On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
* >I don't find the Occam's razor argument very persuasive. First, having > an infinity of universes does seem very simple. * > *The number of universes is irrelevant because Occam's razor is about picking the theory that needs the fewest assumptions to explain observations, it is NOT about picking the theory that produces the simplest consequences; and all those many worlds are the result of the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation. Many World's rivals say everything always obeys Schrodinger's equation EXCEPT when they don't, like when you observe them. Then they obey entirely different laws of physics. To make matters even worse they are very unclear about what "observe" means and what qualities a thing needs in order to be granted the honorific title "you". * > *And if you favor the MWI why not take it all the way like our friend > Bruno and say that everything computable happens. * > *Because Bruno had nothing equivalent to the two slit experiment, and because Occam's razor says a theory should always make the smallest assumptions, and "everything computable happens" includes "everything obeys Schrodinger's equation" BUT it also contains an infinite amount of other stuff that is unnecessary to explain observations. * > *> And when exactly does the world split? * > *Whenever the laws of physics as described by Quantum Mechanics says there is a possibility of a change. * > *> Is it within the forward light cone? * > *It is within A forward light cone but if Many Worlds is correct then there is no such thing as THE forward light cone, except perhaps the one produced at the first Planck Time after the Big Bang. But nobody has a good understanding about what was going on that early in the universe. * * > And where exactly is the point of that cone? * > *The place and the time that the change had occurred. After that the change radiated outward at either the speed of light or instantaneously, take your pick it makes no observable difference. * > *> What happens there that produces the Born rule? * > *What happens is the only thing that could happen if Schrodinger's Equation is going to produce a set of positive real numbers between 0 and 1 that always add up to exactly one. * * > Personally I tend to take a more instrumentalist view of QM.* > *OK. There's nothing wrong with the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation if you're only interested in predicting what value you're going to get on your voltmeter and don't care about what's actually going on. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* bid -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Gvj-nEgpC79QtvCK6Tzah_ObCkfCeVP3C5Au3F7TH2A%40mail.gmail.com.
