[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:11 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Good evening Jason,
>

Good evening Daniel,

>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >       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?
> >
> > From wikipedia: "Scientific realism is the view that the universe
> described
> > by science is real regardless of how it may be
> > interpreted."
> >
> > I think that's a fair description of my view.
>
> I thought it sounded familiar! ;)
>

:-)


>
> > From wikipedia: "In philosophy of science and in epistemology,
> > instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful
> > instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it
> is in
> > explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According
> > to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing
> known
> > either true or false about nature's unobservable objects,
> > properties or processes."
> >
> > I think that sounds like a good description of the position/stance you
> have
> > been arguing from.
> >
> > From wikipedia: "Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories
> are
> > semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically
> > adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they
> are
> > empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if
> > and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true
> > (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A
> > theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory
> is
> > interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory
> > are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading)."
> >
> > This description isn't clear enough for me to understand. Though it
> seems to
> > support the scientific realism view more so than the
> > instrumentalist view, as it takes the stance that claims of a theory are
> > either true or false (and it seems to me, the existence of
>
> I've been reading up on it and it seems like a "middle of the road"
> proposal, but it is lumped together with anti-realists. I'm very much
> saying I'm not entirely clear where I end up and I see points in both of
> them.
>
> Also I agree with you that it does seem a bit "fluffy" around the edges.
>
> > objective truth requires the existence of an objective reality). I don't
> know
> > to what extent you take instrumentalism to imply any
> > form of anti-realism, I don't think you have argued that. Rather, you
> seem to
> > be of the opinion that theories should be taken to be
> > silent regarding predictions of which we haven't found the means to
> directly
> > test.
>
> Well, from a knowledge point of view, I'd say agnosticism instead of
> silence. However, I'm not against theorizing per se. The reason is that
> theories serve as inspiration and are valuable tools that do produce
> testable predictions. Also, what is not testable today _might_ become
> testable tomorrow. Of course some theories are so "far out" that I see
> the probability as close to zero, and some are on the edge, and some,
> most likely will be testable.
>
> So perhaps for me, theories reside on a scale of probabilities and the
> probability decreases with decreases in how testable they are.
>
> >       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.
> >
> > That is wonderful.
>
> It is! Very rare as well in these polarized times. I ask myself
> sometimes, when was the last time I changed my mind on a political
> matter and the answer is that (disregarding trivial questions) those
> shifts tend to happen over larger periods of time.
>
> > Just this morning I was going over what I had written on relativity, and
> > noticed something pertinent to this discussion. Einstein
> > wrote his theory of special relativity in 1905. But it wasn't
> experimentally
> > confirmed until 1932, even though, by that time, nearly
> > all physicists had come to accept it as true. Einstein's Nobel prize,
> given
> > in 1921, wasn't for his relativity, which was still too
> > controversial given it had not been experimentally confirmed.
> Experimenters
> > might have thought: there's no way we can ever build
> > things to approach the speed of light and verify any of these
> predictions
> > anytime this century, relativity is useless, and we
> > shouldn't believe its predictions of time dilation, length contraction,
> > relativity of simultaneity, etc. but all of these were
> > eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create
> many
> > of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser
> > gyroscopes, and particle accelerators.
> > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation
> >
> > At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money
> on)
> > the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of
> > simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory)
>
> > A) After Einstein published his paper in 1905
>
> Probably no.
>
> > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why
> it was
> > a better theory
>
> I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and understanding
> would at least increase my confidence.
>

I would say to give it a shot. There are a lot of equations, but also a lot
of plain english explanations, built up constructively from simple
definitions, such as clocks and simultaneity:
http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_male
tin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf (Here is his original paper translated to
English)


>
> > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory
>
> Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> > D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed
> (in
> > 1932)
>
> Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify would be
> even better.
>

One thing which is quite clear in relativity, is how interdependent all the
predictions of the theory are. For instance, the prediction of
time-dilation (where two observers measure time differently) automatically
implies the existence of length-contraction (where two observers measure
distances differently). If one did not imply the other, they would not
agree on the speed of light being constant. Moreover, time-dilation and
length-contraction together also imply relativity of simultaneity. Again,
if not for this phenomenon, the whole theory would break down. This is why
testing and confirming even a single element of a theory, is enough to
provide confidence in the other predictions of a theory.


>
> > E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been
> > experimentally demonstrated
>
> I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol depending on
> the sums of money involved. ;)
>
> > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of
> simultaneity
> > had come into common use
> > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical
> > technologies
> > H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference
> frames at
> > once, to witness the same two events occur in a
> > different order
> >
> > Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point
> you
> > would accept many-worlds:
> > A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957
> > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why
> it was
> > a better theory
> > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds
>
> Getting closer...
>

I think that is perhaps a good heuristic for deciding what to put in a
science textbook, but I don't think it's the best method for one interested
in seeking the truth (as we currently best understand it). Of course, to
venture beyond the level of what has sufficient consensus to be included in
a textbook, one has to do some work in order to understand the various
theories to be able to compare their relative merits and weaknesses.

