4 ms·

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current-best explanation is not many worlds, it's the mathematical formalism of QM. Many-worlds is a logical consequence of that.

• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Many worlds is one possible interpretation of the logical consequences of that. It's not nearly as definite or clear-cut as you're making it sound.
  • lisper 3y ago
    It seems pretty clear cut to me. I've seen no argument against it that doesn't involve some logical fallacy. If you think you know of one please enlighten me.
    • AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      Well, I'm not an expert. But I know that, among those who are experts, many-worlds is not the consensus or even the majority view. So, while it may seem clear cut to you, it doesn't to everyone. That's why I keep saying that no, it's not clear. I realize that's argument by authority, and that's considered a fallacy...
      • lisper 3y ago
        I'm not an expert either. I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. But the math behind QM -- at least the parts that matter for this discussion -- is pretty straightforward linear algebra. Really, anyone can learn it. So don't take my word for it, look into it and decide for yourself. You can start here: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Physics-Princeton-Foundations-Contemporary/dp/069118352X https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Physics-Princeton-Foundati... https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Albert/dp/0674741129/ https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Al... Or, if you don't feel like buying a book: https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf Or, if you prefer a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc BTW, it may come as a surprise to learn that I am actually not a big proponent of many-worlds despite recognizing that it is in fact a logical consequence of the math. If so, you may find this interesting too: https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/on-shadow-photons-and-real-unicorns.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/on-shadow-photons-and-re... and a follow-up written ten years later: https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo...
        • knightoffaith 3y ago
          >QM is pretty straightforward linear algebra The chasm between my grades in linear algebra and my grades in quantum begs to differ... :(
          • lisper 3y ago
            There are two different ways of approaching QM: the physicist's way and the computer scienctist's way. You were probably taught it the physicist's way, which is not wrong, but obscures the parts you need to know to understand the MWI. That part really is pretty simple. You should try again.
    • 2snakes 3y ago
      According to Einstein nature is parsimonious:many worlds is proliferate.
      • lisper 3y ago
        Sure, but parsimony only applies when all else is equal, and here all else is not equal. Newtonian mechanics is a lot more parsimonious than GR.
        • 2snakes 3y ago
          That’s human theories which is way downstream of the classical interpretation/paradigm of nature being defined as physical processes.