4 ms·

I think you're making a leap when you say it "predicts a multiverse." (please correct me if you have field expertise) To refresh my memory I ran through this

by iaw 10y ago

I think you're making a leap when you say it "predicts a multiverse." (please correct me if you have field expertise) To refresh my memory I ran through this paper [1] briefly. My understanding is that multiverse arguments based on the Born rule are circular. One possible interpretation of the Born rule is the existence of a multiverse but it is not the only interpretation and it requires one to make some pretty big assumptions that the existing Quantum mechanics models being perfect representations of reality (which we know it is not). [1] http://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/Born.pdf http://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/Born.pdf

akvadrako 10y ago
Over the past year I've developed a good grasp on the modern consensus, by reading everything I can find that might shed light on the subject and lurking on physicsforums.com. Despite the common physicist trait of shying away from philosophy, there is a general acceptance that decoherence can lead to an effective collapse, which reproduces our classical world (and many others). Some arguments deriving the Born rule may be circular; I don't know - I don't see how that matters - because others are not. There are some critics but they mostly start from philosophical considerations: that a multiverse is untestable outside the quantum scale, imposes a high cognitive burden or requires us to redefine probability. Those objections are only valid if you consider a multiverse a priori unlikely; the evidence and math is clearly in it's favour. If you want better answers I would look through that forum, or consult a recent review of the literature around decoherence.
- iaw 10y ago
  Reading up on decoherence, the phenomenon itself doesn't lead to a many worlds hypothesis but allows for the conjecture of many worlds. Information becoming immeasurable/irretrievable is not proof in and of itself of a multiverse. I have some modest undergraduate work in modern Physics, I think you may be taking the dominant voice on the physicsforums.com at face value when there's a high potential for self-selection bias in online forums. Going back to the experiment evidence and underlying mathematics there just hasn't been a breakthrough of any sorts.
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    The point is more that there is no need for a breakthrough, because there is no need to postulate a mechanism for actual collapse, since decoherence is sufficient to explain the results of experiments. I'm not sure what your argument is, but nobody is proving a multiverse, it's just an observation.

by iaw 10y ago

akvadrako 10y ago

Over the past year I've developed a good grasp on the modern consensus, by reading everything I can find that might shed light on the subject and lurking on physicsforums.com. Despite the common physicist trait of shying away from philosophy, there is a general acceptance that decoherence can lead to an effective collapse, which reproduces our classical world (and many others). Some arguments deriving the Born rule may be circular; I don't know - I don't see how that matters - because others are not. There are some critics but they mostly start from philosophical considerations: that a multiverse is untestable outside the quantum scale, imposes a high cognitive burden or requires us to redefine probability. Those objections are only valid if you consider a multiverse a priori unlikely; the evidence and math is clearly in it's favour. If you want better answers I would look through that forum, or consult a recent review of the literature around decoherence.

iaw 10y ago
Reading up on decoherence, the phenomenon itself doesn't lead to a many worlds hypothesis but allows for the conjecture of many worlds. Information becoming immeasurable/irretrievable is not proof in and of itself of a multiverse. I have some modest undergraduate work in modern Physics, I think you may be taking the dominant voice on the physicsforums.com at face value when there's a high potential for self-selection bias in online forums. Going back to the experiment evidence and underlying mathematics there just hasn't been a breakthrough of any sorts.
- akvadrako 10y ago
  The point is more that there is no need for a breakthrough, because there is no need to postulate a mechanism for actual collapse, since decoherence is sufficient to explain the results of experiments. I'm not sure what your argument is, but nobody is proving a multiverse, it's just an observation.