[ExI] Many Worlds (was: A Simulation Argument)

[Mike Dougherty]

On Jan 8, 2008 5:17 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are parallels here with quantum theory. The formalism of the MWI
> is simpler but it implies that the universe is much vaster than it
> appears, which seems wasteful of space and matter if not of divine
> labour. Therefore, an additional bit is tacked on to the theory to
> explain why the universe we find ourselves in is the one true, solid
> and special universe.

I disbelieve in this universe's truth and speciality - Now what
happens if I fail the saving throw?

> Many Worlds is what is left if you remove the assumption of an an
> arbitrary "collapse" of the wavefunction precipitated by an
> observation. The trimmed down theory then explains all of the
> scientific evidence, and as a bonus preserves realism, locality,
> determinism and does not bestow on the observer any special status
> compared to the rest of the universe.

So why did MWI lose the vote in Copenhagen?  Are you suggesting that
1927 was just more fearful of the expansiveness implied by MWI?  80
years is a bit of a setback, don't you think?