This article asks, why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in school:
https://theconversation.com/why-dont-we-teach-einsteins-theories-in-school-69991
when it's been well over a century since Einstein's theory overturned
Newtonian mechanics, and we've confirmed essentially every prediction the
theory has made.


>
> > D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed
> > (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse,
> > Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.)
>
> Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and
> verification from other teams.
>

I believe Alain Aspect's experiments
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment> demonstrating the EPR
(spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have been replicated
numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year.

For anyone who believes relativity's prediction that nothing travels faster
than light, the only way we can explain this experimental result is with
Many-Worlds. Those who subscribe to single-universe interpretations retreat
to saying "well this effect can't be used to transmit useful information
faster than light, even though it transmits a random result faster than
light, and relativity only prohibits sending information faster than light"
-- but this isn't what relativity says, relativity says causality can't
travel faster than the speed of light, and the spooky action, despite not
being able to transmit meaningful information, is nonetheless a violation
of causal influences traveling faster than light. It is why Einstein
objected so strongly to this implication of single-universe QM (at the time
physicists were not so bold as to propose or even consider that QM implied
many-worlds), but MW resolved all the problems Einstein had with the
theory: it made QM local (no spooky action), deterministic (God doesn't
play dice), and realistic (the moon still exists when no one is looking at
it). Therefore, I believe that had Einstein lived to see Everett's paper,
he would have embraced it wholeheartedly.


>
> > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally
> demonstrated
> > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum
> > computer)
>
> I think here probably.
>

There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of
proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a personality trait that
determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is.


>
> > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting Many-Worlds had come
> into
> > common use (e.g., quantum computers that factor 2048-bit
> > RSA keys)
> > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical
> > technologies (e.g., you had rented a quantum computer on IBM
> > and used it to break an RSA key)
> > H) Only after someone invents a portal that lets us peer into or
> communicate
> > with these other worlds
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> > It is true that the reality described by QM is quite alien to our
> everyday
> > experience, and why math is so much better suited as a
> > language for physicists to describe reality. Words like "splitting", and
> > "branching", and "multiple universes" are very apt to be
> > conceived of in different ways by different readers, and should better
> be
> > considered as analogies for what the math in the theory
> > literally describes.
>
> I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that
> this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads
> around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand...
> what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up
> and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic.
>
> I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our
> brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science
> fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains
> to experience new realities. ;)
>

I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted.


"Physical quantities like the speed of light, the attraction of electric
charges, and the strength of gravity are, for us, the unchanging foundation
on which everything is built. But if our existence is a product of
self-interpretation in the space of all possible worlds, this stability may
simply reflect the delicacy of our own construction---our biochemistry
malfunctions in worlds where the physical constants vary, and we would
cease to be there. Thus, we always find ourselves in a world where the
constants are just what is needed to keep us functioning. For the same
reason, we find the rules have held steady over a long period, so evolution
could accumulate our many intricate, interlocking internal mechanisms.

Our engineered descendants will be more flexible. Perhaps mind-hosting
bodies can be constructed that are adjustable for small changes in, say,
the speed of light. An individual who installed itself in such a body, and
then adjusted it for a slightly higher lightspeed, should then find itself
in a physical universe appropriately altered, since it could then exist in
no other. It would be a one-way trip. Acquaintances in old-style bodies
would be seen to die---among fireworks everywhere, as formerly stable atoms
and compounds disintegrated. Turning the tuning knob back would not restore
the lost continuity of life and substance. Back in the old universe
everything would be normal, only the acquaintances would witness an odd
``suicide by tuning knob.'' Such irreversible partings of the way occur
elsewhere in physics. The many-worlds interpretation calls for them,
subtly, at every recorded observation."

-- Hans Moravec in "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence
<https://archive.ph/uqCeA>" (1998)


"But perhaps when we forget something, this is equivalent to the memory
resetting scenario discussed in this article. This depends on whether or
not the lost memory has affected our consciousness. So, if we watch a
recording of a soccer match played a long time ago, the outcome is
undetermined, not just if we are watching the match for the first time and
never read about the outcome, but perhaps also if we’ve seen the match
before and forgot about the outcome."
-- Saibal Mitra "Changing the past by forgetting
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3825.pdf>" (2010)

"One’s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains many
possible “parallel universes”, and that we have selected ourselves into one
of these, perhaps as a result of our particular characteristics. But in
fact the ruliad isn’t about “parallel universes”, it’s about universes that
are entangled at the finest possible level. And an important consequence of
this is that it means we’re not “stuck in a particular parallel universe”.
Instead, we can expect that by somehow “changing our point of view”, we can
effectively find ourselves in a “different universe”."
-- Stephen Wolfram in “The Concept of the Ruliad
<https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/>”
(2021)



Best,

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230920/2ff061f7/attachment.htm>