[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 5:44 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Hello Jason,
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 10:11 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat
> > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >       Many worlds has the same problem that "are we living in a
> simulation?"
> > has.
> >
> >       From the inside, there is no way to tell.
> >
> > This can be said of any theory: that because the 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.
> > When we find these theories make accurate predictions
> > we accept them.
>
> But the problem is that predictions about things outside our reach can
> never be verified, so we can never know how accurate they are.
>


I think the two sides of our positions boil down to a single question:
do we, or don't we, trust our scientific theories?

I don't know that there's any more to add beyond that, and I think our
difference there can account for all of our differences on this topic. But
if you feel otherwise I am anxious to see if you have a different take.

The reason I have trust in our theories, even for things we haven't tested,
is that if one doesn't believe theories will work for things we haven't
tested, then we arrive at the position where we only trust our theories for
things that have been tested. But then, what's the use in having a theory?



> We could be wrong about our starting point (qm), or
> in our interpretation (maybe our human language is not up to the task of
> translating the equation into something we understand).
>

Human language is Turing universal so it can describe any system or process
that is computable. Whether we humans have brains that can understand such
descriptions is another question.



> But I do agree about the supreme cartesian doubt and the need to relax
> it in order to get anywhere.
>

Yes.


> Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a pragmatic
> view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will never reach
> the status of truth.
>

Science never gets to truth, it only chases it.


> But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I just wanted
> to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would become more
> clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting comes up.
>
> Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other thread?
> I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the other
> thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject.
>
> Best regards, Daniel



Yes, many of these points are in that monster of a thread. Feel free to
break out any specific items from my reply into their own threads if that
would be helpful.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230916/1646e3cc/attachment.htm>