Perhaps you think that MW says that, at each “branching”, a distinct universe, made out of distinct material stuff, is created out of nothing. That would be a violation of conservation, but that’s not what MW says.
That is what the Wikipedia entry on many-worlds describes it as saying, as I read it.
Conservation of energy is grossly violated if at every instant near-infinite amounts of new matter are generated to create the new universes.
MWI response: Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved.
Please remember, my larger point is not to argue for or against many worlds. My subsidiary point is that many worlds is considered an acceptable view to hold, and therefore not considered dualism; even though it appears—to most people, even if not to MW experts—to fail the only sensible test I was able to come up with to distinguish good dualism from bad dualism.
It does not matter whether experts currently agree that MWI actually does or does not violate the conservation of energy or not. It only matters that many people who would say, if asked, that MW violates conservation of energy, would nonetheless not call it dualism.
My conclusion was not that many worlds is wrong; my conclusion was that the concept of “dualism” is bankrupt.
More generally, not to Tyrrell specifically, but to the multitudes aggressively down-voting this post: Relax! I didn’t say anything bad about EY! Just follow the chain of reasoning, people; stop hyperfocusing on phrases that upset you, and getting upset because something you like was used in the same context as something you don’t like.
More generally, not to Tyrrell specifically, but to the multitudes aggressively down-voting this post: Relax! I didn’t say anything bad about EY! Just follow the chain of reasoning, people; stop hyperfocusing on phrases that upset you, and getting upset because something you like was used in the same context as something you don’t like.
I don’t think you’re being downvoted just for criticizing MW or EY. Some of Mitchell Porter’s posts criticizing the MW orthodoxy here have been highly upvoted.
You’re not being downvoted for criticizing the dominant paradigm. You’re being downvoted for gross misunderstanding of the dominant paradigm followed by unwillingness to accept correction.
Also, I personally simply do not want to see a chapter-by-chapter review of Consciousness Explained on LW, and may veto this even if it’s not net-downvoted—keeping in mind that while any reader can upvote, only commenters have downvotes to use, and so the fact that this has gotten a number of downvotes is still quite alarming even if some upvotes canceled them out.
Yes, I’m also sorry to see a second part of this. CS is a good book but not worthy of this sort of crawl-over. And if it really were worthy of it, I would want to read it from someone who had finished the book before they started posting.
MWI response: Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved.
This sounds extremely weird to me. Who cares about the total energy of the multiverse? When worlds split, can one world gain energy from another? I thought conservation laws applied to each single worldline as it developed, as it’s the only way we single-world beings could notice and make use of them. So neither the “objection” nor the “MWI response” actually make sense. Or am I misreading the quote?
More generally, not to Tyrrell specifically, but to the multitudes aggressively down-voting this post: Relax! I didn’t say anything bad about EY! Just follow the chain of reasoning, people; stop hyperfocusing on phrases that upset you, and getting upset because something you like was used in the same context as something you don’t like.
It does not matter whether experts currently agree that MWI actually does or does not violate the conservation of energy or not. It only matters that many people who would say, if asked, that MW violates conservation of energy, would nonetheless not call it dualism.
If this is your point, please rephrase the controverted paragraph in the post. I think that as currently written, it distracts from your main point by opening up a different argument.
I think the general pattern is that it’s counterproductive to baldly state† multiple independent controversial claims in the same place— one winds up in a muddle of all the various arguments. Bracketing off all but one claim at a time, via disclaimers (like the one you added) or other forms of rhetorical modesty, is IMO the most productive way to go.
† (or, of course, to write so that a reader might think you are baldly stating several such claims)
That is what the Wikipedia entry on many-worlds describes it as saying, as I read it.
It further says:
Please remember, my larger point is not to argue for or against many worlds. My subsidiary point is that many worlds is considered an acceptable view to hold, and therefore not considered dualism; even though it appears—to most people, even if not to MW experts—to fail the only sensible test I was able to come up with to distinguish good dualism from bad dualism.
It does not matter whether experts currently agree that MWI actually does or does not violate the conservation of energy or not. It only matters that many people who would say, if asked, that MW violates conservation of energy, would nonetheless not call it dualism.
My conclusion was not that many worlds is wrong; my conclusion was that the concept of “dualism” is bankrupt.
More generally, not to Tyrrell specifically, but to the multitudes aggressively down-voting this post: Relax! I didn’t say anything bad about EY! Just follow the chain of reasoning, people; stop hyperfocusing on phrases that upset you, and getting upset because something you like was used in the same context as something you don’t like.
I don’t think you’re being downvoted just for criticizing MW or EY. Some of Mitchell Porter’s posts criticizing the MW orthodoxy here have been highly upvoted.
You’re not being downvoted for criticizing the dominant paradigm. You’re being downvoted for gross misunderstanding of the dominant paradigm followed by unwillingness to accept correction.
Also, I personally simply do not want to see a chapter-by-chapter review of Consciousness Explained on LW, and may veto this even if it’s not net-downvoted—keeping in mind that while any reader can upvote, only commenters have downvotes to use, and so the fact that this has gotten a number of downvotes is still quite alarming even if some upvotes canceled them out.
Yes, I’m also sorry to see a second part of this. CS is a good book but not worthy of this sort of crawl-over. And if it really were worthy of it, I would want to read it from someone who had finished the book before they started posting.
This sounds extremely weird to me. Who cares about the total energy of the multiverse? When worlds split, can one world gain energy from another? I thought conservation laws applied to each single worldline as it developed, as it’s the only way we single-world beings could notice and make use of them. So neither the “objection” nor the “MWI response” actually make sense. Or am I misreading the quote?
Voted up just for this.
If this is your point, please rephrase the controverted paragraph in the post. I think that as currently written, it distracts from your main point by opening up a different argument.
Okay. Rephrased.
Thanks; I find it much improved.
I think the general pattern is that it’s counterproductive to baldly state† multiple independent controversial claims in the same place— one winds up in a muddle of all the various arguments. Bracketing off all but one claim at a time, via disclaimers (like the one you added) or other forms of rhetorical modesty, is IMO the most productive way to go.
† (or, of course, to write so that a reader might think you are baldly stating several such claims)