[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Jason,

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:

>       > 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.
> 
> 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).

Well, I'd probably add "true as currently understood today". Could also
be that this serves as a starting point which will enable some genius to
come up with a better explanation. Either saving Einsteins theory, or
coming up with a new one. But it's just speculation from my side, so I
definitely won't be able to tell you any "hows".

> 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.

Maybe the Bell inequalities is the part that needs restatement? Sounds
like a component in the logical chain that might or might not be
susceptible to rethinking or revisioning.

> BTW, this is an interesting exercise to go through, to consider, if MW had been proposed first, would anyone have advocated for CI:
> 
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first
> 
>
>       Everett's
>       > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly.
>
>       Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action,
> 
> Spooky action is only implied under collapse theories, which require that collapse be instantaneous across any distance of space in
> order to explain the observed results.
> There is no spooky action under MW.
> 
>
>       but
>       that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple
>       worlds.
> 
> 
> It does, if one believes in relativity. For if relativity is true then the only remaining answer to explain the outcome of Aspect's
> experiment is many 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.
> 
> 
> No one doubts Aspect's result.
> 
> It's just some choose to abandon all that physics has held holy (relativity, causality, determinism, locality, realism, and
> time-reversibility) while others, keep those things, read the math of QMs equations literally, and accept the idea that there could
> be more than one of them.
> 
>
>       Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the
>       other mailinglist?
> 
> I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's archive online?

Yes, that's the one. The thread is called Leggetts inequality. Have a
look here:
https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ .

>       I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it seems
>       I got it!
> 
> That's great. I would like to see it.

See link above.

>
>       >       > 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.
> 
> I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ?

Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages!

Best regards, 
Daniel


> 
> Jason 
> 
> 
>
>       Best regards,
>       Daniel
> 
>
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       > Best,
>       >
>       > Jason
>       >
>       >
> 
> 
>