[ExI] teachers

[efc at swisscows.email]

Thank you Jason. It would be fun if there were any passionate people on 
the list who subscribe to the other interpretations as well. I'm sure that 
that conversation would be much more stimulating, than the one between you 
and an agnostic. ;)

Best regards,
Daniel


On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:59 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       Thank you Bill. I was reading up on this yesterday evening and found
>       the following on plain old wikipedia:
>
>       "Some scientists consider MWI unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because
>       the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that
>       no information can be passed between them."
>
>       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Rejection
> 
> 
> I think it's rather quite the opposite:
> CI and collapse are unfalsifiable, principally because collapse theories never even define what collapse is, nor when exactly it
> happens, but also beccause collapse is also just as observable as the decohered worlds in many worlds.
> 
> I also disagree with the assessment that MW is not falsifiable. If we run a conscious mind on a quantum computer, and the quantum
> computation fails due to the consciousness of the mind on the computer causing collapse, and it eliminates the interference pattern,
> then MW is falsified.
> 
> Here is David Deutsch's description of the experiment: https://photos.app.goo.gl/4rrNMdbmSsHGsLkh9
>  
> 
>
>       And further down, I read that when students are allowed to vote, the
>       copenhagen interpretation still wins, but, the MWI is climbing.
> 
> 
> That's interesting. Though it ma be biased as CI is normally how QM is introduced to students. It is interesting to see such a
> divergence when expert theorists are considered:
> 
> From: https://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds
>
>       Q1 Who believes in many-worlds?
> ----------------------------
> "Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading
> cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds
> Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].
> 
>
>       1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
> 2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
> 3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
> 4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%
> 
>
>       Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking
> and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and
> Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with
> the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned
> as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was
> conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only "No,
> I don't accept MWI" named is Penrose.
> 
> 
>  
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
>
>       On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote:
>
>       > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 08:53, efc--- via extropy-chat
>       > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       >>
>       >> Thank you Stuart, on top of that I think Jason made some good point as
>       >> well, and I have to agree, that it seems like one of the worst
>       >> interpretations.
>       >>
>       >> Best regards, Daniel
>       >> _______________________________________________
>       >
>       >
>       > The problem with quantum theory is that nobody knows the solution and
>       > researchers are desperately trying to understand the weird quantum
>       > world.
>       >
>       > Quanta magazine has a long article discussing the problems with the
>       > Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI).
>       >
>       > <https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-has-many-problems-20181018/>
>       > Quote:
>       > Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems
>       > The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every
>       > measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to
>       > the mysteries of quantum mechanics. But this “many-worlds
>       > interpretation” is incoherent, Philip Ball argues in this adapted
>       > excerpt from his new book Beyond Weird.
>       > By Philip Ball      October 18, 2018
>       >
>       > What quantum theory seems to insist is that at the fundamental level
>       > the world cannot supply clear “yes/no” empirical answers to all the
>       > questions that seem at face value as though they should have one. The
>       > calm acceptance of that fact by the Copenhagen interpretation seems to
>       > some, and with good reason, to be far too unsatisfactory and
>       > complacent. The MWI is an exuberant attempt to rescue the “yes/no” by
>       > admitting both of them at once. But in the end, if you say everything
>       > is true, you have said nothing.
>       > ---------------
>       >
>       > 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
> 
> 
>