3 ms·

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 the

by 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.
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        > “ You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI.” But you absolutely do not. “Thing plus totally extraneous, unnecessary additional complicated hypotheses” is not equally as supported as just “thing”. Science says let the simplest, most parsimonious explanation that survives contact with the data prevail. There can be multiple hypotheses that are all congruent with the same experimental observations. That does not make each hypothesis equally valid. Those hypotheses, like anything specifying needless extra collapse physics, that are not as slimmed down as they could be while maintaining congruence with the observations must be rejected in favor of those which make fewer unnecessary assumptions or invoke fewer unnecessary details. The evidence is always for all theories that are congruent with it. That does not at all mean science equally supports all those theories.

by teilo 7y ago

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.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      > “ You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI.” But you absolutely do not. “Thing plus totally extraneous, unnecessary additional complicated hypotheses” is not equally as supported as just “thing”. Science says let the simplest, most parsimonious explanation that survives contact with the data prevail. There can be multiple hypotheses that are all congruent with the same experimental observations. That does not make each hypothesis equally valid. Those hypotheses, like anything specifying needless extra collapse physics, that are not as slimmed down as they could be while maintaining congruence with the observations must be rejected in favor of those which make fewer unnecessary assumptions or invoke fewer unnecessary details. The evidence is always for all theories that are congruent with it. That does not at all mean science equally supports all those theories.