Many Worlds

[Neutral Observer]

I found the following video to be uniquely insightful on a subject that has long intrigued me, and I thought that it might intrigue others as well.

I realize that it's over half an hour long, and most people don't like watching anything much beyond five or ten minutes, but I do believe that it's worth watching, and any opinions on it worth sharing.

 

[SelfSim]

I found the following video to be uniquely insightful on a subject that has long intrigued me, and I thought that it might intrigue others as well.

I realize that it's over half an hour long, and most people don't like watching anything much beyond five or ten minutes, but I do believe that it's worth watching, and any opinions on it worth sharing.

Good, clear, (ie: logically laid out), presentation.
Thanks for that.

 

[Halbhh]

I found the following video to be uniquely insightful on a subject that has long intrigued me, and I thought that it might intrigue others as well.

I realize that it's over half an hour long, and most people don't like watching anything much beyond five or ten minutes, but I do believe that it's worth watching, and any opinions on it worth sharing.

The speculative many worlds idea has been around a long while now, and we've even discussed it here a few times at CF over the years.

It's good to realize though it's only one of many competing theories.

And that none of the competing theories have any unique supporting evidence, so that one can pick out which is correct, if any of them.

One might be correct, or none:

Here's a good listing of currently still in contention theories:

• 4Influential interpretations
  • 4.1Copenhagen interpretation
  • 4.2Many worlds
  • 4.3Quantum information theories
  • 4.4Relational quantum mechanics
  • 4.5QBism
  • 4.6Consistent histories
  • 4.7Ensemble interpretation
  • 4.8De Broglie–Bohm theory
  • 4.9Quantum Darwinism
  • 4.10Transactional interpretation
  • 4.11Objective-collapse theories
  • 4.12Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation
  • 4.13Quantum logic
  • 4.14Modal interpretations of quantum theory
  • 4.15Time-symmetric theories
  • 4.16Other interpretations

Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, it's very subjective to say which theory one likes or dislikes when we can't even rule any out, etc., but to me personally, my subjective reaction to many worlds is it seems a way to just avoid trying to figure out what's really going on. It's a kind of 'I give up' solution, it seems to me. Just my subjective reaction. But it also seems to make everything meaningless in a way: in one branch you choose to believe in God, in another you don't, etc. -- so that no real choices are truly made, etc., and everything is sorta meaningless, it seems to me, in that scenario.

Of course, whether we like something subjectively doesn't decide if it's correct.

But notice the other interesting competing theories!

 

[SelfSim]

The speculative many worlds idea has been around a long while now, and we've even discussed it here a few times at CF over the years.

It's good to realize though it's only one of many competing theories.

And that none of the competing theories have any unique supporting evidence, so that one can pick out which is correct, if any of them.

One might be correct, or none:

Here's a good listing of currently still in contention theories:
...

They are not theories. They are interpretations.

So, it's very subjective to say which theory one likes or dislikes when we can't even rule any out, etc., but to me personally, my subjective reaction to many worlds is it seems a way to just avoid trying to figure out what's really going on. It's a kind of 'I give up' solution, it seems to me. Just my subjective reaction. But it also seems to make everything meaningless in a way: in one branch you choose to believe in God, in another you don't, etc. -- so that no real choices are truly made, etc., and everything is sorta meaningless, it seems to me, in that scenario.

The only objective (operational) meanings in science, are inferences formed directly from test results.

Meaningless denotes the opportunity of acquiring objective knowledge in scientific thinking.

Of course, whether we like something subjectively doesn't decide if it's correct.

But notice the other interesting competing theories!

The other interpretations aren't the topic (or the purpose) of her video. She made that fairly clear in the beginning.
She's explaining the logical basis of the MW interpretation, demonstrating by way of derivations, followed by inference.
She touches on the Bohm(?) interpretation at the beginning .. she makes the point that it adds further QM 'rules' (or principles), whereas MWI removes one.

 

[Halbhh]

They are not theories. They are interpretations.

hah hah...

