Is the Many-Worlds Interpretation truly deterministic?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel Valient
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mwi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, specifically addressing its deterministic nature and the implications of all physically possible scenarios occurring within the multiverse. Participants explore theoretical and philosophical questions regarding the existence of absurd or unlikely events in different branches of the multiverse.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that MWI is deterministic, asserting that every physically possible scenario occurs in some branch of the multiverse, though the frequency of absurd scenarios is negligible.
  • Others question whether absurd scenarios, such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton getting married, actually take place in the multiverse, raising ethical implications of such events.
  • A participant suggests that while absurd universes are rare, they still represent an incalculably vast number of timelines, complicating the notion of their rarity.
  • There is a discussion about whether "normal" timelines are duplicated to ensure their majority presence in the multiverse, with some arguing that this would not make sense.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about MWI, indicating a conflict between scientific reasoning and common sense.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of "mangled worlds," proposing a different theory that would eliminate certain worlds from consideration.
  • One participant reflects on the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, suggesting that closely related worlds may reinforce each other while radically divergent ones cancel out.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the implications of MWI regarding absurd scenarios or the nature of branching timelines. The discussion remains unresolved on whether duplicative universes exist to favor "normal" outcomes.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the MWI and its consequences, with some noting that discussions often overlook the broader implications of alternate branches diverging significantly from our own.

  • #121
Well, doesn't this entire debate show, how nonsensical the many-world interpretation (as most other interpretations that go beyond the minimal interpretation) are from a scientific point of view? There may be some people whose mind/consciousness split all the time, particularly those who think "interpretation" is a scientifically relevant topic :nb), but I think that the majority of people, particularly physicists who haven't already lost contact to experiments and observations in the "real world", cannot confirm such experiences with any objective confidence. We do experiments and make observations and always find one outcome (modulo uncertainties of any measurement/observation). There's nothing splitting in branches, and the only thing QT provides are probabilities for the outcome of these unique observations and measurements (unique of course always within the uncertainties any measurement has of course, and most of the experimental work is to provide adequate and objective estimates of statistical and systematic errors!). That's it. There's nothing more concerning "interpretation", and so far there's not a single observation that contradicts this point of view but to the contrary QT is confirmed with an amazing significance.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: secur and BvU
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Thread closed for moderation.

Edit: The thread will remain closed.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K