4 ms·

Thank you, I thought it was just me. Like in what possible state of mind is reasoning about endless universes apparently being born out of thin air all the time

Thank you, I thought it was just me. Like in what possible state of mind is reasoning about endless universes apparently being born out of thin air all the time (and also dependent on observation and interaction of partciles, but not if there is no interaction, there is also no way to hop between them) easier than somewhat tricky but still quite logical wavefunction collapse? It only requires to stop thinking about these particles as physical balls of matter and instead of a bit different entities which can behave like a particle and like a wave, and like something in between, dependent on what they are forced to interact with each moment...

meowface 7y ago
I'd recommend watching this talk by Sean Carroll: https://youtu.be/F6FR08VylO4 https://youtu.be/F6FR08VylO4 I think it's a much simpler interpretation than the Copenhagen interpretation. Here's an awesome discussion/debate between Carroll and a major MWI skeptic, David Albert: https://youtu.be/AglOFx6eySE https://youtu.be/AglOFx6eySE In this discussion, they cover what they consider "silly" and "important" criticisms of MWI. Respectfully, some of what you said in your comment is placed by them in the "silly" box.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  The main criticism I have is that if we have no ability to ever travel between the different worlds or traverse them or transfer information between them, if we are for all intents and purposes stuck in one of these worlds, in our own "fate" so to speak, what practical purpose does a definition serve at all? It just seems like a handwaivy way of explaning all the weirdness that goes on in QM, to say "it happened in the other worlds from which we have split". I have watched some other Carroll's explanations and it is not clear that he sees this problem... To me it seems there can be two purposes for creating a good interpretation: 1) make it more in line with most people's intuitive thinking about the world, to make them understand the theories better and faster and 2) make it easier to produce new scientific results, or predict other things. So far I don't see how the MWI manages either of those better than the other models.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    Consider that much of the universe is expanding away from us at greater than the speed of light. That is effectively another world already (without any possible information transfer) and all it requires is that you accept relativity + the expanding universe. Many worlds isn't the universe forking. It is more straightforward to think of the other worlds as probability spaces. The probability space simply divides as we call each division a "world".
    - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
      Once you start calling physical particles "probabilities", how is that easier to understand than the standard model's probability amplitudes?
      - aeternum 7y ago
        I figured probabilities are slightly more intuitive to most, but you're right that it is more correct to call them probability amplitudes described by complex numbers.

meowface 7y ago

I'd recommend watching this talk by Sean Carroll: https://youtu.be/F6FR08VylO4 https://youtu.be/F6FR08VylO4 I think it's a much simpler interpretation than the Copenhagen interpretation. Here's an awesome discussion/debate between Carroll and a major MWI skeptic, David Albert: https://youtu.be/AglOFx6eySE https://youtu.be/AglOFx6eySE In this discussion, they cover what they consider "silly" and "important" criticisms of MWI. Respectfully, some of what you said in your comment is placed by them in the "silly" box.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
The main criticism I have is that if we have no ability to ever travel between the different worlds or traverse them or transfer information between them, if we are for all intents and purposes stuck in one of these worlds, in our own "fate" so to speak, what practical purpose does a definition serve at all? It just seems like a handwaivy way of explaning all the weirdness that goes on in QM, to say "it happened in the other worlds from which we have split". I have watched some other Carroll's explanations and it is not clear that he sees this problem... To me it seems there can be two purposes for creating a good interpretation: 1) make it more in line with most people's intuitive thinking about the world, to make them understand the theories better and faster and 2) make it easier to produce new scientific results, or predict other things. So far I don't see how the MWI manages either of those better than the other models.
- aeternum 7y ago
  Consider that much of the universe is expanding away from us at greater than the speed of light. That is effectively another world already (without any possible information transfer) and all it requires is that you accept relativity + the expanding universe. Many worlds isn't the universe forking. It is more straightforward to think of the other worlds as probability spaces. The probability space simply divides as we call each division a "world".
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    Once you start calling physical particles "probabilities", how is that easier to understand than the standard model's probability amplitudes?
    - aeternum 7y ago
      I figured probabilities are slightly more intuitive to most, but you're right that it is more correct to call them probability amplitudes described by complex numbers.