If you like arguing usages, I bet someone will respond somewhere, but I was curious to give you someone calling it a theory, and found this gem instead that is more interesting --the 3rd view (where instead of B-not-A or B-and-A, here's ya a not-B-but-A, lol):

Several authors, including Wheeler, Everett and Deutsch, call many-worlds a theory or metatheory, rather than just an interpretation.[12][17]: 328  Everett argued that it was the "only completely coherent approach to explaining both the contents of quantum mechanics and the appearance of the world."[18] Deutsch dismissed the idea that many-worlds is an "interpretation", saying that to call it an interpretation "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of fossil records."[19]: 382  -- Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

Heh heh! I like that. It's a good point that while we call all of these 'interpretations' in keeping with the tradition that the Copenhagen idea/view/explanation/(well...theory really) was initially called an 'interpretation' as a way of...not yet trying to claim it was necessarily the final thing (the the last word on what is happening in its domain of subject), but over time, it's happened that today more than a few have said perhaps Copenhagen is the final form and not just an intermediate step... :=0, so there we have then even Copenhagen would with the addition of the idea that nothing else will go past it then in that aspect we've got a theory heh heh.... Look, I don't mind if you prefer to restrict the word in your own way you like most, but just like 90% of people and very many physicists, I'm going to be continuing to use the word 'theory' in a way that is the most common way: theory -- "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something" (Oxford Languages).

heh heh heh

But you call it what you like, and that's ok with me. ;=) (In fact, I like it that everyone has unique views really)

And I don't mind your subjective preferences for one of the theories over the others, lacking any evidence to go on, as merely getting some bit of simplifying isn't of course evidence. (also, if over longer time we still have this situation of very many competing theories, and it turns out over time that Many Worlds cannot in any way be tested or supported/falsified -- then eventually that is how I'd mainly characterize it: an unfalsifiable 'theory'. Or as a famous blog it titled: "Not even wrong."

 

[SelfSim]

hah hah...

If you like arguing usages, I bet someone will respond somewhere, but I was curious to give you someone calling it a theory, and found this gem instead that is more interesting --the 3rd view (where instead of B-not-A or B-and-A, here's ya a not-B-but-A, lol):

Several authors, including Wheeler, Everett and Deutsch, call many-worlds a theory or metatheory, rather than just an interpretation.[12][17]: 328  Everett argued that it was the "only completely coherent approach to explaining both the contents of quantum mechanics and the appearance of the world."[18] Deutsch dismissed the idea that many-worlds is an "interpretation", saying that to call it an interpretation "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of fossil records."[19]: 382  -- Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

Heh heh! I like that. It's a good point that while we call all of these 'interpretations' in keeping with the tradition that the Copenhagen idea/view/explanation/(well...theory really) was initially called an 'interpretation' as a way of...not yet trying to claim it was necessarily the final thing (the the last word on what is happening in its domain of subject), but over time, it's happened that today more than a few have said perhaps Copenhagen is the final form and not just an intermediate step... :=0, so there we have then even Copenhagen would with the addition of the idea that nothing else will go past it then in that aspect we've got a theory heh heh.... Look, I don't mind if you prefer to restrict the word in your own way you like most, but just like 90% of people and very many physicists, I'm going to be continuing to use the word 'theory' in a way that is the most common way: theory -- "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something" (Oxford Languages).

heh heh heh

But you call it what you like, and that's ok with me. ;=) (In fact, I like it that everyone has unique views really)

Ahh .. you take the Trumpian approach, yet you also then often appear to pride yourself on your 'scientific' prowess?
Fascinating.

And I don't mind your subjective preferences for one of the theories over the others, lacking any evidence to go on, as merely getting some bit of simplifying isn't of course evidence. (also, if over longer time we still have this situation of very many competing theories, and it turns out over time that Many Worlds cannot in any way be tested or supported/falsified -- then eventually that is how I'd mainly characterize it: an unfalsifiable 'theory'. Or as a famous blog it titled: "Not even wrong."

