Unfortunately, it can no more answer the question of which outcome an experiment will measure in “this world” than any other interpretation.
It doesn’t fail to give an answer to the question—it makes the question incoherent.
“Which outcome an experiment will measure” is sitting before the experiment looking forward. With MWI, there is no world after the experiment looking backwards with a unique claim on being “this world.” The answer to “will there be a me observing result X” will of course be yes. The question of which of those mes is the “real” one is misleading. What quantum theory does tell us, in MWI, is the total amount of surprise in the mes looking back.
...And we are back to square one, the unfalsifiability of an interpretation, which makes the adepts feel good about their “knowledge” without running any risk of it being shattered.
For your information: Not voting you down because you disagree with the MWI, but because you made a silly argument and then immediately replaced it with an entirely different argument with no acknowledgement that your original argument had been shown to be silly.
I wasn’t feeling superior to you because you chose to reference non-MWI QM—I’m not confident about MWI myself, and would prefer we keep other interpretations alive until we can distinguish on the basis of evidence (or at least have a strong argument that space complexity deserves no place at all in our priors).
I am feeling superior to you now because you ignored a prevalent interpretation without giving mention to what interpretation you were using, and then when I tried to clarify you launched into a rant.
Generally? No, not at all. Here, it was specifically a response to statements to the effect of “you’re only bringing up MWI as an excuse to feel superior.”
Still, I find it preferable if people keep their potentially offensive feelings private, even if these feelings arose as a reaction to being accused of having such feelings.
I offered the above more as explanation than defense. I certainly respect your point of view here; I have some further thoughts, but I’d rather sift through them a bit as I’m not sure they’re actually coherent.
Quantum Mechanics is a classic counterexample, as far as we know, in a sense that there is no deeper underlying theory that would predict an outcome of a measurement when QM says it cannot be determined.
This is not refraining from picking a model—this is choosing to reify certain classes of interpretation. If you are saying, “The math is just what the math is, and says nothing more” then it doesn’t purport to be complete in the first place, and isn’t a counterexample.
It doesn’t fail to give an answer to the question—it makes the question incoherent.
“Which outcome an experiment will measure” is sitting before the experiment looking forward. With MWI, there is no world after the experiment looking backwards with a unique claim on being “this world.” The answer to “will there be a me observing result X” will of course be yes. The question of which of those mes is the “real” one is misleading. What quantum theory does tell us, in MWI, is the total amount of surprise in the mes looking back.
...And we are back to square one, the unfalsifiability of an interpretation, which makes the adepts feel good about their “knowledge” without running any risk of it being shattered.
If you suppose “interpretation” to be a distinction that can’t be settled by observation, and simultaneously that any distinction must be settled by observation, then it’s not clear what you’re objecting to. These posts seem relevant: Belief in the Implied Invisible, You’re Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof.
For your information: Not voting you down because you disagree with the MWI, but because you made a silly argument and then immediately replaced it with an entirely different argument with no acknowledgement that your original argument had been shown to be silly.
I wasn’t feeling superior to you because you chose to reference non-MWI QM—I’m not confident about MWI myself, and would prefer we keep other interpretations alive until we can distinguish on the basis of evidence (or at least have a strong argument that space complexity deserves no place at all in our priors).
I am feeling superior to you now because you ignored a prevalent interpretation without giving mention to what interpretation you were using, and then when I tried to clarify you launched into a rant.
Is it really necessary to publish one’s superior feelings?
Generally? No, not at all. Here, it was specifically a response to statements to the effect of “you’re only bringing up MWI as an excuse to feel superior.”
Still, I find it preferable if people keep their potentially offensive feelings private, even if these feelings arose as a reaction to being accused of having such feelings.
I offered the above more as explanation than defense. I certainly respect your point of view here; I have some further thoughts, but I’d rather sift through them a bit as I’m not sure they’re actually coherent.
Fair enough.
The math of QM does not require an interpretation, so I refrain from using any.
Then refrain.
This is not refraining from picking a model—this is choosing to reify certain classes of interpretation. If you are saying, “The math is just what the math is, and says nothing more” then it doesn’t purport to be complete in the first place, and isn’t a counterexample.
Seems like we are talking past each other (happens quite often whenever the MWI is mentioned), so I will disengage.