3 ms·
After skimming the whole thing, I was relieved to see that the argument against Many Worlds was the only one I considered invalid. It took the form of "It's not
by ajkjk 9y ago
After skimming the whole thing, I was relieved to see that the argument against Many Worlds was the only one I considered invalid. It took the form of "It's not even a testable theory", rather than "it has mathematical deficiencies".
Well, of course, no one's saying it's testable necessarily, but for various aesthetic and intuitive reasons it still seems valid. Just don't expect predictions from it and you'll be fine.
- whatshisface 9y agoValid and true are two very different things - and we've seen from history that the human brain can be lead into believing that essentially anything is intuitive or aesthetic.
- ajkjk 9y agoSure, hence the reason physicists tend to say MWI is valid and good, rather than 'true'.
- naasking 9y ago> After skimming the whole thing, I was relieved to see that the argument against Many Worlds was the only one I considered invalid. You should consider the Bohmian criticisms invalid as well then. Many have argued that de Broglie-Bohm is "many worlds in disguise", so if the criticisms the author levels against Bohmian mechanics are true, then they apply to MWI, but if they don't apply to MWI, then they don't apply to Bohmian mechanics either. Not because they are the same theory, because they are not ontologically the same, but the formalisms are interchangeable.
- ajkjk 9y agoOh yeah. Probably, yeah. I glossed over that one because its criticisms were strangely technical for a theory that, iirc, just rephrases regular quantum theory.