4 ms·

That's not very convincing! He's only talking about falsifying it vs extensions of quantum theory. The interesting question is whether it can be falsified vs ot

by n4r9 2y ago

That's not very convincing! He's only talking about falsifying it vs extensions of quantum theory. The interesting question is whether it can be falsified vs other interpretations of quantum theory.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mr_mitm 2y ago
Why is no one ever asking how to falsify Copenhagen vs other interpretations? What did Copenhagen ever do to deserve this privilege?
- mistermann 2y ago
  Copenhagen is somehow more persuasive. Bohm's implicate and explicate order is an interesting relevant theory.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    copenhagen is popular for historical reasons including our historical obsession with the mind-body duality. many physicists i talk to secretly admit to MWI/universal wavefunction making more sense but it is metaphysics and academia is a conservative institution, especially for metaphysics.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Popularity resolves to beliefs, and beliefs are formed via persuasiveness of stories. There may be some math contained within the stories, but ultimately physics is driven by persuasiveness of stories, as with all other endeavors involving humans. Now that we're in the age of AI, perhaps things will change.
- n4r9 2y ago
  People do think about that. But it's rich of Carroll to claim that MWI is falsifiable, as if it is quantum theory.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  So the question under discussion is whether many-worlds is, or should be, "generally accepted". It isn't. If it's not generally accepted and wants to be, then it has the burden of proof. Claiming that many-worlds met its burden of proof (compared to Copenhagen) by something other than Copenhagen not being proven is completely missing the point. If you want people to believe many-worlds rather than Copenhagen, you have to disprove Copenhagen. If you don't, then people will continue to believe Copenhagen.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    Not a physicist but my guess is that Copenhagen was a "mental trick" (not in a bad sense) that got people off of worrying too much about questions we still don't have answers to e.g "what is a measurement", and got people to "shut up and calculate", which yielded results. Hence it's success
  - mr_mitm 2y ago
    No, my question was: why did Copenhagen become generally accepted? You're saying: it just is, deal with it. That's unsatisfactory. Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority. That is correct. Physics inherits that from culture, which runs on-top of reality, and that is how reality works. Personally, I agree with you, but reality is consensus based. Deal with it (develop a better story, or meme - "Shut up and calculate" seems effective despite it being in no way whatsoever a proof of anything...try and come up with something catchy like that).
    - sebzim4500 2y ago
      Pretty sure they are a plurality, not the majority.
    - 2y ago
jahnu 2y ago
Versus all others it’s more parsimonious (as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion) which is typically more desirable as a description of nature. So if it needs less and the others don’t have any more reason or evidence to be taken more seriously as a description of what is happening then shouldn’t it rank first as the best current interpretation of QM?
- cfgauss2718 2y ago
  How is the answer “everything that can happen does happen, just in an alternate universe that is identical except for the outcome of one single measurement” a parsimonious answer to the measurement problem? To quote Sam Harris, many-worlds seems to be the least parsimonious concept ever produced by science.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > How is the answer “everything that can happen does happen, just in an alternate universe that is identical except for the outcome of one single measurement” a parsimonious answer to the measurement problem? Because it drops straight out of the schroedinger equation, which is something you were already believing. Do you consider believing in distant galaxies, rather than a novel type of astronomical object, to be more or less parsimonious? It means multiplying the size of the universe by millions; nevertheless most of us accept it.
    - jahnu 2y ago
      And, I don't think that many-worlds even says that "everything that can happen does happen". It does say that a lot of branching goes on though :) Might as well quote Sean Carroll again, he's an expert and I am not: "The Schrödinger equation tells us that there's a wave function that evolves over time and then you can ask how I can divide that wave function into a set of decohered non-interacting worlds and those are the worlds that happen. It is nowhere close to saying everything happens. It is what is predicted by the Schrödinger equation That is what happens." https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/05/06/ama-may-2024/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/05/06/ama-... Interestingly, people seem less bothered by the idea that the universe might be infinite in size even though that has a similar feature that a lot of things happen. So it just seems to me that the discomfort is people worrying about the idea that there are copies of themselves out there somewhere when they really shouldn't. At least no more than if in an infinite universe there would also be infinite repetition and infinite identical "yous". This is starting to sound like a Douglas Adams bit now :D

by n4r9 2y ago

That's not very convincing! He's only talking about falsifying it vs extensions of quantum theory. The interesting question is whether it can be falsified vs other interpretations of quantum theory.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mr_mitm 2y ago

