[ExI] The multiverse is unscientific nonsense
Stuart LaForge
avant at sollegro.com
Mon Nov 20 04:55:25 UTC 2023
On 2023-11-19 13:07, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote:
>>> The paper fails to describe detection in a different universe,
>> only in
>>> a contained subset of this universe. It gives no evidence for the
>>> existence of other universes.
>>
>> It is not direct evidence, it is inferential evidence.
>
> It fails to even be that much.
You can't have direct observational evidence of other universes, only
the circumstantial evidence of quantum correlations. If Alice and Bob
each got an entangled
>> Anytime a
>> particle interferes with itself, it has to interact with
>> "something".
>> That something must be an alternate version of itself in another
>> universe. Otherwise, the particle has to be smart enough to do some
>> pretty crazy math to know what it is supposed do when observed.
>
> Many processes in the real universe can be described as the result of
> "pretty crazy math" when the objects themselves do no computation as
> we or as computers do it. Objects in freefall accelerate at very
> predictable rates regardless of the presence of computers. Wings
> generate lift using formulas that need very complex math to model.
> And, yes, particles and photons - far too small to be computers -
> diffract and otherwise perform quantum phenomena according to
> equations that take us quite a bit of training to understand, let
> alone to be able to compute.
Both an object in free fall and a wing achieving lift operate by
distinct physical mechanisms that are modelled by their respective
mathematical laws. An object in freefall is modelled by an inverse
square law that describes the object's interaction with a curved space
time acting like a real gravity well. A wind achieving lift is modelled
by the Bernoulli equation describing the wings interaction with a real
fluid . . . air. In both instances, the math describes the interaction
of an object with a physical mechanism.
In the vanilla QM of "shut up and calculate" the math describes the same
particle in many places at once interacting with itself. But you are not
supposed to talk about how that is possible, you are instead expected to
simply use the math as a mysterious black box without a known mechanism
to predict the measurable properties of a particle. Acting like there is
no physical mechanism for how a particle interacts with itself in two
places at once, does not mean there is no physical mechanism. There has
to be. Otherwise, particles would have to know and do the math t
determine what states are available to it. Worse yet, the particle would
also have to be able to choose which of numerous states it will be
observed to be in when measured. This a lot of complex behavior to
expect from a single particle, unless multiple copies of it exist in
multiple universes, in which case, it is just the pigeon-hole principle
and simple statistics.
Where else could the Born rule have come from? You if you flip a coin
and get heads from the +Z direction, I must get concurrently get tails
from the -Z direction. Vanilla QM is like pretending that tails doesn't
exist because you happen to observe heads. Or that one can pick
differently colored marbles from a bag when it contains only one marble.
Stuart LaForge
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list