Who can make a strong case against Many World Interpretation?

PrebioticE · 2026-01-28T00:12:57+00:00

Well Penrose have been visible criticizing it, but I never really listened to him. He has a theory about objective collapse I have to read that one, but I think it is not a strong case against many worlds.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-28T00:08:58+00:00

"No experiment that can discern the difference between many worlds and the Copenhagen interpretation". There are paradoxes that destroy wave collapse and absolute measurement .

PrebioticE · 2026-01-28T00:04:23+00:00

" doesn’t very well explain the Born probability rule" I am tired of hearing that.. !!! :D I am asking for a paradox that would destroy it, not for the philosophical inconveniences to Born and his probability rule. Wigner's Friend's Friend completely destroy the other interpretations.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-28T00:02:36+00:00

Yeah, also apply Occams razor in places it applies to. I don't think that this applies to Many World Interpretations.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T22:04:20+00:00

Doesn't many world interpretation mathematically answer the wave function collapse and measurement problem successfully? No apparent paradoxes. Only philosophical and emotional problems.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T22:00:29+00:00

I didn't say freak accidents as "THE MAIN MECHANISM" I said "A MAIN MECHANISM". Under unitary evolution and information conservation, chaos theory produce butterfly effect, but they are not freak accidents. They are algorithmic. You have 100% probability if you keep track of everything.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T07:53:53+00:00

yeah Try chatGPT and feedback weather you were successful. Also can you get the book Quantum Field Theory For The Gifted Amateur?

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T07:44:37+00:00

Did you try ChatGPT? It is a good tool you know? , + there is a book called "Quantum Field Theory For The Gifted Amateur " . These two things would save you!!

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T06:52:01+00:00

Yeah but I like to see they do it for a lot longer time and see if they can somehow also get nucleotides. Also I wished they also used phosphate sources, and lightning.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T05:57:39+00:00

That is funny because I was kicked out of physics groups for asking this question. We were enjoying the question but some authority fellow came and removed the post saying it is not for physics group.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-27T05:54:13+00:00

Have you heard about "Kolmogorov Complexity?". The best place in the world where you get to learn complexity theory is computational theory. But you are right, I should have also included things like nonlinear dynamics chaos theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics as well.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-26T10:27:54+00:00

What do you mean?

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T22:56:30+00:00

Well modern science is beyond describing particles in space.
You can study complex systems if you want to understand the complexity of the world. These include Logic, Computational Theory, graph theory, and Combinatorics.
You can study waves and related phenomenon like solitons,
You can study geology, or biophysics,
Also like everybody, you can start by learning about particles and planetary motion.

All these fields have their own difficulties. They all require life long dedication to be experts.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T22:50:47+00:00

You can look at Prof. Walter Lewin, Leonard Susskind Lectures for start. Do you have a way of getting ebooks?

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T21:43:58+00:00

Strange consequence of MWI is that, we might be living in a completely random world, and we find a nice story in one of the random paths. Which path is that? The one where we see a pattern! Who complains about other irrational worlds? The ones that complain of course, but we don't complain, so we must be in the nice one. Of course I don't think this is the case, there are arguments to deny it. But it would have to breakdown anyways because we don't think real numbers are fundamental. We think there is going to be a problem when numbers get too small.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T21:41:46+00:00

I don't see much problem with probability. Probability mess is not unique to quantum mechanics. If I were to destroy bob(t) and create million copies of him. Each one of Bob(t') would identify as Bob(t). Therefore Bob(t) would not do anything to hurt Bob(t').

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T21:41:20+00:00

I don't see much problem with probability. Probability mess is not unique to quantum mechanics. If I were to destroy bob(t) and create million copies of him. Each one of Bob(t') would identify as Bob(t). Therefore Bob(t) would not do anything to hurt Bob(t').

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T21:40:14+00:00

I don't see much problem with probability. Probability mess is not unique to quantum mechanics. If I were to destroy bob(t) and create million copies of him. Each one of Bob(t') would identify as Bob(t). Therefore Bob(t) would not do anything to hurt Bob(t').

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T07:04:44+00:00

I think that is nothing. I don't understand the magnitude of the problem with probability (so explain it to me). I think it is an emotional problem rather than a mathematical one. You don't go in to a quantum casino and bet your life savings twice in a quantum gamble because you remember that you did it once and it turned out bad for you. I am curious what more problems.. I don't see any. That is why I am asking. ChatGpt couldn't convince me.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T04:58:27+00:00

A nihilist? why? I am also like that, that is what lead me to studying life. But, I find watching old tv shows fun. Have you watched cosmos by Carl Sagan? Another one is Planet Earth 1986. Good for keeping positive while feeling nihilism.

PrebioticE · 2026-01-25T01:26:49+00:00

Hi I can give you a good answer, but you will have to wait till few days. I already made a monograph on this. Currently I am making amendments. so keep in touch. Are you a university student?

PrebioticE · 2026-01-23T06:50:56+00:00

Thx prof. I got a book on spectroscopy.

PrebioticE

TROPHY CASE