Why is no one ever asking how to falsify Copenhagen vs other interpretations? What did Copenhagen ever do to deserve this privilege?

mistermann 2y ago
Copenhagen is somehow more persuasive. Bohm's implicate and explicate order is an interesting relevant theory.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  copenhagen is popular for historical reasons including our historical obsession with the mind-body duality. many physicists i talk to secretly admit to MWI/universal wavefunction making more sense but it is metaphysics and academia is a conservative institution, especially for metaphysics.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Popularity resolves to beliefs, and beliefs are formed via persuasiveness of stories. There may be some math contained within the stories, but ultimately physics is driven by persuasiveness of stories, as with all other endeavors involving humans. Now that we're in the age of AI, perhaps things will change.
n4r9 2y ago
People do think about that. But it's rich of Carroll to claim that MWI is falsifiable, as if it is quantum theory.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
So the question under discussion is whether many-worlds is, or should be, "generally accepted". It isn't. If it's not generally accepted and wants to be, then it has the burden of proof. Claiming that many-worlds met its burden of proof (compared to Copenhagen) by something other than Copenhagen not being proven is completely missing the point. If you want people to believe many-worlds rather than Copenhagen, you have to disprove Copenhagen. If you don't, then people will continue to believe Copenhagen.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  Not a physicist but my guess is that Copenhagen was a "mental trick" (not in a bad sense) that got people off of worrying too much about questions we still don't have answers to e.g "what is a measurement", and got people to "shut up and calculate", which yielded results. Hence it's success
- mr_mitm 2y ago
  No, my question was: why did Copenhagen become generally accepted? You're saying: it just is, deal with it. That's unsatisfactory. Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority. That is correct. Physics inherits that from culture, which runs on-top of reality, and that is how reality works. Personally, I agree with you, but reality is consensus based. Deal with it (develop a better story, or meme - "Shut up and calculate" seems effective despite it being in no way whatsoever a proof of anything...try and come up with something catchy like that).
  - sebzim4500 2y ago
    Pretty sure they are a plurality, not the majority.
  - 2y ago

jahnu 2y ago

Versus all others it’s more parsimonious (as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion) which is typically more desirable as a description of nature. So if it needs less and the others don’t have any more reason or evidence to be taken more seriously as a description of what is happening then shouldn’t it rank first as the best current interpretation of QM?

cfgauss2718 2y ago
How is the answer “everything that can happen does happen, just in an alternate universe that is identical except for the outcome of one single measurement” a parsimonious answer to the measurement problem? To quote Sam Harris, many-worlds seems to be the least parsimonious concept ever produced by science.
- lmm 2y ago
  > How is the answer “everything that can happen does happen, just in an alternate universe that is identical except for the outcome of one single measurement” a parsimonious answer to the measurement problem? Because it drops straight out of the schroedinger equation, which is something you were already believing. Do you consider believing in distant galaxies, rather than a novel type of astronomical object, to be more or less parsimonious? It means multiplying the size of the universe by millions; nevertheless most of us accept it.
  - jahnu 2y ago
    And, I don't think that many-worlds even says that "everything that can happen does happen". It does say that a lot of branching goes on though :) Might as well quote Sean Carroll again, he's an expert and I am not: "The Schrödinger equation tells us that there's a wave function that evolves over time and then you can ask how I can divide that wave function into a set of decohered non-interacting worlds and those are the worlds that happen. It is nowhere close to saying everything happens. It is what is predicted by the Schrödinger equation That is what happens." https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/05/06/ama-may-2024/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/05/06/ama-... Interestingly, people seem less bothered by the idea that the universe might be infinite in size even though that has a similar feature that a lot of things happen. So it just seems to me that the discomfort is people worrying about the idea that there are copies of themselves out there somewhere when they really shouldn't. At least no more than if in an infinite universe there would also be infinite repetition and infinite identical "yous". This is starting to sound like a Douglas Adams bit now :D