that leap along with you. You know, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than etc etc. For both of us.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    >Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I'm probably not using the same definition. I'm just of the view that what we think of as material often gets reduced to atoms or particles representing the four forces for which no other 'outside' component can be entertained to exist. To me, this is a over simplification that erases all the other seemingly non-material components of our material world (thoughts, feelings, experiences, math itself, and etc). It's easy to assume it to be true, but every time I bump into this argument I always point out that the number 1 isn't of any singular substance but the number itself exists everywhere there is any form of divisibility or unitary attribute in use.

norea-armozel 11y ago

I think that materialism is a dead concept anyways. It just doesn't seem to support itself under the weight of evidence in physics which seems to contradict it. So, either materialism goes or physicists are going to have a fun time with new experiments overturning old ones.

ryandamm 11y ago
Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I use it to mean that there are no outside forces describing the state of the universe beyond what's materially measurable/describable; in other words, probably we have no transmaterial soul. That's a strong assumption for anyone who's religious, but it's sort of gospel for atheists. That said, it's the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't square with a totally-naive interpretation of Bell's Inequality and materialism/atheism. So... are you saying that we have to admit there's a God/transmaterial soul / some other magical thing because we don't understand the implication of Bell's inequality? If so, that's a big jump, but I can't say it's wrong. Just that I don't take that leap along with you. You know, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than etc etc. For both of us.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  >Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I'm probably not using the same definition. I'm just of the view that what we think of as material often gets reduced to atoms or particles representing the four forces for which no other 'outside' component can be entertained to exist. To me, this is a over simplification that erases all the other seemingly non-material components of our material world (thoughts, feelings, experiences, math itself, and etc). It's easy to assume it to be true, but every time I bump into this argument I always point out that the number 1 isn't of any singular substance but the number itself exists everywhere there is any form of divisibility or unitary attribute in use.