4 ms·

> Multiverse QM is a settled debate. Move on. That's ridiculous. The Copenhagen Interpretation is still the prevailing view, among MANY others: https://en.wiki

by teilo 7y ago

> Multiverse QM is a settled debate. Move on. That's ridiculous. The Copenhagen Interpretation is still the prevailing view, among MANY others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec... Further, the science is settled, so anyone who disagrees is a denier? Is that you, Mr. Carroll?

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
Why do you think a poll among certain people adds credulity to one or the other? Many Worlds allows purely unitary wave function evolution while explaining all known experimental and observational results with no less fidelity than any alternative. It’s solely a matter of Occam’s Razor that, until there is experimental evidence to the contrary, MWI is the solely most parsimonious available explanation. Wave function collapse is a purely unjustified extraneous detail that violates the scientific method to believe it without additional evidence. MWI is by its own definition the choice of belief not requiring attaching vestigial extra details onto the theory, as far as any currently known experimental results go.
- teilo 7y ago
  That's just, like, your opinion, man. It's also a red herring. You stated that the science is settled. It is not. Not even close. "Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus by all but a fringe, that MWI is the correct interpretation of QM. Of course, that is not the case, as should be blatantly obvious to you. Besides which, nothing in science is ever "settled." It is always open to new interpretations when new data presents itself, or when a more persuasive theory is formulated. So on both counts your "settled" argument fails. Furthermore, this statement is pretty bold, but let me re-write it, because it applies better to MWI than to the wave collapse function: "The Many Worlds conjecture is a purely unjustified extraneous detail that violates the scientific method to believe it without additional evidence." The inability of the MWI to distinguish itself from the CI by any experiment, real or imagined, is the very reason why it has not gained traction.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    > “ Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus” no, science is not related to consensus. If it were, then religion would be a matter pf physics. Science is unique in that only theories which hold up to the evidence matter, regardless of how many or few people (or experts) believe them. In ~1800, the science against creationism was just as settled as it is today, despite the prevalence of that religious view, even among scientific authority, at that time.
    - teilo 7y ago
      I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI. For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none. It is nothing but a logical model that one chooses because of their philosophical prejudices. What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        > “ I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI.” That suggests you badly misunderstand MWI or else have your own dogma in terms of how you’ll define it. Either way, comparing MWI to religious dogma is beyond ridiculous. > “ For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none.” We have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports MWI and doesn’t require no-evidence purely hypothetical extra things to be attached to the theory, like special collapse. > “ What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.” Unless you can support this claim, it seems entirely disingenuous and it’s like you expect some purely rhetorical flair to make your point. Copenhagen is closer to your quote than MWI... it’s not even controversial to say so, purely definitional (as non-controversial as it can get).
        teilo 7y ago
        You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI. But you have no experimental evidence of any kind which would allow you to rule out CI, or any of the many other interpretations, in favor of the MWI. See, no one disagrees about the evidence itself. That's why there is an "I" in "MWI." It is one of many possible interpretations of the evidence. So that puts your whole "settled" nonsense into the category of philosophical posturing. You have a preference for the the MWI, but you have no scientific reason for it. That is why your reasons are entirely philosophical.

by teilo 7y ago

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

Why do you think a poll among certain people adds credulity to one or the other? Many Worlds allows purely unitary wave function evolution while explaining all known experimental and observational results with no less fidelity than any alternative. It’s solely a matter of Occam’s Razor that, until there is experimental evidence to the contrary, MWI is the solely most parsimonious available explanation. Wave function collapse is a purely unjustified extraneous detail that violates the scientific method to believe it without additional evidence. MWI is by its own definition the choice of belief not requiring attaching vestigial extra details onto the theory, as far as any currently known experimental results go.

teilo 7y ago
That's just, like, your opinion, man. It's also a red herring. You stated that the science is settled. It is not. Not even close. "Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus by all but a fringe, that MWI is the correct interpretation of QM. Of course, that is not the case, as should be blatantly obvious to you. Besides which, nothing in science is ever "settled." It is always open to new interpretations when new data presents itself, or when a more persuasive theory is formulated. So on both counts your "settled" argument fails. Furthermore, this statement is pretty bold, but let me re-write it, because it applies better to MWI than to the wave collapse function: "The Many Worlds conjecture is a purely unjustified extraneous detail that violates the scientific method to believe it without additional evidence." The inability of the MWI to distinguish itself from the CI by any experiment, real or imagined, is the very reason why it has not gained traction.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  > “ Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus” no, science is not related to consensus. If it were, then religion would be a matter pf physics. Science is unique in that only theories which hold up to the evidence matter, regardless of how many or few people (or experts) believe them. In ~1800, the science against creationism was just as settled as it is today, despite the prevalence of that religious view, even among scientific authority, at that time.
  - teilo 7y ago
    I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI. For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none. It is nothing but a logical model that one chooses because of their philosophical prejudices. What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      > “ I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI.” That suggests you badly misunderstand MWI or else have your own dogma in terms of how you’ll define it. Either way, comparing MWI to religious dogma is beyond ridiculous. > “ For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none.” We have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports MWI and doesn’t require no-evidence purely hypothetical extra things to be attached to the theory, like special collapse. > “ What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.” Unless you can support this claim, it seems entirely disingenuous and it’s like you expect some purely rhetorical flair to make your point. Copenhagen is closer to your quote than MWI... it’s not even controversial to say so, purely definitional (as non-controversial as it can get).
      - teilo 7y ago
        You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI. But you have no experimental evidence of any kind which would allow you to rule out CI, or any of the many other interpretations, in favor of the MWI. See, no one disagrees about the evidence itself. That's why there is an "I" in "MWI." It is one of many possible interpretations of the evidence. So that puts your whole "settled" nonsense into the category of philosophical posturing. You have a preference for the the MWI, but you have no scientific reason for it. That is why your reasons are entirely philosophical.