/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12710075]

Is it even hypothetically possible to prove the many worlds interpretation? Personally I'm sticking to Copenhagen, as it seems to gel more accurately with reality, but I'm willing to change my mind if there's some way to validate many worlds.

[Anonymous No.12710142]

>>12710075
>Is it even hypothetically possible to prove the many worlds interpretation? Personally I'm sticking to Copenhagen, as it seems to gel more accurately with reality,
Physicists are largely well educated in positivism, and the ideas of many-worlds are nearly identical to Copenhagen once you accept positivism― it is the observations that define what the words mean, not the ideas that are produced in your head. So it doesn't matter if many-worlds sounds out there and Copenhagen seems to "gel more accurately with reality", they are talking about what amounts to the same thing.

Many-worlds is a cleaner and more complete explanation of how Copenhagen works in detail, it motivates quantum computation and decoherence more clearly, and both of these things make interesting physics. So many-worlds makes it easier to understand quantum mechanics, and before you are fully positivist, it is useful pedagogically, so that you don't worry about philosophy. It's a quick and dirty explanations of what is going on, without any philosophy.

An observation in Everett is simply entanglement of an observer with a quantum system, and the selection of which branch becomes "real" is a mental event, analogous to the consciousness "choosing" which way to go absolutely randomly according to the Born rule (so it's not a conscious choice in any way).

There is nothing particularly strange about this, as it involves the embedding of mental states into a physical description, something you always need to make sense of positivism and science, how do the sensations map onto physical things? It doesn't matter if it's a person, a cat, or a computer.

The positivism means you can also reject the other branches as "nonexisting", whatever you want.

Many worlds, Copenhagen, Many minds, Ensemble, quantum logic, Consciousness causes collapse, Shut-up and calculate, Decoherence, Consistent Histories.. They're all the same.

[Anonymous No.12710144]

The only real alternatives are ones like objective collapse (which makes experimental predictions that are likely to be false), and de-Broglie Bohm (which does something interesting and different). Even Bohm by itself is not that interesting, because it reproduces quantum mechanics' statistics exactly.

[Anonymous No.12710196]

>>12710142
>They're all the same
Yes, a universe where there's one, randomly generated version of reality is absolutely the same thing as a universe where all possible versions actually exist.

[Anonymous No.12710486]

>>12710196
>one, randomly generated version of reality is absolutely the same thing as a universe where all possible versions actually exist
I have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Is that you OP? Are you mentally incapacitated? Seems you were either unwilling or unable to read that post you responded to, maybe because you want to be a braindamaged popsci faggot who reads nothing, knows nothing, and gets off on being a drooling brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12710750]

>>12710075
Gravity is entanglement radiation, higgs boson sets the FPS for the shit and if the interaction rate has an unstable probability, its mass will be lower.
Try standing on a scale and balancing on it. You can consciously affect your body but the weights calculating probability which is directly associated with mass.

[Anonymous No.12710761]

>>12710075
isnt the multi-verse meme partly there to salvage the issue of free will?

[Anonymous No.12710774]

Are warp drives really bending the universe or going to another one? How could you know if the planet you're going to is really from the one of your universe?

[Anonymous No.12711017]

>>12710142
i think i agree with this anon but his explanation is very round-about. i would put it like this: scientifically, the science is what it is and that’s all that matters. how you attach an interpretation to it is up to you since it is just a mental crutch. it’s just philosophy which has no place in science

however, philosophically copenhagen leaves you either totally lost or it leads you to Henry Stapp panpsychism or Wigner sollipsism. Many Worlds makes you even more confused. i think philosophically, consistent histories is the most satisfying. it at least leaves in tact some notion of causality and locality plus an interpretation of why you see only one universe that behaves roughly classically on a large scale.

what really bothers me is when professional physicists fail to grasp this stuff. look up “David Lowe” on youtube where you will see a classic case of a professor (of string theory and black holes) who simply doesn’t get it and gets his ass handed to him by junior guys

[Anonymous No.12711288]

>>12710075
>personally I'm sticking to the copenhagen
High schooler detected

[Anonymous No.12711672]

>>12710075
.no