On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Look at the sky, look at the size of the visible universe and all the entities we can see... I don't see *many worlds* as more extravagant, there is already for sure a bazillion entities. *It is more extravagant, hugely more extravagant. For example, it adds the postulate that everything that can happen, anything that's possible to happen, must happen. So, for example, when considering a horse race, every possible outcome of the race must exist, and for this to be realized, additional worlds must come into existence. It's claimed that this extravagant added postulate comes from Schrodinger's equation, but in fact it's nowhere in sight. Look for yourself if you don't believe me. Or consider what happens when a motorist turns at a T-intersection; not simply two worlds for each possible direction, but a myriad of worlds, perhaps uncountable, corresponding to all possible angles of turning. Moreover, in virtually all versions of the interpretation, the worlds are disjoint and therefore never interact. So the theory is non-testable. IMO, what we have here is a cult, and as such, when confronted with the added postulate and its justification, conjured from thin air as it were, there's never a response to its origin, since it surely does not originate from S's equation. IMO, FWIW, the MWI is pure fantasy, and a harmful one which has corrupted the mentality of the physics community. AG* Le lun. 30 déc. 2024, 02:24, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit : I don't find the Occam's razor argument very persuasive. First, having an infinity of universes does seem very simple. Sure it's argued that the THEORY is simpler, but who says that that saving a few lines of theory trumps having an extra bazillion universes. And if you favor the MWI why not take it all the way like our friend Bruno and say that everything computable happens. That's a "simple" theory too. And when exactly does the world split? Is it within the forward light cone? And where exactly is the point of that cone? What happens there that produces the Born rule? Personally I tend to take a more instrumentalist view of QM. Brent On 12/29/2024 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 5:55 PM Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: *> The trouble is that the alternative of a single objective reality that you argue for is not a falsifiable scientific theory either. The real problem is that Occams razor actually prefers the everything theory over a single objective reality.* *Very well stated I think. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* -- 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/9d7ede3b-54c4-4d8a-92a2-0b90ab9cd8e9n%40googlegroups.com.
