[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 11:06 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 9:40 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> he only thing we can access is our own subjectivity, and that could be
>> in error, or designed to have no correspondence to reality, then we cannot
>> know anything. This predicament is general, and no more specific to quantum
>> mechanics than it is to gravity. However, if we relax this supreme
>> Cartesian doubt, and assume we aren't in a fever dream or under control of
>> an evil demon, then we can make observations about reality and propose
>> theories to account for them.*
>>
>
> Another way of saying that is to assume that Superdeterminism is untrue,
> and I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make because it's quite
> literally impossible to have a greater violation of Occam's Razor than
> Superdeterminism.
>



I agree.


>
> *> One implication of QM is that there's a multitude of other worlds out
>> there which only weakly make their existence known to us (through
>> interference effects). We regard these as real, because whatever dream or
>> demon is giving the appearance of all these worlds, must be modeling them
>> all too. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to give us factors of large numbers
>> as a quantum computer is able to.*
>>
>
> Nobody has ever found one and I doubt one exists, but there is no proof
> there is not a conventional factoring algorithm that is as fast or even
> faster than Shor's quantum factoring algorithm. For that matter nobody has
> ever been able to prove that P≠NP although nearly every mathematician alive
> believes it is, I think it's because of the intuitive belief that at some
> level it's harder to write a novel than to read a novel, and it's harder to
> find a mathematical proof than it is to understand a mathematical proof
> written by somebody else. However if that intuition is wrong and P=NP and
> we found a conventional algorithm that could efficiently solve all
> nondeterministic polynomial time problems in polynomial time then quantum
> computers would be unnecessary, conventional computers would work just as
> well. But I would be very surprised if that turned out to be the case.
>
> *> One implication of ensemble theories is that QM must be true for all
>> observers, even simulated ones.*
>>
>
> I don't see why that would be true. Most characters in video games live
> in a world where Newtonian physics rules, or a world where there is no
> consistent physics at all. The creator of the video game is God of that
> world, He can make the physics in it be anything he likes.
>


Yes but if there are any infinite number of God's each whom have created an
infinite number of various simulations, then any being in any simulation
cannot know which simulation they are in, nor have any certainty what they
will experience next (on account of that uncertainty).

For illustration, see the diagram here with the same �� belonging to four
different universes:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Irreducible_Randomness



>
>> > *That is, because every observer has infinite instantiations,*
>>
>
>  There may be a Jason Resch for each event that is physically possible,
> but each individual observer only sees one event; that's why in our daily
> lives we never see macroscopic objects in a quantum superposition.
>

Yes but this accounts for the appearance of subjective randomness, when it
comes to predicting one's next experience.


>
>> *> it is impossible "trap" their subjectivity in a single world or in a
>> single simulation.*
>>
>
> Pronouns can be a trap in a situation like this, and personal pronouns
> like "I" and "you" are even worse. In the above, what is the referent to
> the word  "their'' ?
>

"Every observer"


>
>> > *all observers will experience fundamental unpredictability, even if
>> one makes an observer in a deterministic computer program*
>>
>
> I agree.
>

��

Jason

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230916/64b8f41c/attachment.htm>