[ExI] New article about the Block Universe

[Jason Resch]

For what it's worth, I took Bill's approach to see what AI thinks. I asked:
is MWI anti-realism?

This is the answer I got:

https://share.google/aimode/dhuHkfqNRFGGOhV9w

Jason

On Sun, Mar 22, 2026, 6:35 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2026, 9:06 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 3:02 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * >> If things are realistic then you automatically get counterfactual
>>>> definiteness. But in light of the experimental fact that Bell's Equality is
>>>> violated, there is no way to explain how counterfactual definiteness could
>>>> exist unless things are realistic.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> It's easy: Add the realism of a multiverse.*
>>>
>>
>> *The Universal Wave Function (also called the Multiverse) is as far as
>> you can get from something that exists in one and only one definite state
>> (a.k.a. Realism) as it is possible to be.   *
>>
>
> I don't know why you define real as something being and remaining in "one
> and only one definite state". Under that definition it seems only abstract
> mathematical objects and other universals would foot that bill.
>
> Consider that our observable universe changes about 10^106 times per
> second. Yet who would say the universe isn't real on account of the fact
> that it is constantly changing?
>
>
>
>> *>> CFD means the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of
>>>> the results of measurements that have not been performed; but the
>>>> experimental fact that Bell's Inequality is violated tells us that it would
>>>> be impossible to explain how CFT could be true unless either realism or
>>>> locality did not exist. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> So far, creative people have identified 3 outs to explain Bell's
>>> inequalities. Any *one* of these is sufficient:*
>>> *1. FTL non-local influences (spooky action)*
>>> *2. Abandon the notion that experiments result in unique outcomes, in
>>> other words, drop CFD (many worlds)*
>>> *3. Assume nature conspires to force us to measure only those things
>>> that maintain the illusion of Bell statistics (hidden variables+super
>>> determinism)*
>>>
>>
>> *I think explanation #2 is the best but both explanations #1 and #2 are
>> worth considering, however it would be absolutely impossible to find
>> anything sillier than explanation #3; assuming that "silly" is a property
>> that grows linearly with the distance it is from what** Occam's Razor
>> would recommend.   *
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> *>> According to Many Worlds the moon exists, but NOT in one and only one
>>>> definite state. Since the moon's creation 4.5 billion years ago there has
>>>> not been one nanosecond when something wasn't observing it, because any
>>>> change it produces is an observation, and the moon is constantly making a
>>>> lot of changes: for example in the tides the Moon produces on the Earth by
>>>> gravitation, and in the photons of light that bounce off the moon's surface
>>>> and hit the Earth.  So a sphere centered on the moon with a radius of 4.5
>>>> billion light years is not and has never been in one and only one definite
>>>> state. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> There is the bird's-eye-view of reality, in which there is one state
>>> of the universal wave function,*
>>>
>>
>> *In order to obtain that "bird's-eye-view" it would be necessary to, not
>> just step out of the universe but step out of the Multiverse which by
>> definition contains  EVERYTHING, therefore it is a view from a point that
>> does not and can not exist. That would be true even if you don't take
>> Quantum Mechanics into account which of course you must. *
>>
>
> Many views in science are like this (they exist from an abstract,
> non-subjective vantage point, which no observer holds in actuality).
>
> We think about early times of the universe when there were no observers.
> We think of the insides of stars where there are no observers. We speak of
> the possibility of simulation when no one inside can observe outside it. We
> think of places beyond Earth's light cone, or beyond the Hubble volume, etc.
>
> These are all idealized vantage points.
>
>
>
>> *And a thought experiment that would be impossible to perform even in
>> theory is of no use except to prove that the conditions specified by the
>> thought experiment can not exist; for example when Einstein imagined what a
>> light beam would look like if he was traveling at the speed of light and
>> realized what he saw would violate Maxwell's Equations. To remain
>> compatible with Maxwell he needed to hypothesize that it was impossible for
>> anything that has mass to travel at the speed of light, and that light must
>> always travel at a constant speed.*
>>
>
>
> I'm just stating what the physical equations say. If you believe the
> Shrodinger equation describes something called a wave function, and this
> wave function exists and functions whether or not there are observers
> viewing or thinking about it, then you believe in something physically real
> (as opposed to a mere idea, experience, or calculating device), and if you
> believe in something real that is realism.
>
> If you want to deny realism under QM, you need something like QBism, or
> something that says QM is only about observer knowledge states.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> *> and then there is the frog's-eye-view of reality, within any
>>> particular branch. This is why Everett named his theory "relative state"
>>> rather than "many worlds".*
