Everett Interpretation in English; correct or flawed?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Galteeth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    English Interpretation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically examining a plain English explanation found in a document. Participants evaluate the accuracy of the claims made in the document, particularly regarding its predictions and the validity of its statements about the interpretation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the accuracy of a statement in the document regarding predictions made by the Everett interpretation, suggesting that it may not align with the views of many physicists.
  • Another participant expresses a strong negative opinion about the quality of the FAQ, indicating a lack of understanding of its widespread acceptance.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while some parts of the FAQ may be flawed, particularly regarding reversible AI, the overall content is acceptable and encourages consulting original documents for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the claims made in the document, with no consensus reached on its accuracy or the interpretation's predictions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential issues with the interpretations and predictions presented in the FAQ, but do not resolve the accuracy of these claims or their implications for the Everett interpretation.

Galteeth
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
I came across this document http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#faq containing a plain english explanation of the Everett interpretation. While it is clear that the author is very much in favor of this interpretation and has objections to others, is there any thing here that is fundamentally incorrect or out of date (not his philosophical positions, but his facts)?

Particularly this statement: prediction occurs when a theory suggests new phenomena. Many-worlds makes at least three predictions, two of them unique: about linearity, (See "Is linearity exact?"), quantum gravity (See "Why quantum gravity?") and reversible quantum computers (See "Could we detect other Everett-worlds?").
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That statement is not something that many physicists would agree is true.
 
I have always felt that that FAQ is really bad. I have no idea why it has spread to so many sites.
 
IMHO only the "reversible AI" part in the "Could we detect other Everett-worlds" is a way off [reversible AI is not going to help detecting MWI], but otherwise the FAQ is Ok. And of course it is always the best to go to the original documents, rather than FAQs.

Everett's thesis is available online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf" , and it is quite readable.

-- Dmtr
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate Probabilistic game of life as a toy model for Everett's interpretation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Sidney Coleman's opinion on interpretation in his Dirac lecture
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
5K
Graduate Many Worlds versus Thermal interpretation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Schrödinger's original interpretation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Graduate The Assumptions of MWI Everett's Relative State Formulation
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad QFT made Bohmian mechanics a non-starter: missed opportunities?
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
25K
Undergrad Could Tim Maudlin's Views on Bell and QM Be Flawed?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Graduate Dieter Zeh's MWI as Schrödinger equation + further assumptions
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
Graduate Many worlds, observer and Entropy
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K