Just clarifying: I didn't say I had a preference for one interpretation over another.
All I recall saying was that she was explaining the deductive/inference based reasoning behind the MWI(?)
The reasoning is quite sound.

If some other factor (or reasoning) comes along, which instantly changes a preference for one over other interpretations, what remains is still an interpretation. (Reasoning need not be based on tested results).
Reasoning and tested results distinguish interpretations and theories.

 

[Halbhh]

If some other factor (or reasoning) comes along, which instantly changes a preference for one over other interpretations, what remains is still an interpretation. (Reasoning need not be based on tested results).
Reasoning and tested results distinguish interpretations and theories.

Well, to me, I'm not really attached to one theory (QM Interpretation) or another, until some day comes (if one does) when there is unique supporting evidence for one of the competing theories (evidence that uniquely supports that one theory instead of the broader type of evidence that a wide variety of competing theories all already agree with). So, not being attached, and not feeling anything is at stake, to me it's just fun to hear what people think, and if someone says why they like or dislike a theory, that's just an enjoyable sharing of views, like talking about sports teams or such. That's like half of what a discussion thread can be, a sharing of views.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, to me, I'm not really attached to one theory (QM Interpretation) or another, until some day comes (if one does) when there is unique supporting evidence for one of the competing theories (evidence that uniquely supports that one theory instead of the broader type of evidence that a wide variety of competing theories all already agree with). So, not being attached, and not feeling anything is at stake, to me it's just fun to hear what people think, and if someone says why they like or dislike a theory, that's just an enjoyable sharing of views, like talking about sports teams or such. That's like half of what a discussion thread can be, a sharing of views.

Sure .. fair enough.

I might add to that, interstingly, the observation that all quantum mechanics apparently does, is give us a model of the limits of complete information, but we never had any reason to think there was any such thing as complete information when we had no idea of how to define or establish such a notion.
So if one simply escapes the radical overextrapolation of classical physics, that pretends macroscopic uncertainties could ever be extrapolated down to any arbitrarily small scales without any difficulties, then one doesn't even need quantum mechanics to understand that physics has always been about the generation of mixed states, and has always only tested those mixed states, and has never had any description or explanation for why we encounter specific outcomes instead of those mixed state descriptions that physics creates and manipulates .. Fascinating, eh?!

 

[Halbhh]

Sure .. fair enough.

I might add to that, interstingly, the observation that all quantum mechanics apparently does, is give us a model of the limits of complete information, but we never had any reason to think there was any such thing as complete information when we had no idea of how to define or establish such a notion.
So if one simply escapes the radical overextrapolation of classical physics, that pretends macroscopic uncertainties could ever be extrapolated down to any arbitrarily small scales without any difficulties, then one doesn't even need quantum mechanics to understand that physics has always been about the generation of mixed states, and has always only tested those mixed states, and has never had any description or explanation for why we encounter specific outcomes instead of those mixed state descriptions that physics creates and manipulates .. Fascinating, eh?!

I think I get most of what you meant here, except for a certain piece (i'll highlight then explain why not) in this: "physics has always been about the generation of mixed states, and has always only tested those mixed states, and has never had any description or explanation for why we encounter specific outcomes instead of those mixed state descriptions that physics creates and manipulates .." as I'm aware factually that physicists know some of physics well enough to accurately predict many key basic aspects of particle behavior with breathtaking precision. And analogies are all a human mind can do to give 'description' anyway, so once there is an effective analogy that works well (by actual consistently aligning to observation), then that's already a description, and:

Here's a good summary of the situation we currently are at of being able to understand and predict some (some and not all) aspects of nature in amazing precision:

E.g. "Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations...." -- Is Nature Unnatural? | Quanta Magazine

Analogy for the situation of Physics today:

We are like blind men grouping around in a room where we only know a little, and we are sometimes putting our hands literally onto parts of a something we don't know what it is yet as a whole, entire thing (not yet), but we do really understand in a consistently reliably working way some parts that we have managed to put a hand onto and have figured out how that part works in many ways -- actual Nature itself, the real, which we never thought that we knew everything about...but we do know something about (even with the known uncertainties)-- and for those parts we have figured out we have precise equations that work perfectly to accurately predict the actions/forms/behaviors of those certain parts in those limited domains.

