[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Jason and Bill (and by extension, the AI ;)),

I just wanted to address the Tegmark bit, and I'll get back to your email 
(Jason) later since I like to read it, and then sleep on it, to see if 
sleeps yields any additional insights.

But the Tegmark bit, was a quick read (unless some crucial parts are 
hidden on the remaining pages):

>       Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite
>       number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes
>       impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim.
> 
> This is false, see the page I cited from Tegmark's book on falsifiability:
> https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/124/mode/2up?q=%22Are+theories%22

So based on that page, the argument goes that Einsteins theories have
testable components, and they also make predictions about the insides of
a black whole that we cannot test.

Likewise, qm contains testable components, and yields interpretations of
which one is the MWI.

Then Tegmarks argues, that since we accept Einsteins theory, we must
accept what it tells us about black holes, and here is where I disagree
with him. Actually, I think its just a matter of degree and
interpretation, so I'm not sure we would disagree at all. But that's
besides the point.

The reason I disagree with Tegmark is that we cannot (yet) test to
confirm the predictions of what happens inside a black whole. That puts
us in the position of being able to test some claims of Einstein, and
use them profitably. The theory in turn, makes untestable predictions,
theories, ideas, about what happens inside a black hole.

The key here is that it is a theory, a useful tool, that makes
predictions about this world, and places in this world we cannot access.
That means that we today can never say what actually happens inside a
black hole. We can only estimate, but never verify. Yes, what follows
out of Einstien is for sure better than a fiction book, but at the end
of the day we have to accept that it will most likely forever remain
theory, even though it is an enlightened one.

That is why I do not accept that MWI is testable. That claim is not
testable, and that also doesn't take into account that MWI is not the
only interpretation, or other possibly future ones.

So to put this in more dramatic terms, if a theory predicts god, but a
god that will forever be absent, will never respond, and will never
affect your world in any way, for all we know, we can safely just
disregard it. God might be a theoretical possibility or extrapolation,
but at the end of the day its just a nice story and will never be true
knowledge and true certainty.

The scientific method is a great tool for this world, and so is math,
but it does break down into metaphysics when applied to gods and other
entities which by definition are completely outside the scope of this
world.

I'll get back to that in the other thread in time, so please bear with
me.

Best regards, 
Daniel