[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[Keith Henson]

I have doubts that many worlds can be experienced in base reality
(assuming we live in base reality).

But in the uploaded state, it is no problem.

Assuming you have enough memory and processing power, there is no
difficulty in making tweaks in the simulated reality.  You can also
checkpoint the simulation from time to time and reenter the simulation
at one of those points.  Time travel also seems to be ruled out of
base reality but this is a way we could do something subjectively
equivalent.

Hmm.  Perhaps data centers hundreds of times the area of the Earth are minimal.

Best wishes,

Keith

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:39 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 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" (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" (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” (2021)
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat