[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[efc at swisscows.email]

Good evening Jason,

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

>       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.

I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I think
our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific
realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and 
constructive empiricism for me. What do you think?

> 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?

That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of the
essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we seem to
have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you having
made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and also,
I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even though
we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it still
has been very valuable for me.

>       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.

Yes, I think perhaps that is what I was trying to get at. We are beings
who live in 3+1 dimensions, and our brains, languages, figures of speech
are completely attuned to that. With QM, we have reached a level that
deviates so far from our ordinary world, that when we think we are
translating equations into ordinary language, our intuitions cause us to
err. But of course this is just pure speculation, but I wouldn't be
surprised if reality is so strange and foreign to us, that it might not
be possible for us to grasp with images and our spoken languages. We
need another language to express those truths, and things and aspects
will be lost in translation.

>       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.

I agree with that, but see the realism vs the other options above for
some points about what science is about.

>       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.

Yes, I'll have a look at it, and let's see. =)

Best regards, 
Daniel


> 
> Jason 
> 
>