At the same time that we also have many open questions about things not yet understood.

Both.

So, it's not really an absence of "any description or explanation for why we encounter specific outcomes", since we definitely have some. In fact, we even 'know' in a totality of degree that is basically as much as a human mind can know anything (e.g., such as: that the sun rises and sets each day: to that level of knowing).

Consider:
If I know that Jane has a red car, and it gets 35 mpg on the highway, that is a real knowledge, within even the limits of the nature of knowledge itself, what knowledge ever can be: partial. And it's real knowledge. Even though there are very many further things about Jane and her car we do not know.

Lack of...all-knowing is not equal to totally lack of any knowing.

Further, most of us would agree that all-knowing isn't even possible for us at all, ever...(or at least not here in a finite lifetime).

So, in view of that, that we know as well as we know anything, then that's really enough to be consider knowing.

 

[SelfSim]

I think I get most of what you meant here, except for a certain piece (i'll highlight then explain why not) in this: "physics has always been about the generation of mixed states, and has always only tested those mixed states, and has never had any description or explanation for why we encounter specific outcomes instead of those mixed state descriptions that physics creates and manipulates .." as I'm aware factually that physicists know some of physics well enough to accurately predict many key basic aspects of particle behavior with breathtaking precision.

Re: accurate predictions - sure (agree).
Re: not understanding a certain piece of what I wrote - I suggest you reconsider the totaliity of that paragraph as being a conditional scenario. Ie: 'if one simply escapes ... then one doesn't even need .. and has always only tested .. and has never had any description or explanation, .. {etc}'. That physicists then make accurate predictions of measured states of systems, is because that's the outcome we expect from measurements .. the other states go unnoticed because they aren't within the focus of the design of those particular measurements .. (ie: we effectively just lose track of them).

And analogies are all a human mind can do to give 'description' anyway, so once there is an effective analogy that works well (by actual consistently aligning to observation), then that's already a description, and:

There is no evidence for 'an analogy' there. Ie: analogy of what, exactly? The more approriate term is: 'model', with no need to refer to some unevidenced 'something' which is believed to exist independently from mind models and thus we can only analogise about 'the thing' that analogy supposedly refers to.

Here's a good summary of the situation we currently are at of being able to understand and predict some (some and not all) aspects of nature in amazing precision:

E.g. "Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations...." -- Is Nature Unnatural? | Quanta Magazine

Analogy for the situation of Physics today:

We are like blind men grouping around in a room where we only know a little, and we are sometimes putting our hands literally onto parts of a something we don't know what it is yet as a whole, entire thing (not yet), but we do really understand in a consistently reliably working way some parts that we have managed to put a hand onto and have figured out how that part works in many ways -- actual Nature itself, the real, which we never thought that we knew everything about...but we do know something about (even with the known uncertainties)-- and for those parts we have figured out we have precise equations that work perfectly to accurately predict the actions/forms/behaviors of those certain parts in those limited domains.

Hmm .. the accuracy and precision there are relative to our mind's concepts and sensory perceptions. There is no objective basis for them representing proximity to something independent from those .. (although many choose to believe that they are for convenience and expediency purposes).

At the same time that we also have many open questions about things not yet understood.

Both.

So, it's not really an absence of "any description or explanation for why we encounter specific outcomes", since we definitely have some. In fact, we even 'know' in a totality of degree that is basically as much as a human mind can know anything (e.g., such as: that the sun rises and sets each day: to that level of knowing).

Consider:
If I know that Jane has a red car, and it gets 35 mpg on the highway, that is a real knowledge, within even the limits of the nature of knowledge itself, what knowledge ever can be: partial. And it's real knowledge. Even though there are very many further things about Jane and her car we do not know.

