[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[Jason Resch]

What do you think about what Tegmark says about theories being all or
nothing z that we can't take them piecemeal like we can get coffee without
caffeine. (Did you see that part of his argument?)

Jason

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 6:25 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Hello Jason and Bill (and by extension, the AI ;)),
>
> I just wanted to address the Tegmark bit, and I'll get back to your email
> (Jason) later since I like to read it, and then sleep on it, to see if
> sleeps yields any additional insights.
>
> But the Tegmark bit, was a quick read (unless some crucial parts are
> hidden on the remaining pages):
>
> >       Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite
> >       number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it
> becomes
> >       impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim.
> >
> > This is false, see the page I cited from Tegmark's book on
> falsifiability:
> >
> https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/124/mode/2up?q=%22Are+theories%22
>
> So based on that page, the argument goes that Einsteins theories have
> testable components, and they also make predictions about the insides of
> a black whole that we cannot test.
>
> Likewise, qm contains testable components, and yields interpretations of
> which one is the MWI.
>
> Then Tegmarks argues, that since we accept Einsteins theory, we must
> accept what it tells us about black holes, and here is where I disagree
> with him. Actually, I think its just a matter of degree and
> interpretation, so I'm not sure we would disagree at all. But that's
> besides the point.
>
> The reason I disagree with Tegmark is that we cannot (yet) test to
> confirm the predictions of what happens inside a black whole. That puts
> us in the position of being able to test some claims of Einstein, and
> use them profitably. The theory in turn, makes untestable predictions,
> theories, ideas, about what happens inside a black hole.
>
> The key here is that it is a theory, a useful tool, that makes
> predictions about this world, and places in this world we cannot access.
> That means that we today can never say what actually happens inside a
> black hole. We can only estimate, but never verify. Yes, what follows
> out of Einstien is for sure better than a fiction book, but at the end
> of the day we have to accept that it will most likely forever remain
> theory, even though it is an enlightened one.
>
> That is why I do not accept that MWI is testable. That claim is not
> testable, and that also doesn't take into account that MWI is not the
> only interpretation, or other possibly future ones.
>
> So to put this in more dramatic terms, if a theory predicts god, but a
> god that will forever be absent, will never respond, and will never
> affect your world in any way, for all we know, we can safely just
> disregard it. God might be a theoretical possibility or extrapolation,
> but at the end of the day its just a nice story and will never be true
> knowledge and true certainty.
>
> The scientific method is a great tool for this world, and so is math,
> but it does break down into metaphysics when applied to gods and other
> entities which by definition are completely outside the scope of this
> world.
>
> I'll get back to that in the other thread in time, so please bear with
> me.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230914/24530250/attachment.htm>