/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10977083
>So why is he doing this
to sell books
>and what should I think of it?
I have no idea.
I'm sure Lubos Motl has some spicy opinions though.

>>10977083
They’re interpretations.

As in, it don’t matter until there’s some testable difference.

One of the most intriguing (and interesting) things about this discussion is that it shows how the various mainstream mainstream religions are both deeply entangled with their own worldviews, and are in fact just a bit of a bridge between these worldviews. I hope we can all at least start paying more attention to such matters, and to the way these religions have evolved (more than any other). But also, I hope that more mainstream religions will continue to address these worldviews from even a slightly better perspective.

If you think all mainstream religions are the same, maybe you are just a little bit confused. This article can address that.

If you like this article then please spread the word to family and friends.

>>10977083
>So why is he doing this
Because he believes it, he can, and people will buy it

>>10977092
Indeed he does
https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/09/mwi-in-quanta-magazine.html

>>10977094
All religions are dumb

>>10977101
We don't need to believe in god, for there's plenty of evidence.

Even atheism doesn't stop the flood

It's just part of evolution

Not all religions are stupid

We don't need any gods, all religions are dumb

>>10977104
>Believing in things with no evidence isn’t dumb

We happen to be in the universe where he decided to publish this book. :)

>>10977306
oh joy

is sean carrol pop sci?

>>10977354
He's not. However, he is presenting his personal view as fact, which strikes me as disingenuous.

>>10977100
Lubos is such a sad, bitter man. I don't have a preferred interpretation either way, but the way he writes is so off-putting. Who is he trying to appeal to with this kind of rhetoric?

>>10977083
interpretations that stress the role of an “observer” are stupid. just leads to woo shit or people thinking QM is not how things actually work but just an artifact of how we model things (e.g. QBism). carroll is pushing MW because it sounds cool, but unfortunately it leaves many common sense questions unanswered. consistent histories is the best interpretation

>>10977364
>who is he trying to appeal to
women get off my board

>>10977364
embittered eastern europoors who became arch conservatives after living behind the iron curtain

>>10977083
Many scientists are brainlets and believe that you don't need a QM theory. Other people believe that a theory is needed, so they try to come up with one, like many worlds.

>>10977092
Any flatearther can have spicy opinion.

>>10977361
Science is literally supposed to be about facts, what else do you expect?

>>10977092
fbbp

>>10977100
>Logically, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics comes directly from the axioms
That's progress, previously he claimed randomness to be derived straight from experiments.

>>10977109

>>10977092
What motl writes is pretty close to MWI, he just confuses relativity with subjectivity. But subjective perspective is just information stored in brain, it's not unfathomable.

>>10977083
>>10977361
>I am defending on particular view of that reality - the "Many Worlds" version of quantum mechanics. And for most of this book, I will simply be explaining things in "Many Worlds" terms.
>This shouldn't be taken to imply that the Everettian view is unquestionably right. I hope to explain what the theory says, and why it's reasonable to assign a credence to it being the best view of reality we have.
>What you personally end up believing is up to you.

>>10979331
yeah, in his book he tries to be reasonable, but then he gets on stage and says shit like pic related

which is total quantum woo unforgivable pseudery

>>10977101
*tips*

>>10979372
le ebin hat maymay, so based and redpilled

>>10979361
It's accessible explanation. It's not like you can just find a person that understands MWI, so explanation is in order.

>>10979331
Well the articles he's written to hawk the book don't read like that at all. He's more actively pushing it as the best interpretation in the articles.
>Quanta
>Aeon
>NYT
I mean how else would you interpret the title "Physics is only now catching up to MWI". It implies other theories are inadequate or wrong. More than that, it implies that the physics mainstream is coming over to this view, which it's not.

>>10978203
Nice try, but string theory is a hypothesis, not a theory, because it hasn’t made experimental predictions. I do not believe in it.

interpretation has nothing to do with science

You can interpret quantum mechanics as the color purple. It doesn't matter. What matters is if the prediction function tests to be correct.

Interpretation is an irrational human obsession based on our existence and experiences. Because things around us seem to be "intuitive" and predictable. We attach meaning to these things but the meaning at it's heart is just an index tag.

Why do things fall? Because of prediction function ONE

Why are refrigerators cold? Because of prediction function TWO

ONE and TWO are as valid as the "meanings" of gravity and refrigeration. The important part is the PREDICTION FUNCTION

Aka, you let go of a ball, the ball falls - That prediction function is what is important. The index you have for it under the tag "gravity" is unimportant. Meaning is an illusion

"Many worlds"

Prediction function = ??????

It's pointless. It has no purpose. You can construct equivalent prediction functions infinitely in infinite combination and they have as much use. aka NONE

It's like inventing a word and then trying to figure out what it means. You see?

It's nonsensical low IQ human shit.

>>10979927
Now if "many worlds" people create a prediction function that they can map to any event. Then it matters.

PREDICTION FUNCTIONS ARE EVERYTHING

Inventing new words: Imakopezak

is nonsensical retard shit and fundamentally the same thing as many worlds.

