4 ms·
If you can't distinguish MWI from any other interpretations results than doesn't that also indicate that the other interpretations have just as many issues? In
by AReallyGoodName 11y ago
If you can't distinguish MWI from any other interpretations results than doesn't that also indicate that the other interpretations have just as many issues?
In fact given the name is suffixed with interpretation I really don't get the authors point. We have a way of thinking about things, nothing more, hence that suffix.As you point out it's scientifically indistinguishable from other interpretations. So why pick on MWI. Why not write the exact same speil about the Copenhagen interpretation which is no more or less testable (if it was we'd be able to distinguish its results from the other interpretations)
- eridius 11y agoBecause the complaint isn't that it isn't testable. Since we're talking about non-testable properties of these models, the only way in which they differ is in how we think about them, which puts this in the realm of philosophy. And the article is arguing that the philosophical implications of MWI are problematic.