>>>
>>
>>
>> *That's probably because of John Wheeler, Everett's thesis advisor, made
>> him cut out about half the stuff in his original 137 page thesis and tone
>> down the language so it didn't sound like he thought all those other
>> universes were equally real when in fact he did. *
>>
>
> I think his original thesis called it relative state as well, but I am not
> sure. But it is a shame the paper was so neutered.
>
>
> *For example, Wheeler didn't like the word "split" and was especially
>> uncomfortable with talk of conscious observers splitting, most seriously he
>> made him remove the entire chapter on information and probability which
>> today many consider the best part of the work. His long thesis was not
>> published until 1973, if that version had been published in 1957 instead of
>> the truncated Bowdlerized version things would have been different; plenty
>> of people would still have disagreed but he would not have been ignored for
>> as long as he was.*
>>
>>
>> *According to Everett': "the splitting of observers share an identity
>> because they stem from a common ancestor, but they also embark on different
>> fates in different universes. They experience different lifespans,
>> dissimilar events and at some point are no longer the same person, even
>> though they share certain memory records." Everett says that when an
>> observer splits it is meaningless to ask "which of the final observers
>> corresponds to the initial one since each possesses the total memory of the
>> first" he says it is as foolish as asking which amoeba is the original
>> after it splits into two. Wheeler made him remove all such talk of amebas
>> from his published short thesis, the one that earned him a PhD in physics. *
>>
>> *> I consider what you said in this thread to be a defense of
>>> realism: https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/uYohmetzOFo/m/rRouLHV3CAAJ
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/uYohmetzOFo/m/rRouLHV3CAAJ>*
>>> *In particular, you say: "Everett says everything allowed by
>>> Schrodinger's wave equation is physically real, and equally so, and things
>>> forbidden by Schrodinger are not." and "For me the idea that when I turn my
>>> head to look at the moon the universe splits into one where I'm looking at
>>> the moon and into another where I'm not is crazy, but the idea that the
>>> moon isn't real when I'm not looking at it is even crazier."*
>>>
>>
>> *I stand by what I wrote, although I don't see how that was a defense of
>> Realism. At the time I was thinking about what Niels Bohr said to another
>> physicist "your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough to be true?".
>> Quantum mechanics is inherently crazy, no interpretation is ever going to
>> make it intuitive. If I was betting I'd give Many Worlds about a 70% chance
>> of being largely correct, but if it's wrong then something even crazier is
>> true. *
>>
>
> Could you say what you mean by the term realism, and give an example of a
> theory that qualifies?
>
>
>
>> *>  MWI recovers a notion of realism *
>>>
>>
>> *No. Since the moon was created 4.5 billion years ago it has continuously
>> existed because something has been continually observing it, using the MWI
>> definition of the word "observing " . And if you are not looking at the
>> moon right now then for you the moon exists but it does not exist in one
>> and only one definite state.*
>>
>
> I.e., the moon is real.
>
>
>> *> Certainly, one's notion of realism shifts under MWI, from a belief in
>>> a single branch, to one of a multiverse, but the only thing that has
>>> changed is what we believe is real. We have not abandoned the notion of a
>>> reality that exists independently of observers or observation. This, to me,
>>> is realism.*
>>>
>>
>> *That depends on what you mean by "observer" and "observation". Many
>> Worlds has provided precise definitions of those words, you need to do the
>> same.*
>>
>
> They make no difference to the math of the equation. They're physical
> systems like any other.
>
>
>
>>
>> *>>>> The Many Worlds idea is consistent if the split (a.k.a. change)
>>>>>> happens instantaneously, but it also remains consistent if the split only
>>>>>> propagates at the speed of light. *
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>>> I'm not sure about that. The Schrodinger equations doesn't
>>>>> contain anything moving faster than c, so why should we assume that?*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>> For one thing because the speed of light does not even show up in
>>>> Schrodinger's Equation, but also because no one has even proposed an
>>>> experiment, much less actually performed it, that could determine if the
>>>> split occurs instantaneously or if it propagates only at the speed of
>>>> light. Many Worlds does not need to make the assumption that the split
>>>> occurs at the speed of light, nor does it need to make the assumption that
>>>> the split occurs instantaneously, it works fine either way.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> It seems foolhardy to abandon locality, *
>>>
>>
>> *If that's the way you feel then don't abandon locality, Many Worlds has
>> no objection if you embrace locality. As I keep telling you, there is no
>> disputing matters of taste.  *
>>
>> *> and include FTL violations of relativity when the theory doesn't
>>> demand it.*
>>
>>
>> *That sort of non-locality would violate Special Relativity but NOT
>> General Relativity because information still cannot be transmitted faster
>> than light, and General Relativity supersedes Special Relativity.  *
>>
>
>
> I've always found this carve out a lame retreat from what relativity made
