[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Jason,

A quick follow up question...

You say that:

"Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of 
relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information."

and I wonder, if this cannot send meaningful information, what does it 
send? Random noise? Cannot bursts of random noise be used to signal 
something?

I think I misunderstand something here.

Best regards,
Daniel


On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 7:06 PM BillK via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 23:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat
>       <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       >
>       <big snip>
>       >
>       > It tells us one thing quite clearly:
>       > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e.,
>       there are many worlds).
>       > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple
>       universes.
>       > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need for any effect to travel faster than light to
>       explain the Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions that travel at the speed of
>       light or slower.
>       >
>       > Jason
>       > _______________________________________________
> 
> 
>
>       I asked several chatbots (that presumably have been trained on current
>       quantum theory) and they all agree with Daniel that MWI is only one of
>       several interpretations of quantum theory.
> 
> 
> All the bots are trained to heavily weight what exists on Wikipedia, which I think accounts for their common answers on these topics.
> 
>
>       One sample response was:
>       Question:
>       Does spooky action and violation of Bell's inequalities imply many
>       worlds interpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's a good phrasing. MW holds that there is no spooky action. It only seems that way because experiments have more
> than one outcome (and we always find ourselves in a branch with consistent results). The Bell inequalities only require spooky action
> under the condition that experiments only have a single outcome.
> 
> I would instead ask the AI(a):
> 
> What interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with local realism, that is, the property that there are no instantaneous
> faster than light influences?
> 
>
>       Answer | GPT-3.5-Turbo Model
>
>       The violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply the
>       Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics.
> 
> 
> The Bell inequalities together with Aspect's experimental confirmation of them, only imply Many-Worlds if one holds relativity to be
> true, (and therefore one believes relativity's principle tenet: that causality is limited by the speed of light).
> 
>
>       Bell's
>       inequalities are mathematical constraints that describe the
>       correlations between measurements on entangled particles. The
>       violation of these inequalities indicates that the predictions of
>       quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables,
> 
> 
> This is incomplete. See question 32 here, and it's answer: https://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds
> 
> "To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurements split local systems (including observers) in a subjectively
> random fashion; distant systems are only split when the causally transmitted effects of the local interactions reach them. We have
> not assumed any non-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the standard predictions
> of QM.
> 
> So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong? They thought that all theories that reproduced the standard predictions must be non-local.
> It has been pointed out by both Albert [A] and Cramer [C] (who both support different interpretations of QM) that Bell and Eberhard
> had implicity assumed that every possible measurement -even if not performed - would have yielded a *single* definite result. This
> assumption is called contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S]. What Bell and Eberhard really proved was that every quantum theory must
> either violate locality *or* CFD. Many-worlds with its multiplicity of results in different worlds
> violates CFD, of course, and thus can be local.
> 
> Thus many-worlds is the only local quantum theory in accord with the standard predictions of QM and, so far, with experiment."
> 
>
>       which
>       are deterministic properties of the particles that are independent of
>       the measurements made on them. The MWI is one interpretation of
>       quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel universes or
>       multiple worlds to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum
>       phenomena [10].
> 
> 
> This is true but unrelated to the question you asked.
> 
> 
>
>       The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one of
>       the oldest and most commonly taught interpretations, also takes into
>       account the violation of Bell's inequalities. It rejects the
>       assumption of counterfactual definiteness or "realism" and argues that
>       quantum mechanics is as realistic as any theory of its scope and
>       maturity can be [12]. The Copenhagen Interpretation emphasizes the
>       indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics and the need to consider
>       specific laboratory arrangements and complementary properties of
>       quantum systems [12].
> 
> 
> This is also irrelevant to your question. What is important here is that CI assumes wave function collapse, and moreover requires
> that it be instantaneous across any distance of space (and thus faster than light). So measuring a particle on the other side of the
> galaxy immediately affects the state of its entangled counterpart here in Earth.
> 
> Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information.
> But to me, this is clearly a violation of it. As Einstein (along with his co-authors) wrote of the
> situation: https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf
> 
> "This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does not disturb the
> second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this."
> 
> And in a 1947 letter to Max Born:
> "I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because it cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality
> in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance."
> 
> Einstein saw QM (with it's assumption of instantaneous wave function collapse) as fundamentally in conflict with the idea of there
> being a real world out there, governed by local causal (speed-of-light obeying) interactions.
> 
>
>       It is important to note that the interpretation of Bell's theorem and
>       its implications for the nature of reality are still subjects of
>       debate among physicists and philosophers.
> 
> 
> That's true.
> 
>
>       While the violation of
>       Bell's inequalities suggests non-locality and challenges certain
>       classical notions of reality, it does not necessarily imply the MWI or
>       any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics [12].
> 
> 
> The picture is this:
> 
> There are three explanations for the EPR paradox:
> 1. Local hidden variables
> 2. FTL influences (a.k.a. spooky action)
> 3. Non-contra-factual definiteness (a.k.a many-worlds)
> 
> Bell's inequalities rule out #1. That means , given Bell's theorem, either #2 or #3 are the remaining possibilities.
> 
> Einstein was not aware of #3 as an option, and because he could not believe in spooky action, believed #1. This option was disproven
> by Bell.
> 
> So if anyone wants to, in the spirit of Einstein, continue to believe the speed of light means something, the only option left is #3.
> 
> Jason
> 
>
>       In summary:
>       Violation of Bell's inequalities indicates that the predictions of
>       quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables.
>       The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one possible interpretation of
>       quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel worlds, but
>       the violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply this
>       interpretation.
>       The Copenhagen Interpretation is another widely taught interpretation
>       that takes into account the violation of Bell's inequalities and
>       emphasizes the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics.
>       The interpretation of Bell's theorem and its implications for the
>       nature of reality are still subjects of debate among physicists and
>       philosophers [10] [12].
>       -----------------------------
>
>       BillK
>       _______________________________________________
>       extropy-chat mailing list
>       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>