4 ms·

Multiverse is just the null hypothesis. Whatever you want to call them, the pieces of reality we call the wave function and entanglement exist. If you want to a

Multiverse is just the null hypothesis. Whatever you want to call them, the pieces of reality we call the wave function and entanglement exist. If you want to assert extra mechanisms in order to claim measurement isn't just the lab getting entangled then that's fine, but the positive assertion requires positive evidence. Whether or not the multiverse is ontologically real or just the simplest abstraction that works is irrelevant. Dogmatically holding on to collapse as a concept without evidence is the position that is ascientific.

lamontcg 4y ago
> Multiverse is just the null hypothesis. I've never seen a cat in a 3/5i |dead> + 4/5 |alive> state before. If unitary evolution is all that exists those states should propagate to macroscopic objects. I'm not buying that as a null hypothesis of "just trust the QM math" because it is seriously fucking weird-ass math, beyond which most everyone who gets into these arguments generally appreciates. And to get to the multiverse you have to assume some kind of other extra mechanisms to make the world make sense. That isn't a theory without its own unknown magic sauce. My own personal null hypothesis is wave function collapse and/or that QM is just precision math and not even epistemologically correct, and that cats are either |alive> or |dead> and not both (and certainly not a complex linear superposition of both). And the "extra mechanism" I'd postulate is just that we don't have the right mathematical model yet, just like classical mechanics was incomplete and that our math is just an approximation to reality (which quite a historical track record of being correct).
- jemmyw 4y ago
  I agree. My personal belief is some form of super determinism but I understand that may not be testable either.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Super determinism is still simpler without adding an additional mechanism to separate decoherence and entanglement. Multiverse is still the null hypothesis.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > If unitary evolution is all that exists those states should propagate to macroscopic objects. They don't just propagate to macroscopic objects, they propagate to reality as a whole. Decoherence is why you can't talk about a cat being 3/5i |dead> + 4/5 |alive> , but you can talk about two practically separate realities or universes, in which the cat has apparently "collapsed" (by entangling w/ the surrounding environment) into either of these states.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    "Decoherence" is just packing up the mathematically unexplained phenomena in a box and not really addressing it.
- tome 4y ago
  You may find de Broglie-Bohm theory interesting. It shows how the "weird-ass math" has a perfectly non-weird, deterministic interpretation whereby the cat is exactly alive or dead.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Penrose's ideas are a bit more in line with what I'd bet on. So there's some kind of actual nonlocal entanglement (tiny quantum mechanical wormholes that aren't useful for communication or something like that) with a physical process that happens once the entanglement has grown large enough which causes collapse (the emission of a virtual graviton at around the fermi mass of difference between the states being something plausibly at the right kind of scale). And this should all in principle be possible to study (and there has finally been some headlines about studies that have attempted to look for these kinds of effects). Pilot wave theory just shows that there's an alternative possible explanation for QM which doesn't have any many-worlds interpretation which is another thing which cuts the legs out from under the idea that WMI is the "null hypothesis". We don't know how to make that theory relativistic, but our lack of knowledge doesn't mean that the interpretation is wrong. We can't look at conventional Hilbert-space interpretations of QM and walk away saying that it must be correct, when there's other math that works basically the same. We picked the math that worked the best for us to make predictions, but now we're making the jump to claim that the math must be the reality which seems obvious to me to be a mixing up the map and the terrain.
    - tome 4y ago
      > we're making the jump to claim that the math must be the reality which seems obvious to me to be a mixing up the map and the terrain Agreed!
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Reality has no obligation to conform to what is intuitive. The concepts of superposition and entanglement both have a referent (even if we're a long way off on the correct model) and are sufficient to explain what you observe about your cat. This is the same deference to intuition that would lead to assuming there's a luminiferous aether or that the sun rotates around the world. It obvious that our models are not complete, but clinging to collapse (which is incredibly egotistical) or asserting some bohmian mechanics-like hidden information theory (which is gnome physics) is much more small minded and dogmatic than "idunno, maybe it's completely different or maybe it's the simplest combination of the things we have fairly strong evidence for". I do agree that getting all mystical about it like brian cox does when public speaking is idiotic and dishonest though.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You've fallen back on nothing more than thinly-veiled personal attacks to back up your opinion.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Calling out the inherent absurdities in the constant attacks on the character of anyone following the evidence or remaining agnostic isn't a personal attack. Maybe the fact that you feel attacked when seeing a pale reflection of what you are spouting should tell you something. If you believe there need to be extra moving parts in your theory without evidence, that's fine. Calling someone who doesn't religious is where you start to sound like every crank in history that couldn't wrap their head around heliocentricism or relativity.
  - tome 4y ago
    Sorry, what does "gnome physics" mean?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      https://www.refsmmat.com/articles/gnome-physics.html https://www.refsmmat.com/articles/gnome-physics.html
jemmyw 4y ago
There's a long way between a concept that works for the mathematical model and reality.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Maybe. But far more likely that there is, and always will be an unknown distance. But there is no reason to think that distance is larger than a more complex concept like copenhagen that works for the mathematical model and is only inserted for the mental comfort of people with a particularly egotistical world view.

