SWE=Schroedinger Wave Equation. SU&C=Shut Up and Calculate.
You should want a theory that requires as few assumptions as possible to explain as much as possible
The topic is using S.I to quantify O’s R, and S.I is not a measure on assumptions , it is a measure on algorithmic complexity.
The fact that it explains more than just your point of view (POV) is a good thing. It lets you make predictions.
Explaining just my POV doesn’t stop me making predictions. In fact predicting the observations of one observer is exactly how S.I is supposed to work. It also prevents various forms of cheating. I don’t know why you are using “explain” rather than “predict”. Deutsch favours explanation over prediction but the very relevant point here is that how well a theory explains is an unquantifiable human judgement. Predicting observations, on the other hand, is definite an quantifiable..that’s the whole point of using S.I as a mechanistic process to quantify O’s. R.
Predicting every observers observations is a bad thing from the POV of proving that MWI is simple, because if you allow one observer to pick out their observations from a morass of data, then the easisest way of generating data that contains any substring is a PRNG. You basically ending up proving that “everything random” is the simplest explanation. Private Messaging pointed that out, too.
The point is to explain the patterns you observe.
How do you do that with S.I?
It most certainly is. If you try to run the Copenhagen interpretation in a Turing machine to get output that matches your POV, then it has to output the whole universe and you have to find your POV on the tape somewhere.
No. I run the TM with my experimental conditions as the starting state, and I keep deleting unobserved results, renormalising and re-running. That’s how physics is done any way—what I have called Shut Up and Calculate.
Same thing for the Many Worlds interpretation. It explains the results of our experiments just as well as Copenhagen, it just doesn’t posit any special phenomenon like observation, observation is just what entanglement looks like from the perspective of one of the entangled particles (or system of particles if you’re talking about the scientist)
If you perform the same operations with S.I set up to emulate MW you’ll get the same results. That’s just a way of restating the truism that all interpretations agree on results. But you need a difference in algorithmic complexity as well.
Same thing for the Many Worlds interpretation. It explains the results of our experiments just as well as Copenhagen, it just doesn’t posit any special phenomenon like observation, observation is just what entanglement looks like from the perspective of one of the entangled particles (or system of particles if you’re talking about the scientist).
You seem to be saying that MWI is a simpler ontological picture now. I dispute that, but its beside the point because what we are discussing is using SI to quantify O’s R via alorithmic complexity.
First of all: Of course you can use many worlds to make predictions,
I didn’t say MW can’t make predictions at all. I am saying that operationally, predicition-making is the same under all interpretations, and that neglect of unobserved outcomes always has to occur.
You just don’t need to make up some story about how your perspective is special
The point about predicting my observations is that they are the only ones I can test. It’s operating, not metaphysical.
SWE=Schroedinger Wave Equation. SU&C=Shut Up and Calculate.
The topic is using S.I to quantify O’s R, and S.I is not a measure on assumptions , it is a measure on algorithmic complexity.
Explaining just my POV doesn’t stop me making predictions. In fact predicting the observations of one observer is exactly how S.I is supposed to work. It also prevents various forms of cheating. I don’t know why you are using “explain” rather than “predict”. Deutsch favours explanation over prediction but the very relevant point here is that how well a theory explains is an unquantifiable human judgement. Predicting observations, on the other hand, is definite an quantifiable..that’s the whole point of using S.I as a mechanistic process to quantify O’s. R.
Predicting every observers observations is a bad thing from the POV of proving that MWI is simple, because if you allow one observer to pick out their observations from a morass of data, then the easisest way of generating data that contains any substring is a PRNG. You basically ending up proving that “everything random” is the simplest explanation. Private Messaging pointed that out, too.
How do you do that with S.I?
No. I run the TM with my experimental conditions as the starting state, and I keep deleting unobserved results, renormalising and re-running. That’s how physics is done any way—what I have called Shut Up and Calculate.
If you perform the same operations with S.I set up to emulate MW you’ll get the same results. That’s just a way of restating the truism that all interpretations agree on results. But you need a difference in algorithmic complexity as well.
You seem to be saying that MWI is a simpler ontological picture now. I dispute that, but its beside the point because what we are discussing is using SI to quantify O’s R via alorithmic complexity.
I didn’t say MW can’t make predictions at all. I am saying that operationally, predicition-making is the same under all interpretations, and that neglect of unobserved outcomes always has to occur.
The point about predicting my observations is that they are the only ones I can test. It’s operating, not metaphysical.