2 ms·
But the other me isn't observed. There's no empirical evidence for that other world. It's an interpretation of the mathematical formalism that there would be ot
by goatlover 4y ago
But the other me isn't observed. There's no empirical evidence for that other world. It's an interpretation of the mathematical formalism that there would be other mes making different observations. But there's nothing observational saying I have to choose the MWI interpretation as the correct one.
- lmm 4y agoThere's no empirical evidence that the world continues to exist when you close your eyes, it's just the most natural interpretation of our best available mathematical formalism.
- goatlover 4y agoOther than the fact your other senses are working, the ground continues to hold you up, gravity is still at play, you're still breathing, etc. That's a ridiculous standard for empirical. MWI isn't the only interpretation, and there isn't a current experiment which can determine which if any of the interpretations are correct. This is the same problem String Theory has had. You can't just base reality on the math.
- lmm 4y ago> Other than the fact your other senses are working, the ground continues to hold you up, gravity is still at play, you're still breathing, etc. Sure; I was being poetic. We could talk about when you sleep, or distant regions of the universe that you simply can't measure within a human lifetime. > MWI isn't the only interpretation, and there isn't a current experiment which can determine which if any of the interpretations are correct. This is the same problem String Theory has had. You can't just base reality on the math. When other "interpretations" require extra assumptions, you can, and should. Otherwise you can never rule out theories that add extra epicycles that have no observable consequences.