MWI: Are There Worlds Where the Rules Don't Apply?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • 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 exploring whether there exist worlds where MWI itself does not apply and how this relates to the rules of physics as currently understood. Participants examine the implications of such worlds and the nature of branching in the context of MWI.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether MWI allows for worlds where it does not apply, suggesting this could lead to scenarios where the known rules of physics do not hold.
  • Others argue that if the rules of physics do not apply, it renders the question unanswerable, as there would be no basis for predicting outcomes.
  • A participant proposes the idea of branching into worlds, some where MWI applies and others where it does not, prompting further inquiries about the meaning of such a scenario.
  • Concerns are raised about the coherence of the original question, with some suggesting it may not make sense within the framework of MWI.
  • Critiques of MWI are mentioned, particularly regarding the ability of observers in certain worlds to verify the standard postulates of quantum mechanics.
  • Connections to Gödel's incompleteness and the Liar's paradox are introduced, with participants speculating on potential links to uncertainty in physics.
  • One participant notes that any criticism of MWI must still rely on the laws of quantum mechanics, which complicates the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the original question regarding worlds where MWI does not apply. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing debates about the implications and coherence of the ideas presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the uncertainty principle and its relationship to MWI, but this topic is noted as being outside the main focus of the thread. The discussion also touches on historical contexts of mathematical and physical theories, which may influence interpretations.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,806
Reaction score
13,120
TL;DR
Are there worlds where MWI does not hold?
Summary: Are there worlds where MWI does not hold?

(I made a comment on this but I lost track of it).
I hope this makes sense:
Does MWI allow for worlds were MWI itself does not apply? Where rules of Physics as we know, understand, don't apply? If so, is our world one of these?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WWGD said:
Does MWI allow for worlds were MWI itself does not apply?

What would this even mean?

WWGD said:
Where rules of Physics as we know, understand, don't apply?

If the rules of physics we know don't apply, we have no way of telling what would happen, so this question is unanswerable.
 
I meant if there is a branching into worlds , some where MWI itself applies and some where it does not?
 
WWGD said:
I meant if there is a branching into worlds , some where MWI itself applies and some where it does not?

What would this even mean?

I think you need to go back and consider the strong possibility that the question you are asking does not even make sense.
 
Ok, please delete. Will rethink.
 
WWGD said:
Summary: Are there worlds where MWI does not hold?

(I made a comment on this but I lost track of it).
I hope this makes sense:
Does MWI allow for worlds were MWI itself does not apply? Where rules of Physics as we know, understand, don't apply? If so, is our world one of these?

MWI is sometimes criticized on the basis that there might be worlds in which an observer cannot verify that the standard postulates of quantum mechanics are good descriptions of what he observes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
I was aiming for a Godel -like approach , though clearly mine was without as much success.
 
atyy said:
MWI is sometimes criticized on the basis that there might be worlds in which an observer cannot verify that the standard postulates of quantum mechanics are good descriptions of what he observes.

Yes, but the MWI itself does not claim this, and in fact claims the opposite.

Also, any such criticism has to be based on applying those same laws of quantum mechanics.
 
WWGD said:
Ok, please delete. Will rethink.
I was thinking liars paradox before you stated Gödel
I wondered if there was a link between incompleteness and uncertainty and I am sure it's been discussed on pf. I'll have a look!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
  • #10
pinball1970 said:
I was thinking liars paradox before you stated Gödel
I wondered if there was a link between incompleteness and uncertainty and I am sure it's been discussed on pf. I'll have a look!
Thanks, Pinball, I think Godel used the Liar's paradox.
 
  • #11
WWGD said:
Thanks, Pinball, I think Godel used the Liar's paradox.
Yes there are papers on Godel and Heisenberg on line like this one https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402197

I am sure the MWI has had similar questions, is there a world in one of the many worlds where the many world theory does not apply? If it does apply than that world cannot exist if it does not apply then every possible world is not allowed. MW I don't think means every possible world, I still have to finish my Sean Carroll book.

I don't want Peter Donis jumping on me for considering this, its fun trying to join those two things.

As an aside Godel and Heisenberg published around the same time, late 20s early 30s. Incompleteness in mathematics and the probabilistic/ unknowable nature of physics within a few years of each other.

It must have been a time of uncertainty.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
  • #12
pinball1970 said:
I don't want Peter Donis jumping on me for considering this

It's irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is specifically about the MWI. The uncertainty principle is not specific to the MWI, it's part of the basics of QM, independent of any interpretation.
 
  • #13
The OP question has been addressed. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 183 ·
7
Replies
183
Views
20K