[ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:52 AM <efc at swisscows.email> wrote:

> Hello Jason,
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >       > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR
> (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have
> >       been replicated
> >       > numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year.
> >
> >       But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us
> anything
> >       about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other
> >       interpretations yet to be made up, etc.
> >
> > It tells us one thing quite clearly:
> >
> > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then
> measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are
> > many worlds).
>
> Well, I'd probably add "true as currently understood today".


Perhaps both QM and Relativity are false. But if the only way for them to
both be true is with MW.


> Could also
> be that this serves as a starting point which will enable some genius to
> come up with a better explanation. Either saving Einsteins theory, or
> coming up with a new one. But it's just speculation from my side, so I
> definitely won't be able to tell you any "hows".


> > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either
> relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes.
> >
> > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need
> for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the
> > Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local
> interactions that travel at the speed of light or slower.
>
> Maybe the Bell inequalities is the part that needs restatement? Sounds
> like a component in the logical chain that might or might not be
> susceptible to rethinking or revisioning.
>

It is a purely mathematical result, written as a mathematical proof. This
video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg
You do not need any advanced math, (just counting and factions), to be able
to work out the proof for yourself. This video, a bit longer, shows how
anyone could do this themself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RiAxvb_qI4
and see there is no way to get the observed correlations using hidden
variables. You either need instantaneous communication or, you must give up
the idea that experiments/observations only have single outcomes.



>
> > BTW, this is an interesting exercise to go through, to consider, if MW
> had been proposed first, would anyone have advocated for CI:
> >
> >
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first
> >
> >
> >       Everett's
> >       > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly.
> >
> >       Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action,
> >
> > Spooky action is only implied under collapse theories, which require
> that collapse be instantaneous across any distance of space in
> > order to explain the observed results.
> > There is no spooky action under MW.
> >
> >
> >       but
> >       that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple
> >       worlds.
> >
> >
> > It does, if one believes in relativity. For if relativity is true then
> the only remaining answer to explain the outcome of Aspect's
> > experiment is many worlds.
> >
> >       For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it
> >       increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I
> think the
> >       fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that
> this
> >       experiment is not conclusive.
> >
> >
> > No one doubts Aspect's result.
> >
> > It's just some choose to abandon all that physics has held holy
> (relativity, causality, determinism, locality, realism, and
> > time-reversibility) while others, keep those things, read the math of
> QMs equations literally, and accept the idea that there could
> > be more than one of them.
> >
> >
> >       Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the
> >       other mailinglist?
> >
> > I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's
> archive online?
>
> Yes, that's the one. The thread is called Leggetts inequality. Have a
> look here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ .
>

Thanks, it is interesting.


>
> >       I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it
> seems
> >       I got it!
> >
> > That's great. I would like to see it.
>
> See link above.
>
> >
> >       >       > 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.
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower)
> burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a
> >       personality
> >       > trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is.
> >
> >       Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well
> >       depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I
> have
> >       very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes,
> it is
> >       probably a personality trait.
> >
> >       >       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. ;)
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted.
> >
> >       Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in?
> =)
> >
> >       > "One’s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively
> contains many possible “parallel universes”, and that we
> >       have
> >       > selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our
> particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad
> >       isn’t about
> >       > “parallel universes”, it’s about universes that are entangled at
> the finest possible level. And an important
> >       consequence of
> >       > this is that it means we’re not “stuck in a particular parallel
> universe”. Instead, we can expect that by somehow
> >       “changing our
> >       > point of view”, we can effectively find ourselves in a
> “different universe”."
> >       > -- Stephen Wolfram in “The Concept of the Ruliad” (2021)
> >
> >       Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite
> science
> >       and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book,
> and I
> >       would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think.
> >
> > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science"
> ?
>
> Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages!
>

Maybe AI will kindly summarize it for us. ;-)

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230926/b438a9bb/attachment.htm>