[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[efc at swisscows.email]

Good evening Jason,

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:

>       > 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)

I'll have a look but I make no promises! ;) At least the first 5 pages
look very nice and easy. ;)

>       > 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.

No, of course. My perspective is a laymans perspective. If my main
motivation in life was to know the truth of how the world is made up, I
would have chosen an academic path and focused on physics. So I agree
with you there.

On the other hand, there is the questions of deep personal truth
(meaning). So knowing the truth is one thing, and experiencing your
truth is another. But this fuzzy concept I think we might reach in
another mega-thread on the meaning of life, so let's try and keep this
in mind once we get to it.

> 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.

Very interesting! And to your point above:

"One reason for Einstein’s absence from school science classes is that
many people imagine that his theories require enormous mathematical
skills. The educationalists at the conference emphatically rejected this
viewpoint".

I think the majority opinion is that it is too mathematical or
difficult. Perhaps also, the math and physics skills of the typical
teacher also influences this policy.

I do know that my wifes mother is a physicist and teaches grade 1 to 9,
and the government is constantly reducing the nr of hours she gets. The
ltest "stroke of genius" is to combine the hours of physics, math and
some other subject into one "natural science" subject, thus giving even
less hours to stem. This does not bode well for the future of the
country and its children.

>       > 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.

But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us anything
about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other
interpretations yet to be made up, etc.

> 
> 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.

Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action, but
that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple
worlds. For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it
increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I think the
fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that this
experiment is not conclusive.

Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the
other mailinglist?

I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it seems
I got it!

>       > 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. 

Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well
depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I have
very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes, it is
probably a personality trait.

>       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.

Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in? =)

> "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)

Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite science
and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book, and I
would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think.

Best regards, 
Daniel


> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jason
> 
>