>>10979917
Except the fact that the belief that science does not need interpretation and focus on the "real" science - "shut up and calculate" will be one of the most prime case of scientism that you guys alway despise for

>>10979923
>>10979927
>>10979930
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

>>10979935
So. Just look at the mappings of words to "meaning" and other such things. It's not really a big stretch to understand how flawed it is to look for "meaning" in quantum mechanics or how things actually work.

Meaning is a delusion. If you want to understand the universe then meaning has literally no place. The functional equivalent of Many Worlds is things like Catholicism, Islam, Occultism, and random gibberish.

>ITT people who don't understand what "meaning" is, wondering why interpretations are pointless.

You can literally have infinite "meanings" for quantum mechanics and interpretations. It's not a real thing, it's arbitrary.

Quantum mechanics, the prediction functions from it, are what matters. The human interpretation ? What the fuck are you even talking about?

I think quantum mechanics and it's prediction functions are "Cold". The Cold interpretation is really neat of these functions.

Oh wait, interpretation natural selection is all about soundin

>>10979957
interpretation natural selection operates on the same grounds as religion and other such things

sooo.... it's whatever is the most social engineered to sound magical and coolest. Since it's by definition something with NO prediction function.

PROBABILITY TESTING BEEP BOOP BEEP

The many worlds interpretation (social engineered to sound best)

Probability of correctness = X

The "Cold" interpretation of quantum mechanics, that it is "cold"

probability of correctness = X

X = X

Construction complete: 100000000 intelligences creates

Every single intelligence has two spaces: Prediction functions based on data, and "meaning" functions constructed on those prediction functions

every single one has random, chaotic meaning functions.

These intelligence are then given all sorts of things to predict. Now: How accurate will they be based on the variance in "meaning" that they have for their prediction functions?

kekekkekekkekekekekkekekeekke

literal fucking meatbag humans

>>10979973
To not be misunderstood. I am not talking about how meaning is used in a typical AGI system for abstraction of information.

>>10977083
>sean carroll

Massive meme long before this.

>>10977083
I watched him plug his interpretation on the PBS News Hour, and the idea struck me as insufficiently parsimonious: If those other worlds really were constantly coming into existence, and each of those in their turn, how does one begin to run numbers on the exponential growth implied? Even as pure speculation, it's outrageous as it gets.

>>10981789
smart anon detected.

>>10981789
This smells like an appeal to personal incredulity.
The growth in universe’s would be mind-rendingly large to our stinky ape brains. And?

>>10981801
>universe’s
learn english

the point is that physics is based on measurable results, or at least plausible compatibility with them. “anything goes” us not in line with how physics works

>>10981813
*is
not “us”

>>10981813
>the point is that physics is based on measurable results, or at least plausible compatibility with them.

Many worlds Is as compatible with observations as the Copenhagen interpretation. Quantum physics interpretations have yet to make testable predictions so they aren’t science, and can be ignored. Only the equations that model observed reality actually matter.

>>10981836
sure, you are correct. but carroll saying “i split the universe by saying to hop left instead of hop right” is stupid

>>10981852
Of course it is. It’s an inaccurate oversimplification that probably sounds cool to the lay people

>>10979361
>>10981852
idk what you guys are implying but MWI does not say that every time you make a decision between two options the universe "splits", and neither does Sean Carroll imply that.
he's saying that if he decided beforehand to base the decision on a observed collapse of a superposition (the app actually sends a signal to some lab to do an actual quantum measurement), then there will be a universe where he does the one thing and another universe where he does the other thing. Now this is something MWI does in fact imply.

>>10977083
MWI is the leading contender for QM interpretation now, atleast according to QM. Copenhagen is dead because the supposed collapse of state can happen at any point in time, even reversed in time through our experiments. Pilot-wave is dead because it relies on hidden variables and that's been dead since the 50s and it violates general relativity's speed of light/aka entanglement. MWI is the only one that's reliable and has no additional math/assumption on top of schrodinger's equation. No collapse supposition and no hidden variables, etc. The only "icky" part of MWI is it doesn't match our intuition. We see particles, we don't see waves. Both Pilot-wave/Copenhagen tries to get us to a particle intuitive result, but they both fail on math and experiment.

>>10981894
>MWI does not say that every time you make a decision between two options the universe "splits", and neither does Sean Carroll imply that.
well then you disagree with sean then, rite?

>>10981925
why are you just posting that again? the result that app gives is actually based on a quantum measurement

>>10979372
>no argument, so here's a retard meme

>>10977083
>what should I think of it?
Think for yourself. He isn't pushing it because he has an agenda, he believes it despite it being the minority view because he thinks for himself. You should try it some time.

>>10979930
nice utilitarian worldview you have there. shame if anything were to happen to it.

>>10979942
Holy shit, a legitimately funny line in an Adam Sandler film? The 90s sure were a different time.
>>10979930
>is nonsensical retard shit
Oh the irony.