> so clear: nothing can travel faster than light through a vacuum.
>
> The illusion of spooky action led some to revise this to "no useful
> information can travel faster than light" but in my view this would still
> represent a violation of relativity. Einstein certainly saw it that way.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> *> "Thus the splitting is a local process, transmitted causally at light
>>> or sub-light speeds."*
>>>
>>
>> *Nobody thinks the split happens at sub-light speed. And even in theory
>> no experiment can differentiate between the split happening at lightspeed
>> and the split happening instantaneously. Many Worlds is perfectly happy
>> either way. *
>>
>
>
> Consider the qubits in a quantum computer. They can be initialized into a
> superposition and then other downstream processes in that computer can read
> these qubits and locally split. But because the quantum computer remains
> isolated from the environment during its computation, the split doesn't
> leave the quantum computer, it takes until the computation finishes and
> then the result is read. Only then does the split continue on beyond the
> confined of the quantum computer. But note, during the computation, the
> split definitely was not going out in all directions at the speed of light.
> If it did it would spoil the results of the computation.
>
>
>>
>> *>>>You used to say MWI was non-local.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>> I don't remember saying that. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> Here are some examples:*
>>> *https://groups.google.com/g/foar/c/YbnK-JjEhEg/m/q1k7SrFcBgAJ
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/foar/c/YbnK-JjEhEg/m/q1k7SrFcBgAJ> (2015)*
>>> *"And yes I know it's easy to find people on the web saying MWI is
>>> local, but I think they have an excess of excrement."*
>>>
>>> *https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/ei4cdtsz388/m/_urzKnyNAwAJ
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/ei4cdtsz388/m/_urzKnyNAwAJ>
>>> (2018)*
>>> *"What is more non-local than another universe?"*
>>>
>>
>> *In my defense, that was 11 years ago, and I like to think I've learned a
>> little bit more since then and obtained a slightly more nuanced view.  *
>>
>> *> **This is not a critique; I find it great whenever someone's position
>>> evolves.*
>>>
>>
>> *Thank you.  *
>>
>>
>>> *> But I wanted to point out that you previously used to say MWI was
>>> non-local.*
>>>
>>
>> *And I still believe you can think of it as being non-local if you like,
>> it's just that you can also think of it as being local, it makes no
>> difference to Many Worlds.*
>>
>
> Maybe but that is a bit like believing in many worlds but also still
> believing there are sometimes real wave function collapses. It is a
> needless complication, and results in a Frankenstein theory like pilot
> wave, which we both agree is ridiculous.
>
>
>
>>
>>> *> Strictly speaking MW is realistic regarding the wave function*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>> I'm not sure how something that is constantly changing as rapidly
>>>> as is physically possible could be said to be existing in one and only one
>>>> definite state.  *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> Nothing about realism implies things can't change.*
>>>
>>
>> *Realism demands that an unobserved thing exists in one and only one
>> definite state, but the Multiverse is just another name for the Universal
>> Wavefunction,  and it is constantly evolving deterministically. That's true
>> for any wave, for example, the phase of a circularly polarized beam of
>> light is constantly changing as a function of both time and position along
>> its path.*
>>
>
> A photon constantly changes its position. Does that mean it isn't real?
>
>
>> *>>An understanding of relativity is necessary but not sufficient to
>>>> understand the universe, you also need to understand quantum mechanics.  *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> So what do we get when we assume both are true?*
>>>
>>
>> *Nobody knows. Uniting General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics so they
>> don't contradict each other is by far the greatest unsolved problem in
>> physics.  *
>>
>>
>> *>> I like Occam's Razor so **I prefer a theory that needs the fewest
>>>> assumptions. Just like Many Worlds, Pilot Wave needs Schrodinger's Equation
>>>> but it also needs another equation that is even more complex, the pilot
>>>> wave equation, and to this day nobody has been able to make a version of it
>>>> that is compatible with special relativity; Paul Dirac was able to produce
>>>> a version of Schrodinger's Equation that was compatible with Special
>>>> Relativity way back in 1927. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> Shouldn't Dirac's equation imply that MW is local? Would it not
>>> forbid FTL propagations of influences?*
>>>
>>
>> *Paul Dirac was perhaps the most skilled mathematician of any physicist
>> of his day but he was **notorious for being uninterested in philosophy.
>> His new equation was able to make correct predictions about how experiments
>> would turn out that were impossible to make before, and as far as he was
>> concerned that was enough. And the answer to your question depends on what
>> you mean by "influences". Dirac's Equation forbids the sort of influences
>> that can be used to transmit information, but not the sort that can't be.
>>  *
>>
>
> I'll have to read more about his equation. Thank you.
>
> Jason
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260322/17d91166/attachment.htm>