Lack of...all-knowing is not equal to totally lack of any knowing.

Further, most of us would agree that all-knowing isn't even possible for us at all, ever...(or at least not here in a finite lifetime).

So, in view of that, that we know as well as we know anything, then that's really enough to be consider knowing.

Hmm .. so what is your take on what 'knowing' is there?
I mean, this is obviously critical to your arguments there(?)

 

[Halbhh]

...Hmm .. so what is your take on what 'knowing' is there?

Since it's best to focus in on one sufficiently complex topic, let me focus on this one alone for the moment. That's the most interesting part in my view: what is knowing, what is knowable, how, etc.

I was trying to write above mostly about knowing. What we know, and how, etc.

Physics is really about knowing, in a profoundly different way.

Just some thoughts (not every thought, just some):

The process of knowing in physics is very different from normal/ordinary human knowing in some key ways, due to the physics normal process of repeatedly trying to find a flaw in accepted leading theory: physics (the process) is largely the process of trying to test/observe in order to find flaws or errors or shortcomings in current theory: to shoot down the current leading theories.

Success in physics is to destroy existing theory or find where it fails.

To find its domain limits, and then find what is past those limits.

So, that's not really the same as most people use for their everyday 'knowing', right. Usually most people look to argue or find information to support their current viewpoint.

Physics (the process) does the opposite.

And this isn't the only huge difference in physics knowing vs ordinary knowing.

The other difference is that in physics we are seeking to discover nature at the most fundamental level possible, and the thing we are seeking to always discover -- get closer than yesterday to -- is reality itself, at the most fundamental or essential level. That's the very goal, to find the real. So, physicists are mostly doing the opposite of what most humans do (when physicists are doing well).

 

[SelfSim]

Success in physics is to destroy existing theory or find where it fails.

To find its domain limits, and then find what is past those limits.

So, that's not really the same as most people use for their everyday 'knowing', right. Usually most people look to argue or find information to support their current viewpoint.

Physics (the process) does the opposite.

And this isn't the only huge difference in physics knowing vs ordinary knowing.

The other difference is that in physics we are seeking to discover nature at the most fundamental level possible, and the thing we are seeking to always discover -- get closer than yesterday to -- is reality itself, at the most fundamental or essential level. That's the very goal, to find the real. So, physicists are mostly doing the opposite of what most humans do (when physicists are doing well).

I have no issues with the clear evidence supporting that that physics theories are contextual and subject to change. The contextual boundaries of those theories are where physicists more or less expect to make new breakthroughs .. and therewith update physics' objective knowledgebase, (where 'knowledge' there, can be assigned an operational/testable meaning, in order to be consistent with the scientific method and the exclusive use of models only in its testing).

The idea that physics, or more broadly, the scientific method, is 'finding the real' or 'reality itself', (as distinct from updating its meaning of 'objectively real'), is just something that some physicists and other non-scientific thinkers might like to believe on occasions.

However, the thing is: science never needs, depends on, or assumes the existence of 'a (true) reality itself', in any way whatsoever.
Science has no need for hunts for such Holy Grails.

 

[Halbhh]

I have no issues with the clear evidence supporting that that physics theories are contextual and subject to change. The contextual boundaries of those theories are where physicists more or less expect to make new breakthroughs .. and therewith update physics' objective knowledgebase, (where 'knowledge' there, can be assigned an operational/testable meaning, in order to be consistent with the scientific method and the exclusive use of models only in its testing).

The idea that physics, or more broadly, the scientific method, is 'finding the real' or 'reality itself', (as distinct from updating its meaning of 'objectively real'), is just something that some physicists and other non-scientific thinkers might like to believe on occasions.

However, the thing is: science never needs, depends on, or assumes the existence of 'a (true) reality itself', in any way whatsoever.
Science has no need for hunts for such Holy Grails.

