[ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change
giulio at gmail.com
Sat Nov 30 06:59:17 UTC 2019
I think there are different interpretations of Everett's interpretation. A
frequent reading of Everett is that the MWI IS super-deterministic: We are
quantum mechanical systems like everything else, and if everything evolves
deterministically in the multiverse, so do we.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 6:55 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Quoting BillK:
> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 21:43, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
> > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >> I don't see decoherence as being any more necessary than collapse in
> >> Everett's MWI. If one posits the existence of all possible Everett
> >> branches, all completely superdetermined, the result would be
> >> indistinguishable from what we observe. With all randomness
> >> attributable completely to our ignorance of which of the infinite
> >> Everett branches we reside in. This view also seems to corroborate the
> >> Wheeler-Dewitt equation which implies that the total energy and
> >> information of the multiverse as a whole is unchanging and therefore
> >> cannot be said to experience time at all.
> >> ---
> > <big snip>
> > Quantum Bayesianism claims that MWI is meaningless.
> > Quote:
> > The Many Worlds Interpretation just boils down to this: Whenever a
> > coin is tossed (or any process occurs) the world splits. But who would
> > know the difference if that were not true? What does this vision have
> > to do with any of the details of physics?
> > ----------------------
> To be honest, the notion that the universe splits asunder every time a
> coin is flipped, initially made me strongly dislike MWI because
> universe-splitting seemed a very unphysical process as bad as, if not
> worse than, wave-function collapse. But that is before I started
> investigating quantum gravity and wanting to merge QM and GR. Once GR
> comes into the picture and time becomes geometrized into a space-time
> manifold, one realizes that nothing splits or collapses. All the
> universes are all already there a piori.
> If one spatially clusters the universes by similarity to one another,
> the resulting model or structure of the multiverse looks like an
> infinite fractal tree, with uncountable Everett branches splitting off
> into further branch universes of increasing specificity until one gets
> down to the twigs; a picture reminiscent of Yggdrasil the World-Tree
> of Norse mythology. Any particular path from trunk to twig tracing out
> the unique history of a informationally-distinct universe.
> Perhaps this super-deterministic interpretation of MWI is sufficiently
> different from Everett's original vision so as to have its own name
> but calling it MWI suffices for me. The point is that Everett's model
> of QM lends itself well to the 3+1 geometry of general relativity.
> None of the so-called epistemic interpretations of QM like Copenhagen
> or QBism can boast this GR-coziness (hairy mathematical details like
> renormalization aside).
> The critic's allegation that classical versions of MWI could exist as
> there is nothing inherently quantum mechanical about the model,
> actually underscore the most valuable feature of MWI. And that is that
> a single visualization tool or interpretation of physics can bridge
> the quantum mechanical realm of subatomic processes with the
> inter-galactic realm of cosmological processes. In that regard, MWI is
> more a model of the physics of probabilistic phenomena on all scales
> rather than a narrow interpretation of QM.
> However, the Yggdrasil picture gained by clustering universes by
> informational similarity is a useful tool for concept visualization
> but the actual multiverse need not be so well organized. Quantum
> entanglement enables quantum systems to evolve unitarily no matter how
> far apart they are. And there seems to be more space in the multiverse
> than anything else. Because information seems to be non-local, a
> universe that is identical to ours except for one crucial detail (one
> atom out of place for example) need not be our nearest neighboring
> universe in space but instead lie countless trillions of Hubble radii
> Yet a single bit of Shannon information can nonetheless bridge that
> unfathomable gap. Just like there is only one number 3 that
> simultaneously exists wherever there are three of anything.
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism>
> > <
> > Interesting?
> QBism is a valid interpretation of QM. It uses all the same maths and
> leads to the same answers. However, it suffers from the same problems
> that Copenhagen and other epistemic interpretations suffer from. For
> one thing, it places undue importance on consciousness by way of
> subjective observation of probabilities in the evolution of quantum
> systems. Somehow abstract probabilities must become concrete
> actualities in quantum systems.
> In such epistemic interpretations for example, the moon is a fuzzy
> mass of probability amplitudes until the moment you glance at it, then
> it snaps to attention as a real object in the present moment located
> precisely where you see it. Then when you look away, it relaxes once
> again into a fuzzy mess of abstract data.
> It seems to violate the Copernican principle that the moon should
> dance at the whim of mere monkeys and that seems like a slippery slope
> to solipsism.
> In ontological interpretations of QM, such as MWI however, the moon is
> always there and in every possible phase and position while it is we
> precious observers that may or may not be there to witness it.
> I suppose in the end, it boils down to matter of taste. Which
> intuition about the world do you cherish more? Realism or locality?
> For my part, I choose realism. If the present moment is real, then all
> of space is real. There is so much space out there that we don't know
> if it is infinite or not. Furthermore it is expanding due to dark
> energy with the farthest parts receding faster than light. That means
> that almost all of space is causally disconnected from us. That means
> that there is room out there for all possible pasts, presents, and
> futures to be real yet completely unobserved.
> If the number three can exist wherever threeness is manifest, Why
> cannot Einstein exist wherever Einsteiness is manifest?
> Stuart LaForge
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat