3 ms·

I did not like this article. I think the author incorrectly has some idea that many worlds asserts the multiverse undertakes a real “splitting” activity when ob

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

I did not like this article. I think the author incorrectly has some idea that many worlds asserts the multiverse undertakes a real “splitting” activity when observing the outcome of an experiment. It does not. Rather all the different branches have always already existed all the time, and you merely observe what branch “you” are on. When you see the outcome of an experiment, it doesn’t mean “you branched” as if the branches wouldn’t have existed if you hadn’t done the experiment. It only means your brain got knowledge about which subset of all possible universes you happen to be in. The probabilities in quantum outcomes, like all probabilities, are about subjective degrees of belief, as in they are about the state of a mind and not objective attributes of nature.

lisper 7y ago
> all the different branches have always already existed all the time How many branches are there? The answer is: there's no way to know because what constitutes "a branch" is not well-defined. So saying that "all the different branches have always already existed all the time" is meaningless because the phrase "all the different branches" is meaningless. > The probabilities in quantum outcomes, like all probabilities, are about subjective degrees of belief No, they aren't. When you listen to a geiger counter, the number of clicks it produces is an objective fact, completely independent of any sentient being's beliefs. It is also random.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  There would have to be an uncountably infinite number, and the surface of branches would be smooth, likely differentiable, because many experiments can have outcome spaces of uncountably infinite cardinality. > “No, they aren't. When you listen to a geiger counter, the number of clicks it produces is an objective fact, completely independent of any sentient being's beliefs. It is also random.” You are simply incorrect about this. Did the Geiger counter click or did you hallucinate or did the counter misfire or did your friend replace it with a joke Geiger counter that always clicks or did a cosmic ray hit the circuitry at just the right moment etc. The probabilities around these things are about your subjective state of knowledge, always.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > Did the Geiger counter click or did you hallucinate or did the counter misfire, etc. Doesn't matter. What matters is that objective observers listening to the counter independently will all agree on how many clicks it made in a given period of time. It is this agreement that needs explaining. One possible explanation is that the counter did, in point of physical fact, click that many times. In fact, that seems like a very plausible explanation for the agreement to most people. That plausibility doesn't necessarily make it correct, but it does mean that you cannot dismiss it as "simply incorrect." If I hallucinated the clicks, why then do I agree with all the other observers, including inanimate ones like electronic counters? Are we all experiencing the same hallucination? If the counter "misfired" then why do geiger counters give the appearance of producing random clicks in response to radiation?
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      Huh? If the counter is broken, you’ll all agree on the wrong number, because of your mistaken brain state (believing the counter to be functioning correctly). You may use a lot of italics, but the statement doesn’t add up to anything.
      - lisper 7y ago
        > If the counter is broken, you’ll all agree on the wrong number In what way will this number be "wrong"?

lisper 7y ago

> all the different branches have always already existed all the time How many branches are there? The answer is: there's no way to know because what constitutes "a branch" is not well-defined. So saying that "all the different branches have always already existed all the time" is meaningless because the phrase "all the different branches" is meaningless. > The probabilities in quantum outcomes, like all probabilities, are about subjective degrees of belief No, they aren't. When you listen to a geiger counter, the number of clicks it produces is an objective fact, completely independent of any sentient being's beliefs. It is also random.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
There would have to be an uncountably infinite number, and the surface of branches would be smooth, likely differentiable, because many experiments can have outcome spaces of uncountably infinite cardinality. > “No, they aren't. When you listen to a geiger counter, the number of clicks it produces is an objective fact, completely independent of any sentient being's beliefs. It is also random.” You are simply incorrect about this. Did the Geiger counter click or did you hallucinate or did the counter misfire or did your friend replace it with a joke Geiger counter that always clicks or did a cosmic ray hit the circuitry at just the right moment etc. The probabilities around these things are about your subjective state of knowledge, always.
- lisper 7y ago
  > Did the Geiger counter click or did you hallucinate or did the counter misfire, etc. Doesn't matter. What matters is that objective observers listening to the counter independently will all agree on how many clicks it made in a given period of time. It is this agreement that needs explaining. One possible explanation is that the counter did, in point of physical fact, click that many times. In fact, that seems like a very plausible explanation for the agreement to most people. That plausibility doesn't necessarily make it correct, but it does mean that you cannot dismiss it as "simply incorrect." If I hallucinated the clicks, why then do I agree with all the other observers, including inanimate ones like electronic counters? Are we all experiencing the same hallucination? If the counter "misfired" then why do geiger counters give the appearance of producing random clicks in response to radiation?
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    Huh? If the counter is broken, you’ll all agree on the wrong number, because of your mistaken brain state (believing the counter to be functioning correctly). You may use a lot of italics, but the statement doesn’t add up to anything.
    - lisper 7y ago
      > If the counter is broken, you’ll all agree on the wrong number In what way will this number be "wrong"?