We are like blind men that touch a something, and we don't really know much about that something we touch, but we can learn limited specific things about that something, less than the totality of that something. That's part of this:

in physics we are seeking to discover nature at the most fundamental level possible, and the thing we are seeking to always discover -- get closer than yesterday to -- is reality itself,

We haven't found out everything yet even about some certain specific fundamental things, say like protons.... But, again, we are finding out some things about it. And that's simply fact. When we can say what the mass of an proton is to a certain level of precision (which we also can estimate), that's a distinct and clear bit of reality, while it's far less than the totality of reality.

I wonder if this will offend many people: that we can know real things, but only partly.

That we both: a) know some actual definite aspects of reality (naturally as some specific form of measurement of some aspect of course, but also at the same time: b) but we have only partial knowledge of that broader thing, and there remain aspects we don't know. Both.

It seems to me that these are some incomplete ideas or simply misperceptions people have until they learn more about physics:

People outside of physics might tend to think one of these wrong characterizations:

• a) we can't know anything much about reality at all ( the view that reality is essentially/always/forever unknowable and what we have in physics is just arbitrary descriptions that are only slightly like whatever the real is, at most)
• b) that we already know all possible aspects completely about many fundamental particles, or
• c) that we have good theories for just about all things, (that is that have withstood repeated tests and passed them within domains of measurements) so that physics is almost complete as a quest, and we basically understand the universe as whole pretty well, etc., with little left to discover fundamentally.

While the reality is instead that we definitely have found some real aspects of absolute reality, not merely an arbitrary description, but a real aspect itself in some form.

Let me illustrate:
Suppose an alien race arrived, and were friendly enough to communicate...we would then find (almost trivially to me) that the aliens would agree about the relationship (the fact) we have found for electromagnetic radiation between frequency and energy. It's a real thing. They would have or accept one of our many alternative equation forms we have found that express that precisely. if they use math (which is typically thought to be a likely universal language in that identities like '1' (that a thing exists in a numerical quantity), etc. are a very general idea, so that 1+1 = 2 (or in whatever base you count, you just have another form of precisely this same thing).

In other words, there would be a significant overlap in their understanding of physics and our own, where both races would agree on the physics. Both would have the same concepts/theories in significant overlap. ( While of course it might take a math transform to reach a given equation form we most often use, it would be basically the same thing in some given equation transform.)

 

[SelfSim]

While the reality is instead that we definitely have found some real aspects of absolute reality, not merely an arbitrary description, but a real aspect itself in some form.

Let me illustrate:
Suppose an alien race arrived, and were friendly enough to communicate...we would then find (almost trivially to me) that the aliens would agree about the relationship (the fact) we have found for electromagnetic radiation between frequency and energy. It's a real thing. They would have or accept one of our many alternative equation forms we have found that express that precisely. if they use math (which is typically thought to be a likely universal language in that identities like '1' (that a thing exists in a numerical quantity), etc. are a very general idea, so that 1+1 = 2 (or in whatever base you count, you just have another form of precisely this same thing).

In other words, there would be a significant overlap in their understanding of physics and our own, where both races would agree on the physics. Both would have the same concepts/theories in significant overlap. ( While of course it might take a math transform to reach a given equation form we most often use, it would be basically the same thing in some given equation transform.)

So, I was willing to overlook some of what you had to say about what science/physics is up to, until I reached your above text.
I take your usage of the term 'absolute reality' as meaning something which exists completely (truly) independently from our minds, yes(?)
If so, then this is the part where you have finally explicitly deviated from objective science.

I had a good belly laugh when I saw your only justification for your belief in some absolute (mind independent) reality there, was some fantasy about what an alien might have to say, LOL! Do you really expect anyone to treat such a justification with anything other than pure humour?

To a scientific thinker, it should be very obvious the internal inconsistency of implying that we are sure things such as EM radiation and mathematics exist as some absolute reality, ie: independently from those clearly demonstrable, very human concepts.
' Who is sure about that', I ask? How do we tell we are sure, and how is that independent of us? To illustrate, with expediency, the clear inconsistency of that above position, consider the following (more simplified) conversation between two humans:

Me: Please tell me something you regard as objectively (absolutely) real.

