- #1
entropy1
- 1,230
- 71
Could MWI signify that there are not necessarily a (near) infinite number of real worlds, but rather that officially we can't tell if, or to what degree, the world we are in is real?
Perhaps 'the observer' 'observes' what is 'real'. So entropy1 ends up in world A and world B, but he, or his two copies, observe different things. So which observation represents the 'real' world, if we let observation decide?WWGD said:Before quoting the first line of Bohemian Rhapsody, we may need to define terms. How do you define 'real' , in order to separate worlds that are from those that are not?
So reality is not intrinsic but dependent on the observer? What then if we swap observers and worlds, has the choice of what reality is changed?entropy1 said:Perhaps 'the observer' 'observes' what is 'real'. So entropy1 ends up in world A and world B, but he, or his two copies, observe different things. So which observation represents the 'real' world, if we let observation decide?
I wonder what answers the other copies gave.
The suggestion I was making is that, since we can't determine which (subjective) world would be real, reality as variable in this sense could be dropped alltogether.WWGD said:So reality is not intrinsic but dependent on the observer? What then if we swap observers and worlds, has the choice of what reality is changed?
entropy1 said:entropy1 ends up in world A and world B, but he, or his two copies, observe different things.
entropy1 said:So which observation represents the 'real' world, if we let observation decide?
WWGD said:So reality is not intrinsic but dependent on the observer?
WWGD said:What then if we swap observers and worlds, has the choice of what reality is changed?
It's a pity I am not allowed to launch my own ideas hereWWGD said:So reality is not intrinsic but dependent on the observer?
I am clearly above my depth in all possible worlds ;), so I will bow to others here.entropy1 said:It's a pity I am not allowed to launch my own ideas here
WWGD said:Before quoting the first line of Bohemian Rhapsody
Hypothesis:entropy1 said:Reality in terms of the wavefunction can't be reconstructed from the outcomes, because the outcomes are normalized, but can be reconstructed from the amplitudes. So that is why I suggest that outcomes either don't represent reality, or they represent a different kind of reality rather than that of the wavefunction.
bhobba said:Unfortunately in MWI you can get bogged down in exactly what does 'real' mean:
Thanks
Bill
WWGD said:As long as one does not get bogged down on what 'is' is...
Yes, thin line between the ridiculous and the sublime in Philosophy. May be saying something brilliant or absurd, not clear where the line is.bhobba said:I have a love/hate relationship to philosophy. I find some things interesting, and others boring or even downright maddening. I enrolled in a Graduate certificate in philosophy but I found it, as the lecturer confirmed to me, about philosophical ideas in a historical context - not the ideas themselves. That didn't actually stop me from continuing with it despite my general dislike for history, but when research assignments were required I could not go to the library (I didn't have a car at the time and my knees are totally shot so public transport was out) and contacted the disability officer to discuss how to work around it. She was on holidays or something and I could never get a hold of her so I gave it away. Later the professor contacted me and apologized - he was evidently supposed to handle it while she was away but forgot. I could return with no penalty, but this history stuff was definitely not my thing so said no thanks. I must mention however I do find the history of science, especially QM quite interesting. If they only had a graduate program in the philosophy/history of QM I would have lapped it up - but no they didn't - although their physics department had a group dedicated to the foundations of QM and were willing to enroll me in a Masters Of Philosophy in the Foundations, Philosophy, and History of QM. But a full research Masters was for me too much of a time commitment so I declined. That was when I was in my late 40's - at 64 I now think its beyond me.
Anyway the bit I find maddening about philosophy is this quibbling about everyday words to the point they even sometimes question things like 'is'. I can understand things like reality etc are hard to pin down - but 'is'? Not my bag.
Thanks
Bill
I know how you feel about philosophy but I can tell you that I really enjoyed some books.bhobba said:I have a love/hate relationship to philosophy. I find some things interesting, and others boring or even downright maddening. I enrolled in a Graduate certificate in philosophy but I found it, as the lecturer confirmed to me, about philosophical ideas in a historical context - not the ideas themselves. That didn't actually stop me from continuing with it despite my general dislike for history, but when research assignments were required I could not go to the library (I didn't have a car at the time and my knees are totally shot so public transport was out) and contacted the disability officer to discuss how to work around it. She was on holidays or something and I could never get a hold of her so I gave it away. Later the professor contacted me and apologized - he was evidently supposed to handle it while she was away but forgot. I could return with no penalty, but this history stuff was definitely not my thing so said no thanks. I must mention however I do find the history of science, especially QM quite interesting. If they only had a graduate program in the philosophy/history of QM I would have lapped it up - but no they didn't - although their physics department had a group dedicated to the foundations of QM and were willing to enroll me in a Masters Of Philosophy in the Foundations, Philosophy, and History of QM. But a full research Masters was for me too much of a time commitment so I declined. That was when I was in my late 40's - at 64 I now think its beyond me.
Anyway the bit I find maddening about philosophy is this quibbling about everyday words to the point they even sometimes question things like 'is'. I can understand things like reality etc are hard to pin down - but 'is'? Not my bag.
Thanks
Bill
bhobba said:The point of this slight sojourn into philosophy is the use of equally real worlds in the formulation of MWI shows - and was the point I was trying to make - is riddled with philosophical issues, especially what is real. That's why I prefer Decoherent Histories rather than Many Worlds - there is no ambiguity subject to philosophical/semantic quibbling.
Thanks
Bill
Quanundrum said:I understand the desire to 'skip' over the philosophical jargon, semantics and stoner riddles, but isn't DH just "shut up and calculate" of MWI?
bhobba said:That's why the two interpretations have a lot in common, mathematically.
cosmik debris said:I thought all interpretations have the same mathematics?
The MWI (Many-Worlds Interpretation) theory is a hypothesis in quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of multiple parallel universes. It proposes that every time a quantum event occurs, the universe splits into different branches, each representing a different outcome. This theory was first introduced by physicist Hugh Everett in the 1950s.
The MWI theory suggests that all possible outcomes of a quantum event actually occur in different parallel universes. This means that every decision we make or every event that happens has multiple outcomes, each happening in a different universe. Therefore, reality is seen as a collection of all these parallel universes.
There is currently no direct evidence to support the MWI theory. However, some physicists argue that it is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics and can help explain some of its paradoxes. Others believe that it is impossible to test the existence of parallel universes, making it a purely theoretical concept.
One of the main criticisms of the MWI theory is that it is not falsifiable, meaning it cannot be proven or disproven. Additionally, some argue that the theory is unnecessarily complex and goes against Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the best. Others also question the existence of parallel universes and argue that the theory lacks empirical evidence.
The MWI theory challenges our traditional understanding of reality as a single, objective existence. It suggests that reality is actually a collection of all possible outcomes, each happening in a different parallel universe. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, but it allows for a more expansive view of reality and the potential for infinite possibilities.