Tonight I’ve realized that BM has some philosophical issues. It appears that I did not find anything really new, but it is interesting for me to discuss some details, especially BM vs MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis (c) MaxTegmark) and consciousness(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I started to think about the ‘dead’ branches where wavefunction is ‘empty’, and I realized that there is an additional axiom in BM; axiom so obvious that nobody is talking about it explicitly. BM does not only postulates the existence of ‘particles’, guided by the wavefunction, but it also claims that‘only non-empty branches are real’

From that moment there is a total mess.

1. In BM wavefunction is objective (does it means that it is real?) So there are 2 types of the math in BM: those describing the “particles”, and those describing waves. In other words, those describing what is real and those describing what is not real (?).In that case, BM is inconsistent with MUH, because it claims that some formulas (the ones which describe the particles) are “REAL” (whatever it means) while others are notNo matter what TOE formulas will be, there will be unavoidable “word baggage” left: on the T-shirt with formulas of TOE there will be a big arrow pointing to some of them with a big red capital “REAL” on it.

2. What is a difference between an empty and real branch of conscious being? Except the hidden particles nobody can observe, the wavefunction is the same.The unavoidable conclusion is that it is an existence of the particles which is giving the system it’s consciousnessExcept for the particles, the brain wavefunction in empty branch is the a wavefunction of a normally functioning brain – and yet it is not conscious! This is a perfect example of P-zombie (wiki it)

3. is REAL=OBJECTIVE? Or does BM provide an example of what is objective, but not real? Are empty branches real? If they are not, why the wavefunction is called ‘objective’? If wavefunction is real (“Both Hugh Everett III and Bohm treated the wavefunction as a physically real field” (c)) – then why brain is not conscious without particles inside?

4. Do Bohmians agree with this (especially with the bold):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

According to some authors, if the (never collapsing) wave function is taken to be physically real, then it is natural to interpret the theory ashaving the same many worlds as Everett's theory. In the Everettian view the role of the Bohm particle is to act as a "pointer", tagging, or selecting, just one branch of the universal wavefunction (the assumption that this branch indicates which wave packet determines the observed result of a given experiment is called the "result assumption"[18]); the other branches are designated "empty" and implicitlyassumed by Bohm to be devoid of conscious observersDavid Deutsch has expressed the same point more "acerbically” : “pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe theories in a state of chronic denial.[22]

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# BM is incompatible with MUH

Loading...

Similar Threads - incompatible | Date |
---|---|

A Many worlds interpretation incompatible with quantum gravity | Jan 4, 2017 |

I Are the 2nd and 3rd axioms of QM incompatible? | Feb 6, 2016 |

At what point does gravity become incompatible with QM? | May 10, 2013 |

Is Bohmian Mechanics incompatible with free will/choice? | Feb 26, 2013 |

Indeterminism of Quantum Mechanics and incompatibility with Relativity | Jun 19, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**