Person#2: The Empire State Building.

Me: So the Empire State Building is something you are sure exists absolutely, independently of you?

Person#2: Yes.

Me: And why are you sure it exists?

Person#2: For reasons X, Y, and Z.

Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?

Person#2: Yes.

Me: That's the part that isn't independent of you.

QM interpretations are demonstrably not independent from the way our human minds think. You appeared to be making the unstated assumption that one of the various interpretations must be independent from the way we think about QM's reality, behind your opening criticique of the OP YouTube presentation .. (which is how we ended up where we now are with this).

 

[Halbhh]

I take your usage of the term 'absolute reality' as meaning something which exists completely (truly) independently from our minds, yes(?)

Great question! My answer is 'not quite, so far as I know, in my current understanding'.

So far as I understand at this time, all things in the Universe have connections if they have existed within a connecting 'light cone'. We cannot entirely separate the observer from the things observed. (of course, common sense is correct on the other hand we can indeed artificially isolate 2 given things for a time in some experiment, if done well, etc., for many types of phenomena; so don't take it I suggest that nothing can ever be made independent of anything else)

Reading further in your post, you seem to be having a trouble of some kind, possibly from stress or some such, so perhaps on another day discussion might be more amenable. Remember a person isn't their ideas. We all have correct and incorrect ideas, of course! So, your value isn't dependent on your ideas. Hope you have a good evening.

 

[SelfSim]

Reading further in your post, you seem to be having a trouble of some kind, possibly from stress or some such, ..

Ha! A mere evasion/diversion tactic .. ie: making up stories, rather than confronting the presented issues! .. !

Everything in my post is an abundantly evidenced position.. but one has to actually look at it from an objective viewpoint in order see that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... it turns out over time that Many Worlds cannot in any way be tested or supported/falsified -- then eventually that is how I'd mainly characterize it: an unfalsifiable 'theory'. Or as a famous blog it titled: "Not even wrong."

Not strictly true - if wavefunction collapse could be convincingly demonstrated it would falsify Many Worlds and other non-collapse interpretations

'Not even wrong' has often been applied to unfalsifiable science, but there's considerable debate about whether unfalsifiability renders a hypothesis unscientific. AIUI, philosophers of science generally think falsifiability is a 'nice to have' but not essential.

 

[Halbhh]

Not strictly true - if wavefunction collapse could be convincingly demonstrated it would falsify Many Worlds and other non-collapse interpretations

'Not even wrong' has often been applied to unfalsifiable science, but there's considerable debate about whether unfalsifiability renders a hypothesis unscientific. AIUI, philosophers of science generally think falsifiability is a 'nice to have' but not essential.

Talking about the variety of competing theories:

We have of course a large variety of phenomena where we see the appearance (seeming) of what might be wave function collapse -- the wide variety of phenomena alike in that way to the electrons in the double split experiment. Some have even speculated on whether the Copenhagen Interpretation could be all there is even for many or some aspects. (but that view itself is of course yet another speculative hypothesis) I want to repeat though that Many Worlds is just another runner in a race which has many competitors, and so one should reasonably look at the other competitors.

About liking Many Worlds for its simplification:
First, let me credit Bayesian inference as being definitely a good way to search for new theories. We know that over time in physics all the theories that prove out to be the most signficant and are real progress have been elegant, and fit together with existing theories generally. So, the Bayesian inference as a way to search for new theory is just reasonable, a good plan. It's like...starting a foot race heading in the correct road direction. And simplification is often a good thing to consider. But what about all the other runners (theories)?

The problem as I see it with favoring a theory that is not yet falsifiable, or possibly never testable, theories like Many Worlds (and for example, it could happen we might never be able to conclude, could never show that the wave function collapses or does not collapse in some conclusive way that would be more than the already large amount of results that seem as if a wavefunction collapse in a Copenhagen sense even) which we already have...)...is the variety of other theories that also have nice attributes.

