4 ms·

It can be local in many-worlds. http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ http://lesswr

by Eliezer 14y ago

It can be local in many-worlds. http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunication/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_n...

wamatt 14y ago
Looks like you're a firm believer, so I ask, is MWI by your definition falsifiable? Do any experiments past, current or future purport to test predictions made from MWI? While MWI may make sense in a universal reading of QM, I'm not sure we can simply extrapolate this onto the macro level, despite it's pragmatic successes over the last century. IMHO QM itself, still feels like a temporary hack (shim), when compared alongside ER. Until we have a TOE, it may be too presumptuous to be making positive assertive claims on the correlation between the MWI model and reality.
- Eliezer 14y ago
  http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
  - pfedor 14y ago
    If decoherence is "untestable" relative to collapse, then so too, collapse is "untestable" relative to decoherence. Of course! Nobody questions that. The two are equivalent. That means, neither is more true than the other. You just happen to be in the minority which feels that thinking about multiple worlds makes their head ache less than thinking about the state vector reduction. What if the history of physics had transpired differently—what if Hugh Everett and John Wheeler had stood in the place of Bohr and Heisenberg, and vice versa? My guess is, we wouldn't have had to wait until 1957 for someone to say: "Fuck that noise, let's just forget about the multiple worlds and pretend the wave function collapses when I make a measurement." They would be like, "All right buddy, I'm sure you're totally right that there are really multiple worlds and all that, I'll just act like it's merely a wave function collapse for a moment, just to get on with my work of actually doing something as a physicist." My guess is that would happen within the year.

by Eliezer 14y ago

wamatt 14y ago

Looks like you're a firm believer, so I ask, is MWI by your definition falsifiable? Do any experiments past, current or future purport to test predictions made from MWI? While MWI may make sense in a universal reading of QM, I'm not sure we can simply extrapolate this onto the macro level, despite it's pragmatic successes over the last century. IMHO QM itself, still feels like a temporary hack (shim), when compared alongside ER. Until we have a TOE, it may be too presumptuous to be making positive assertive claims on the correlation between the MWI model and reality.

Eliezer 14y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
- pfedor 14y ago
  If decoherence is "untestable" relative to collapse, then so too, collapse is "untestable" relative to decoherence. Of course! Nobody questions that. The two are equivalent. That means, neither is more true than the other. You just happen to be in the minority which feels that thinking about multiple worlds makes their head ache less than thinking about the state vector reduction. What if the history of physics had transpired differently—what if Hugh Everett and John Wheeler had stood in the place of Bohr and Heisenberg, and vice versa? My guess is, we wouldn't have had to wait until 1957 for someone to say: "Fuck that noise, let's just forget about the multiple worlds and pretend the wave function collapses when I make a measurement." They would be like, "All right buddy, I'm sure you're totally right that there are really multiple worlds and all that, I'll just act like it's merely a wave function collapse for a moment, just to get on with my work of actually doing something as a physicist." My guess is that would happen within the year.