lamontcg 4y ago

> Multiverse is just the null hypothesis. I've never seen a cat in a 3/5i |dead> + 4/5 |alive> state before. If unitary evolution is all that exists those states should propagate to macroscopic objects. I'm not buying that as a null hypothesis of "just trust the QM math" because it is seriously fucking weird-ass math, beyond which most everyone who gets into these arguments generally appreciates. And to get to the multiverse you have to assume some kind of other extra mechanisms to make the world make sense. That isn't a theory without its own unknown magic sauce. My own personal null hypothesis is wave function collapse and/or that QM is just precision math and not even epistemologically correct, and that cats are either |alive> or |dead> and not both (and certainly not a complex linear superposition of both). And the "extra mechanism" I'd postulate is just that we don't have the right mathematical model yet, just like classical mechanics was incomplete and that our math is just an approximation to reality (which quite a historical track record of being correct).

jemmyw 4y ago
I agree. My personal belief is some form of super determinism but I understand that may not be testable either.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Super determinism is still simpler without adding an additional mechanism to separate decoherence and entanglement. Multiverse is still the null hypothesis.
zozbot234 4y ago
> If unitary evolution is all that exists those states should propagate to macroscopic objects. They don't just propagate to macroscopic objects, they propagate to reality as a whole. Decoherence is why you can't talk about a cat being 3/5i |dead> + 4/5 |alive> , but you can talk about two practically separate realities or universes, in which the cat has apparently "collapsed" (by entangling w/ the surrounding environment) into either of these states.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  "Decoherence" is just packing up the mathematically unexplained phenomena in a box and not really addressing it.
tome 4y ago
You may find de Broglie-Bohm theory interesting. It shows how the "weird-ass math" has a perfectly non-weird, deterministic interpretation whereby the cat is exactly alive or dead.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Penrose's ideas are a bit more in line with what I'd bet on. So there's some kind of actual nonlocal entanglement (tiny quantum mechanical wormholes that aren't useful for communication or something like that) with a physical process that happens once the entanglement has grown large enough which causes collapse (the emission of a virtual graviton at around the fermi mass of difference between the states being something plausibly at the right kind of scale). And this should all in principle be possible to study (and there has finally been some headlines about studies that have attempted to look for these kinds of effects). Pilot wave theory just shows that there's an alternative possible explanation for QM which doesn't have any many-worlds interpretation which is another thing which cuts the legs out from under the idea that WMI is the "null hypothesis". We don't know how to make that theory relativistic, but our lack of knowledge doesn't mean that the interpretation is wrong. We can't look at conventional Hilbert-space interpretations of QM and walk away saying that it must be correct, when there's other math that works basically the same. We picked the math that worked the best for us to make predictions, but now we're making the jump to claim that the math must be the reality which seems obvious to me to be a mixing up the map and the terrain.
  - tome 4y ago
    > we're making the jump to claim that the math must be the reality which seems obvious to me to be a mixing up the map and the terrain Agreed!
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Reality has no obligation to conform to what is intuitive. The concepts of superposition and entanglement both have a referent (even if we're a long way off on the correct model) and are sufficient to explain what you observe about your cat. This is the same deference to intuition that would lead to assuming there's a luminiferous aether or that the sun rotates around the world. It obvious that our models are not complete, but clinging to collapse (which is incredibly egotistical) or asserting some bohmian mechanics-like hidden information theory (which is gnome physics) is much more small minded and dogmatic than "idunno, maybe it's completely different or maybe it's the simplest combination of the things we have fairly strong evidence for". I do agree that getting all mystical about it like brian cox does when public speaking is idiotic and dishonest though.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You've fallen back on nothing more than thinly-veiled personal attacks to back up your opinion.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Calling out the inherent absurdities in the constant attacks on the character of anyone following the evidence or remaining agnostic isn't a personal attack. Maybe the fact that you feel attacked when seeing a pale reflection of what you are spouting should tell you something. If you believe there need to be extra moving parts in your theory without evidence, that's fine. Calling someone who doesn't religious is where you start to sound like every crank in history that couldn't wrap their head around heliocentricism or relativity.
- tome 4y ago
  Sorry, what does "gnome physics" mean?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    https://www.refsmmat.com/articles/gnome-physics.html https://www.refsmmat.com/articles/gnome-physics.html

jemmyw 4y ago

There's a long way between a concept that works for the mathematical model and reality.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Maybe. But far more likely that there is, and always will be an unknown distance. But there is no reason to think that distance is larger than a more complex concept like copenhagen that works for the mathematical model and is only inserted for the mental comfort of people with a particularly egotistical world view.