4 ms·

The problem with interjecting an implication that many worlds is true (regardless of how persuasive the arguments in its favor are) into a layperson's explanati

The problem with interjecting an implication that many worlds is true (regardless of how persuasive the arguments in its favor are) into a layperson's explanation of why quantum entanglement doesn't permit FTL communication are threefold: 1. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. It is, at best, a distraction. 2. It is impossible to design an experiment which is capable of distinguishing between a universe where many worlds is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics or a universe where Copenhagen is the correct interpretation. Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed. We simply do not have the tools to arrive at the truth of the matter. 3. You guarantee that everybody is going to stop discussing entanglement+FTL communication and will start arguing about interpretations of quantum mechanics. I'm not sure if anyone's started talking about De Broglie–Bohm theory yet, but it'll... oops I just did. I say this as someone for whom many worlds feels truthier.

tbabb 5y ago
> It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. To the contrary, it provides an intuitive model that produces correct predictions. That is inherently valuable and extremely relevant. > Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed. Strongly disagree— See further discussion[1] under my original post for support. > You guarantee that everybody is going to stop discussing entanglement+FTL communication and will start arguing about interpretations of quantum mechanics Not wrong >_> [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900738
- nwallin 5y ago
  > it provides an intuitive model Uh. No. It definitely -- definitely -- doesn't do that. Many worlds, for all its many virtues, gives us "There's another dimension where you -- you -- are Batman!" Because that's what the phrase "many worlds" means to most people. > > Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed. > Strongly disagree— See further discussion[1] under my original post for support. So in that discussion, you made the argument: > Both models agree with observation— any measurement we make will not contradict either "empty garage" or "undetectable dragon". ...which is literally the argument people make when they're arguing Jesus vs Mohamed. It's just that nobody agrees on which holy being is the empty garage and which one is the undetectable dragon. > Not wrong >_> Woooo! I won an argument on the internet!!

tbabb 5y ago

> It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. To the contrary, it provides an intuitive model that produces correct predictions. That is inherently valuable and extremely relevant. > Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed. Strongly disagree— See further discussion[1] under my original post for support. > You guarantee that everybody is going to stop discussing entanglement+FTL communication and will start arguing about interpretations of quantum mechanics Not wrong >_> [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900738

nwallin 5y ago
> it provides an intuitive model Uh. No. It definitely -- definitely -- doesn't do that. Many worlds, for all its many virtues, gives us "There's another dimension where you -- you -- are Batman!" Because that's what the phrase "many worlds" means to most people. > > Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed. > Strongly disagree— See further discussion[1] under my original post for support. So in that discussion, you made the argument: > Both models agree with observation— any measurement we make will not contradict either "empty garage" or "undetectable dragon". ...which is literally the argument people make when they're arguing Jesus vs Mohamed. It's just that nobody agrees on which holy being is the empty garage and which one is the undetectable dragon. > Not wrong >_> Woooo! I won an argument on the internet!!