Let W be the shortest program which computes the wave equation. Since the wave equation is a component of all quantum theories, it must be that |W| ≤ |Ti|. Thus, the smallest that any Ti could possibly be is |W|, such that any Ti of length |W| is at least twice as probable as a Ti of any other length. The Everett interpretation is such a Ti, since it requires nothing else beyond wave mechanics, and follows directly from it.
What exactly are we doing here? Calculating the complexity of a MW ontology versus a Copenhagen ontology, or figuring out the simplest way to predict observations?
The minimal subset of
calculation you need to do in order to predict observation is in fact going to be the same whatever interpretation you hold to—it’s just the subset that “shut up and calculate” uses. Even many worlders would go through a cycle of renormalising according to observed data, and discarding unoberserved data, which is to say, behaving “as if” collapse were occurring… But even though they don’t interpret it that way. So just predicting observation doesn’t tell you which ontology is simplest.
On the other hand, modelling ontology without bothering about prediction can differentiate the complexity of ontologies. But why would you want to do that? What you are interested in is the simplest correct theory , not the simplest theory. Its easy to come up with simple theories that are not predictive
What exactly are we doing here? Calculating the complexity of a MW ontology versus a Copenhagen ontology, or figuring out the simplest way to predict observations?
The minimal subset of calculation you need to do in order to predict observation is in fact going to be the same whatever interpretation you hold to—it’s just the subset that “shut up and calculate” uses. Even many worlders would go through a cycle of renormalising according to observed data, and discarding unoberserved data, which is to say, behaving “as if” collapse were occurring… But even though they don’t interpret it that way. So just predicting observation doesn’t tell you which ontology is simplest.
On the other hand, modelling ontology without bothering about prediction can differentiate the complexity of ontologies. But why would you want to do that? What you are interested in is the simplest correct theory , not the simplest theory. Its easy to come up with simple theories that are not predictive