F.Tipler's paper about nonlocality and multiverse(mwi)

[Alexis1304]

Hello All,
Here is the paper I'd like to ge opinions of.
As for interpretations of QM I am open-minded agnostic.But: what about F.Tipler's article "Nonlocality as evidence of myltiverse cosmology", where he uses nonlocality and argue for MWI? Here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2764.pdf

What is non-mwier response to that?Or -does there even NEED to be a response?...

 

[bhobba]

I gave it a quick squiz. Sure non locality is evidence for MWI if you want to have locality - sure - but you are basically deciding - this is how I think the world should work and because of that this is how I want to interpret QM. It proves nothing - nada. Indeed even the sense QM is non-local is open to debate - I believe it has non local aspects but not everyone does.

Indeed that seems to be the whole tone of the paper:

'Have you ever seen the Earth rotate on its axis. I have. I have seen the Sun set. We know today that in spite of our language, it is the Earth that is moving, and not the Sun.'

The Earth is neither moving or at rest - either view is valid depending on your freely chosen coordinate system. Frank should know that - I am surprised he said it - just as I am surprised he believes his view that non locality is 'wrong' or only an 'appearance' is some kind of objective 'truth'. Its the same mistake Einstein made.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Alexis1304]

I gave it a quick squiz. Sure non locality is evidence for MWI if you want to have locality - sure - but you are basically deciding - this is how I think the world should work and because of that this is how I want to interpret QM. It proves nothing - nada. Indeed even the sense QM is non-local is open to debate - I believe it has non local aspects but not everyone does.

Indeed that seems to be the whole tone of the paper:

'Have you ever seen the Earth rotate on its axis. I have. I have seen the Sun set. We know today that in spite of our language, it is the Earth that is moving, and not the Sun.'

The Earth is neither moving or at rest - either view is valid depending on your freely chosen coordinate system. Frank should know that - I am surprised he said it - just as I am surprised he believes his view that non locality is 'wrong' or only an 'appearance' is some kind of objective 'truth'. Its the same mistake Einstein made.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks for the response