Pearlist

No problem. Noone else got any input on this fasinating topic?

Actually Schroedinger just got the math right, he was objecting to it's implication just as much as Einstein and deBroglie, but noone came up with a solution that solved the paradox. So take superposition, what is it then? you think every PhD in the world who says superposition is real, is wrong? Ok, forget the word Universe, EVERYTHING in the universe replicas then, same deal, godddamn wtf is the point of getting hung up on details. And yes, that the world splits into branches of different outcomes is Many Worlds Interpretation. I don't care about Copenhagen interpretation as I stated in my first post. Tell me how you explain the double slit experiment and erp

Uhm, ok. I know the definiton of a universe, point is if MWI is true, there are infinite universes and we live in a multiverse, not a universe. How can you say superposition is BS? soundwaves are in superposition? Do you know QM ?

What does this amount to though? The classical Schroedinger cat, do it live or die, both, or does it do both in 2 different universes?

Occam razor is basically stating: "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" Well, since it seems Bohmian mechanics postulate 3 'unecessary' (open for debate) entities: 1) pilot wave 2) quantum potential 3) needs to figure out how to make it relativistic because the interpretation requires infinite (or atleast 10thousand times the speed of light) superluminal effect. While MWI doesn't postulate anything (atleast they claim), they say they just say the Schroedinger wavefunction is all there is and as a consequence you get infinite branches. - I agree, subjectivist interpretations are worth less than worthless, I don't even bother with them because the second you throw empericism out the window, you can't really speak upon consciousness either, it's a oxymoron. From the talk David Z Albert gave at Everett@50, it seems his biggest objection to MWI is probability, how do you arrive at the Born Rule etc. If something got 99% probability of happening (lets take a quantum coin toss) and 1% probability of not happening, in MWI it would always be reduced to 50/50 as the universe would split into two. So performing this experiment, we see outcome A 99times vs outcome B 1time. how is this? However I guess they explain it away something like this: Well if it had a 99% of happening, it means there is 99 different ways the outcome could be reached, hence the universe split into 100 universes, 99 where the outcome became A and 1 where the outcome become B? I know little about MWI, and would love to hear some genuine criticism of it, however all I've found thus far is "its too weird" "it sounds scifi". I haven't heard any arguments about things MWI goes in conflict over yet.

Thanks, yeah I read a lot on Bohm yesterday. It just seems it got way too much problems and postulate too many things and would be dead after a meeting with barber Occam. I just watched a few hours of material on MWI, video of the talks on Everett@50 celebration/discussion meeting. David Deutsch started off with: "I'll start off with stating a simple fact, in another Universe Everett is among us here in the crowd" and kept going from there, that guy is 100% certain there is other universes and claimed that neither ERP or quantum computation can't be solved without other Universes. I hope someone can shed some light here. I think in Bohm interprettion they believe theres only ONE wave to all of the universe, which is a little bit weird I think? Is this TTN on here often? PF.com = physicsforums.com btw

Sure, anyone here?

Lately I've spent some of my freetime trying to understand the basics of QM and especially the problem of interpreting what QM tells us. As an objectivist, (hopefully) sane human being this stuff just is way above my head, how real P.hD's are debating whether the universe exist when we don't look at it, whether it's in all states until we look at it, whether it splits into infinite universes, whether everything is waves and particles, whether it's all just math... Some of these got subjectivist characteristics, which I've chosen to ignore: Copenhagen interpretation, Consciousness-collapse and the like. The only 2 realist interpretations (that I've read of) is Many Worlds and the Casual interpretation. At first, the universe splitting into (almost) infinite branches every time an atom changes it's spin sounds crazy... However when you examine QM evidence, what do you get? In the double slit: wave behaviour. At first I thought: "Well, shouldn't we then see this "splitting" ? but then it quickly dawned upon me, if MWI is true, we split too, and therefore its only reasonable that we only see "one branch" (I'm not sure whether this is the justification real physicist use for the fact we only observe one branch). I still feel this is too weird and would hate it to be true, however as a objectivist, we don't choose =\ The other is pretty straight foreward: The universe is both a wave and particles, the wave(which they claim is physical) push the particles around to it's positions. In this view the double slit is explained like this: "When we emit photons at the double slits, the wave goes through both, hence causing the waves to collide, which in return decides where the particle end up. This does not make sense as in this view I would think particles would always end up the same spot? If it's a wave thats as real as a water wave(why can't see observe it) why would it go different the other time you emit photons? Both do away with the Collapse due to decoherence. MWI dodge problems with Einsteins relativity, while The casual or Bohm interpretation doesn't. MWI sounds insane, Bohm not so much. I'm a amateur in physics, so I'm hoping there are some who will want to join in the debate and defend their position, over at PF.com most "Interpretational" discussions are considered philosophy, not physics and put in the philosophy section, which is unfortunate, because there anyone who have seen "The Secret" or some other bullshit scifi movie can jump in and voice their opinion.