3 ms·

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

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.

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.