A Critique of Everett's "Many Wolds" interpretation

[GaloisGroup]

TL;DR

A Critique of Everett's "MW" interpretation

Without proof many folks in the Physics community give the "many worlds" interpretation of the measurement/decoherence problem a level of regard that I believe is wholly unwarranted. To quote Carlo Rovelli ".. is it really worth giving credence to the real and concrete existence of infinite copies of ourselves (which are unknowable and unknown to us) hidden behind a gigantic universal wave function? The MW interpretation carries a stench of magic and religion that I find objectionable. I'm interested in knowing how others in this forum view this issue. I guess it's a way for me to gauge and calibrate the seriousness of others. I know. Many respectable professional physicists give the notion more than just O2. Nevertheless this seems like several other crazy notions regarding QM and QFT. Science needs to BE scientific, not deliberately sensational and ultimately untestable. I guess it's still kind of "old school" to insist that a scientific hypothesis must be inherently falsifiable.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Thread moved to the QM interpretations subforum.

 

[PeterDonis]

Without proof many folks in the Physics community give the "many worlds" interpretation of the measurement/decoherence problem a level of regard that I believe is wholly unwarranted.

Your personal opinion is of course yours, but this forum is not for discussing personal opinions. There are plenty of critiques of the many worlds intepretation published in the literature. If you would like to discuss one, you will need to give a reference.

Science needs to BE scientific, not deliberately sensational and ultimately untestable.

All intepretations of QM are untestable, since they all make the same experimental predictions. That is why QM interpretation is still an open issue a century after QM itself was developed. (The guidelines for this subforum discuss this.)

 

[PeterDonis]

Critics of the many-worlds interpretation, like Carlo Rovelli, often raise concerns about its conceptual implications and its departure from traditional scientific principles such as falsifiability.

Please give a specific reference if you want to discuss a particular critique of the MWI.

On the other hand, proponents of the many-worlds interpretation argue

The same applies to discussion of arguments in support of the MWI.

 

[Vanadium 50]

carries a stench of magic and religion that I find objectionable

Is that what the smell is? I knew something smelled about this thread and was wondering what it was.