3 ms·
How is any less scientific than Copenhagen? As I understand it they are both equally valid hypotheses. But people prefer MWI because it's simpler or makes more
by Houshalter 11y ago
How is any less scientific than Copenhagen? As I understand it they are both equally valid hypotheses. But people prefer MWI because it's simpler or makes more sense.
- eridius 11y agoIt's not less scientific. It's scientifically identical to Copenhagen (because it makes identical predictions with identical assumptions). But the distinguishing characteristics of MWI (the bits that make it "not Copenhagen") are non-scientific, as they are non-falsifiable.
- Houshalter 11y agoSee dkbrk's comment on this thread. MWI follows naturally from our models of quantum physics. It doesn't make any additional assumptions. It's the simplest possible model that fits the data. It's Copenhagen that makes additional, untestable assumptions. And therefore, by your logic, is unscientific. That is, Copenhagen asserts that the quantum states we don't observe, are destroyed. They have to exist, in some sense, to provide the weird entanglement effects we observe in quantum physics. The whole "the cat is both dead and alive at the same time" thing. MWI just follows naturally from these observations. Copenhagen assumes that there is only one universe, without any justification for this assumption. It assumes that the quantum states we don't observe just cease to exist. It assumes some source of randomness, when "universe splitting" is sufficient to explain observed randomness. It adds a bunch of weirdness that isn't necessary.