On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:13:02 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 17-09-2019 16:04, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is [1]
> >>
> >> John K Clark
> >>
> >> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
> >> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory,
> > math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to
> > call it) in computational quantum mechanics:
> >
> >
> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>
> >
> > If MW were important, it would be there.
> >
> > @philipthrift
>
> The fact that computational quantum mechanics works at all is very
> strong evidence for the MWI. That the MWI in the sense of the idea that
> you have copies out there that have experienced different things, has no
> practical applications is similar to saying that the idea that you are
> ultimately reducible to only chemistry has no practical applications.
> The question whether or not biology is merely a branch of chemistry has
> been answered and this has some applications, but at the level of human
> beings in the way they interact with each other, this is just an
> academic question. The same is pretty much true for quantum mechanics
> and the MWI, or at least the "Many Words" part of the MWI, as the some
> details if the MWI still need to be fleshed out.
>
> Thing is that if the MWI is wrong then that implies new physics in an
> area that no one is expecting. Physicists are expecting new physics to
> appear at high energies, e.g. supersymmetry may be discovered. But no
> one expects that quantum mechanics will fail to hold up. What's
> unexpected may still happen, but it's just not plausible given
> everything we do know.
>
> Saibal
>
>
That there is a a different kind of "probability "space" underlying QM does
not imply MWI.
In fact. MWI is a probability ("extended" or not) eliminative theory (or
framework, or interpretation, or formulation, or whatever word physicists
are happy with).
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3693709d-2981-4a70-91b2-9e5f9ebf80db%40googlegroups.com.