So, when considering a theory, that one has a simplification isn't by itself all that impressive. (for instance, one could take an existing theory that does have plenty of unique supporting evidence and try to simplify it in some way we know would just make it less useful or even incorrect).

So, instead of seeing Many Worlds as in any way important, it seems then more like...wishful thinking to me to imagine it's likely correct. (if anyone does) At most, to me, Many Worlds would be more important (not more likely correct, but merely more prominently important) if there weren't competing theories. But there are, including intriguing other theories with interesting attributes of their own.

 

[SelfSim]

So, instead of seeing Many Worlds as in any way important, it seems then more like...wishful thinking to me to imagine it's likely correct. (if anyone does) At most, to me, Many Worlds would be more important (not more likely correct, but merely more prominently important) if there weren't competing theories. But there are, including intriguing other theories with interesting attributes of their own.

Let's make it perfectly clear for the sake of further discussion on this, that the OP YouTuber presenter makes no claims about MWI being the 'correct' or 'a likely correct' interpretation.
You are introducing that criteria .. not her .. nor is anyone else, thus far, in this discussion.
The same applies for your 'more important' and 'more prominently important' criteria. 'Important' for whom, or what, I ask?

Let's get even more explicit: the YouTuber says at the very beginning (the 1:00min mark):
'The Many Worlds Interpretation is, I think, the best interpretation of Quantum Mechanics because its so simple'.
She then goes on to explain her quite valid reasoning for that opinion.

In the description of the YouTube she states:
'The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is often criticised for being excessive. Isn't it crazy that there are an infinite number of worlds splitting all the time? In this video I give an introduction to what many worlds actually is, and why I think it's actually a simplification of standard quantum mechanics.'

Your introduction of 'correct' and 'important' then, exceeds the purpose of her YouTube presentation (but not the scope of the thread).

Feel free to 'agree' to this post or tell me why you disagree, if you do.

 

[Halbhh]

Let's make it perfectly clear for the sake of further discussion on this, that the OP YouTuber presenter makes no claims about MWI being the 'correct' or 'a likely correct' interpretation.
You are introducing that criteria .. not her .. nor is anyone else, thus far, in this discussion.
The same applies for your 'more important' and 'more prominently important' criteria. 'Important' for whom, or what, I ask?

Let's get even more explicit: the YouTuber says at the very beginning (the 1:00min mark):
'The Many Worlds Interpretation is, I think, the best interpretation of Quantum Mechanics because its so simple'.
She then goes on to explain her quite valid reasoning for that opinion.

In the description of the YouTube she states:
'The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is often criticised for being excessive. Isn't it crazy that there are an infinite number of worlds splitting all the time? In this video I give an introduction to what many worlds actually is, and why I think it's actually a simplification of standard quantum mechanics.'

Your introduction of 'correct' and 'important' then, exceeds the purpose of her YouTube presentation (but not the scope of the thread).

Wow, we really do use words with different definitional senses of meaning. To me, the word 'best' definitely is characterizing a theory as being 'more important' (valuable) to the individual, subjectively -- they are saying this is the theory they like/prefer/think is best/ think is more likely to be correct or some such (any of the above, or another like them). That's what the word 'best' means in this context, to me. But for you that seemed not that way at all, so you thought I didn't address what she said there in the opening on the same scope, while I definitely addressed exactly that, on exactly that same subjective scope.

So, our word usage/meaning did not align there at all. That's quite a contrast in definitions/word usage between us.
So, you and I may be very often using words in very different ways.

That's bound to cause a lot of misunderstanding, because it would make it more likely that I'd sometimes think you are saying X when you meant Y, and more likely you'll sometimes think I'm saying R when I meant S (as here in this instance), etc.

A good thing to take caution about in discussion then. I wonder how many times we've misunderstood what the intended meanings we've written to each other. Half the time? More?