Search results

  1. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretations and probabilities

    I feel like you are always talking with 2 tongues, on one hand you dismiss MWI because it's too weird, then you go onto say: nature is weird, therefore MWI doesn't have to explain itself, yet I don't believe it. Sometimes I am wondering if you are a hardcore MWI proponent that just troll for...
  2. Q

    I Why aren't we on maverick branches?

    This one is dedicated to my dear Everettians: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08881 What is interesting to me is that Stephen Hsu has previously been a very outspoken proponent of Everett.
  3. Q

    Many Worlds - What drives the parallel branching?

    Where have you sen this presented a few times recently? I presented it in this forum about half a year ago and everyone considered it pretty much a moot point. I know Alastair Wilson has done work on this, but other than him I rarely see it discussed.
  4. Q

    META - Mods please stop closing QM interpretation threads

    Why? Interpretations has been an integral part of science since forever. It is awfully inconsiderate and non-professional of mods here to shutdown these threads that are clearly in high demand since they pop up all the time. If they were truly clogging up the forum I would be completely...
  5. Q

    META - Mods please stop closing QM interpretation threads

    I disagree. Interpretations has lead to new theorems (Bells Theorem) and new experiments. There are also several conclusions to be reached about inter-interpretational (which the last thread you closed was about) issues. It's not wasteful discussions. I find it very close minded of you to...
  6. Q

    META - Mods please stop closing QM interpretation threads

    But there are conclusions to be reached. There's a reason these threads is vastly more active than other threads. I don't see any reason whatsoever for closing a perfectly good and serious discussion that is at peak activity
  7. Q

    META - Mods please stop closing QM interpretation threads

    Way too many valuable and technical discussions that are outside the realm of 'pure philosophy' gets shutdown here way too often. The last one was a highly productive and interesting thread about technical issues within the Many Worlds Interpretation. Sure some of the posts at the end were...
  8. Q

    Why does nothing happen in MWI?

    Happy to see this topic getting some serious discussion, as it deserves. My question for you Derek Potter with regards to the Many-Many worlds you seem to be a proponent of, is how you get the probabilities correct?
  9. Q

    Where is the flaw with predetermined entanglement state?

    Not really. Check out Gerard 't Hoofts proposals
  10. Q

    Where is the flaw with predetermined entanglement state?

    But why is it then unpalatable? We live in a infinite ocean of somethingness. Is it really that hard to accept that everything is fine tuned at the beginning?
  11. Q

    Where is the flaw with predetermined entanglement state?

    I feel that Complete / Absolute / Total / Omni-determinism is a better word for it. SUPER sounds so.. weird. All it really is, is complete determinism. Which shouldn't be too hard to swallow if you already accept either Bohm or Many Worlds which is equally absolute in their determinism
  12. Q

    More evidence that the wavefunction is ontologically real?

    This is what happens when otherwise very smart people decide to ignore philosophy. Saying that the worlds aren't in the wavefunction doesn't actually remove them. As has been argued in the litterature before: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1659/1/Cushing.pdf
  13. Q

    More evidence that the wavefunction is ontologically real?

    No. If you want an ontological wavefunction and you accept functionalism you do not get to say that by magic the worlds do not occur in the wavefunction
  14. Q

    More evidence that the wavefunction is ontologically real?

    But in Bohm, given the ontological nature of the WF it's hard to see how you avoid infinite Many Worlds with 1 special particle world.
  15. Q

    Quantum Suicide: Why is only experimenter convinced?

    Did you read the section of Overlap vs Divergence? This is where he makes his argument
  16. Q

    Quantum Suicide: Why is only experimenter convinced?

    Yes, he is a philosopher, but this is still his expertise. I don't like your attitude of dismissing everyone who got their degree in philosophy of physics. David Wallace talks about this exact view in the book too and he got a PhD in physics as well as a PhD in philosophy, so if Saunders' or...
  17. Q

    Quantum Suicide: Why is only experimenter convinced?

    Saunders has a whole chapter in the "Many Worlds?" volume about it which can be read here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/chance.pdf ctrl + f: diverge
  18. Q

    Quantum Suicide: Why is only experimenter convinced?

    I think my issue of divergence vs splitting should be given more consideration within the MWI community as it directly falsifies all forms of Quantum Immortality instantly and is also the metaphysical view argued for by the leaders of modern Everett reading.
  19. Q

    Quantum Suicide: Why is only experimenter convinced?

    To make matters even worse, consider the fact that the metaphysics of MWI isn't worked out. MWI can be interpreted metaphysically as being about worlds splitting (fission picture) or diverging. In the divergent picture all the worlds exist from the dawn of time, but diverge as changes occur in...
  20. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    You keep saying that it is generally accepted, but I am the only one that has posted more than 1 source that vehemetly disagrees with that. Also, decoherence itself is dependent on a solution to the Born Rule issue.
  21. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    Again I disagree. I did not attack him in any shape, way or form. He did on the other hand by categorizing everyone that disagrees with him as silly. I also told you that we should just agree to being in disagreement and not derail the thread. For some reason this was impossible for you. Please...
  22. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    Enough derailing. We'll agree to disagree. Thanks
  23. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    CLAIMING that something unprovable that directly disagrees with observation IS TRUE is indeed the definition of 'borderline religious'
  24. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    My tone is a replication of his own tone. He is being condescending to everyone that isn't a member of his 'MWI religion' here by calling them "silly". He has already stated that it *is* true, with no solution to the current problems and absolutely no evidence.
  25. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    Prove it then and win a Nobel Prize. So far there is pretty much no agreement amongst even supporters of MWI in terms of how to solve preferred basis problem and Born Rule problem. Yougot no solution either. You sounds borderline religious with this dogmatic "WE ARE"
  26. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    New paper exposing just how messy the question of ontology and coherence is in the MWI view: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04835
  27. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    When did Wallace say so ? He's religiously committed to MWI
  28. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    Indeed it is what you are saying by denying that it is generally accepted. but anyways uninteresting topic.
  29. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    I disagree because quantum mechanics itself is completely agnostic about the wavefunction itself. It doesn't say that the wavefunction exists. And all our experiments to date suggest there is in fact only 1 outcome and one world.
  30. Q

    Many Worlds Interpretation and act of measuring

    Well you're the one that stated that it's generally accepted that he did derive it, so I can ask the same to you. I am going by the papers I have come across. I am completely open to being wrong if you can supply more papers accepting his derivation than I just mentioned of people not accepting...
Top