3 ms·
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
by 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 agoConsider 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 agoOnce you start calling physical particles "probabilities", how is that easier to understand than the standard model's probability amplitudes?
- aeternum 7y agoI 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.