[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[efc at swisscows.email]

Good evening Jason,

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:

>       I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I think
>       our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific
>       realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and
>       constructive empiricism for me. What do you think?
> 
> From wikipedia: "Scientific realism is the view that the universe described 
> by science is real regardless of how it may be
> interpreted."
> 
> I think that's a fair description of my view.

I thought it sounded familiar! ;)

> From wikipedia: "In philosophy of science and in epistemology, 
> instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful
> instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in 
> explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According
> to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known 
> either true or false about nature's unobservable objects,
> properties or processes."
> 
> I think that sounds like a good description of the position/stance you have 
> been arguing from.
> 
> From wikipedia: "Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are 
> semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically
> adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are 
> empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if
> and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true 
> (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A
> theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is 
> interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory
> are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading)."
> 
> This description isn't clear enough for me to understand. Though it seems to 
> support the scientific realism view more so than the
> instrumentalist view, as it takes the stance that claims of a theory are 
> either true or false (and it seems to me, the existence of

I've been reading up on it and it seems like a "middle of the road"
proposal, but it is lumped together with anti-realists. I'm very much
saying I'm not entirely clear where I end up and I see points in both of
them.

Also I agree with you that it does seem a bit "fluffy" around the edges.

> objective truth requires the existence of an objective reality). I don't know 
> to what extent you take instrumentalism to imply any
> form of anti-realism, I don't think you have argued that. Rather, you seem to 
> be of the opinion that theories should be taken to be
> silent regarding predictions of which we haven't found the means to directly 
> test.

Well, from a knowledge point of view, I'd say agnosticism instead of
silence. However, I'm not against theorizing per se. The reason is that
theories serve as inspiration and are valuable tools that do produce
testable predictions. Also, what is not testable today _might_ become
testable tomorrow. Of course some theories are so "far out" that I see
the probability as close to zero, and some are on the edge, and some,
most likely will be testable.

So perhaps for me, theories reside on a scale of probabilities and the
probability decreases with decreases in how testable they are.

>       That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of the
>       essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we seem to
>       have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you having
>       made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and also,
>       I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even though
>       we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it still
>       has been very valuable for me.
> 
> That is wonderful.

It is! Very rare as well in these polarized times. I ask myself
sometimes, when was the last time I changed my mind on a political
matter and the answer is that (disregarding trivial questions) those
shifts tend to happen over larger periods of time.

> Just this morning I was going over what I had written on relativity, and 
> noticed something pertinent to this discussion. Einstein
> wrote his theory of special relativity in 1905. But it wasn't experimentally 
> confirmed until 1932, even though, by that time, nearly
> all physicists had come to accept it as true. Einstein's Nobel prize, given 
> in 1921, wasn't for his relativity, which was still too
> controversial given it had not been experimentally confirmed. Experimenters 
> might have thought: there's no way we can ever build
> things to approach the speed of light and verify any of these predictions 
> anytime this century, relativity is useless, and we
> shouldn't believe its predictions of time dilation, length contraction, 
> relativity of simultaneity, etc. but all of these were
> eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create many 
> of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser
> gyroscopes, and particle accelerators.
> https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation
> 
> At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money on) 
> the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of
> simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory)

> A) After Einstein published his paper in 1905

Probably no.

> B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was 
> a better theory

I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and understanding
would at least increase my confidence.

> C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory

Now we're getting somewhere.

> D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed (in 
> 1932)

Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify would be
even better.

> E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been 
> experimentally demonstrated

I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol depending on
the sums of money involved. ;)

> F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of simultaneity 
> had come into common use
> G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical 
> technologies
> H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference frames at 
> once, to witness the same two events occur in a
> different order
> 
> Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point you 
> would accept many-worlds:
> A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957
> B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was 
> a better theory
> C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds

Getting closer...

> D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed 
> (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse,
> Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.)

Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and
verification from other teams.

> 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.

> F) Only after practical technologies exploiting Many-Worlds had come into 
> common use (e.g., quantum computers that factor 2048-bit
> RSA keys)
> G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical 
> technologies (e.g., you had rented a quantum computer on IBM
> and used it to break an RSA key)
> H) Only after someone invents a portal that lets us peer into or communicate 
> with these other worlds
> 
> 
...
> 
> It is true that the reality described by QM is quite alien to our everyday 
> experience, and why math is so much better suited as a
> language for physicists to describe reality. Words like "splitting", and 
> "branching", and "multiple universes" are very apt to be
> conceived of in different ways by different readers, and should better be 
> considered as analogies for what the math in the theory
> literally describes.

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. ;)

Best regards, Daniel


>       >       Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a 
> pragmatic
>       >       view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will 
> never reach
>       >       the status of truth.
>       >
>       > Science never gets to truth, it only chases it.
>
>       I agree with that, but see the realism vs the other options above for
>       some points about what science is about.
>
>       >       But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I 
> just wanted
>       >       to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would 
> become more
>       >       clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting 
> comes up.
>       >
>       >       Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other 
> thread?
>       >       I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the 
> other
>       >       thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject.
>       >
>       >       Best regards, Daniel
>       >
>       > Yes, many of these points are in that monster of a thread. Feel free 
> to break out any specific items from my reply into
>       their own
>       > threads if that would be helpful.
>
>       Yes, I'll have a look at it, and let's see. =)
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jason
> 
>  
>       Best regards,
>       Daniel
> 
>
>       >
>       > Jason 
>       >
>       >_______________________________________________
>       extropy-chat mailing list
>       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
>