On 14 May 2012, at 22:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.05.2012 10:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse.
When
you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start
thinking about it.
On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one
reason
really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative argument.
Science is
not a question of majority vote.
My empirical observations just shows that the easiness and
obviousness that you stress to accept multiverse seems to be
overestimated. The life seems to be more complex.
But that is true for any conception. 0 universes, 1 universes, etc.
...
Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time
and
I would say they have been already successful without a multiverse.
No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to
talk
In my view, your position that chemists have used multiverse all the
time contradicts to historical facts.
They have use it without knowing. They use the collapse
methodologically, and they are not interested in reality, but in
practical applications. But they do use "state superposition", and
they do know the equation is linear.
A cosmologists asked me a long time ago if it makes logical sense to
apply QM to the cosmos. I said "yes" if we abandon the collapse of the
wave and refer him to Everett. In his paper he just added a tiny
footnote referring to Everett. Some ideas are shocking, for cultural
reason, and are accepted in some silencious way.
If you study the UD Argument, you can understand that elementary
arithmetic leads already to many worlds, with very weak version of
comp. This shocks some of us, like the idea that the Earth is round,
and turns around the sun can be shocking. But it is just much simpler
for the big picture sense.
with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent for
themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid the
contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to avoid
looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain
personal
conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM = multiverse. The
collapse
of the wave is already an invention to hide the multiverse, and it
has
never work.
You should look what molecular simulation is. It has nothing to do
with the collapse of wave function. Whether wave function collapses
or not, for chemists it does not matter.
Sure. This is because they focuses on the accessible reality, and for
them, an electronic orbital is like a map where to find an electron.
They use both the wave, which gives the shape of the orbital, and the
collapse, to describe the result. They don't focus of what is real in
case QM applies to 'them + the electron', for they focus only on the
electron. Now, if one say that there is a collapse, then one just use
an inconsistent fuzzy theory which has never really work. here we
discuss everything, not just electron.
They use quantum mechanics according to instrumentalism and, as I
have written, they have been successful.
For their result, yes. With respect to the big picture, they don't
ask. It is their right. We are just not tackling the same question.
Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse
interpretation, they will start working more productively?
They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he taught
chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true only on
little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate Bell's
inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he revised
his
opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true macroscopically,
and
that it makes the weirdness a real fact of life. De Broglie behaves
like
ghat too. This illustrates that people can use a theory, without
taking
it seriously, because they follow their wishful conviction. It is
typical for humans to do that.
Again, you need to look at what molecular simulation is. What you
write has nothing to do with molecular simulation, nor with the way
how chemists develop new molecules and materials.
But this is a different job. I am not interested in electron, but in
question like what is an electron, is it real, where its appearance
comes from, etc.
That was my point, try to apply multiverse ideas to develop a new
drug more productively.
Using QM, and being aware the collapse is non sensical (or could be)
means that you use the multiverse idea, because that is QM (without
collapse). People can easily use theories, without trying to get the
deep and annoying (for them) consequences. It change also the picture
of possible after-life, in which case we are all using it all the time.
I would say that it will not work, because the collapse of wave
function is irrelevant at this level.
It is not so much a question of level, than a question of personal
interest. You don't need to have the correct interpretation of a
theory to use it, like you can drive a car without knowing anything in
thermodynamic.
Instrumentalism is fine for application, but our goal here is not
application, but more like attempts toward possible truth contemplation.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
