[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

Tue Sep 26 10:43:04 UTC 2023

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:37 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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?
>

It sends:
Correlations which are statistically greater than what can be accounted for
by local, hidden, contrafactually-definite variables (i.e., correlations in
excess of the maximum possible correlation as established by Bell's
theorem).

https://youtu.be/tafGL02EUOA?si=YsvQpK-6FTW2Vb3e

The conventional story (under CI) is that there must be super-luminal
communication between a particle and it's entangled counterpart, such that
the other particle knows intently when and how it's far away twin was
measured.

As for why this can't be exploited for FTL communication, (the true answer
is that there really isn't anything moving faster than light here), but CI
would say that the periods of correlation when one side is doing the
measurements in a certain way, can only be sifted from the uncorrelated
times after the fact, that is only after there has been sub-luminal
communication between the two sides, to share their measurement results.
Only then do they uncover they they were correlated in ways that hidden
variables can't explain.

> I think I misunderstand something here.
>

You're on the exactly right track. In fact, the question you ask is exactly
what led to this tech talk at Google. He asked why couldn't we use this
measuring or not measuring on the other side as some kind of Morse code:

https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc

Jason

>
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230926/c37cd0e2/attachment.htm>