If Many Worlds is true, it HAS to be true just by the fact that every nonzero thing HAS to happen
No. The many worlds interpretation is still restricted by the laws of physics and the available quantum states of interacting wavefunctions. In many worlds, every possible thing happens given the above constraints (with the appropriate measure), but not every “nonzero” thing. There are plenty of “nonzero” things we can imagine that aren’t actually possible. See Gell-Mann’s principle: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” (emphasis added)
Further, “true” in a simulation does not actually qualify as true for most religions, given their own stated claims. The conflation of the simulation argument with theism has been previously discussed at length on LW. See, e.g., this comment from the very large thread:
If our universe is a simulation developed by a computer science undergrad (from another reality) for a homework assignment, then that doesn’t make them our God.
I suspect the nature of quantum mechanics limits the possibilities to the countable regime. Max Tegmark discusses this topic here, in the section “How many parallel universes are there?”.
You know, perhaps I should apologize for my question, just a little bit; or for the intent behind it. One of my objections to MWI is that it’s ill-defined to a degree that laypeople would not guess, from the way that its advocates talk. I noticed on Rolf’s thread that you are a physicist, and I thought, OK, I’ll see how much this guy has really thought about it… Then it dawned on it me that you were just explicating rather than advocating MWI—that is, explaining a few details of an idea that you know something about because of your profession, but not necessarily an idea that you would champion as The Answer.
Nowadays I try to limit my arguing about MWI to discussions with physicists who really believe it. They need to be physicists so that it can be a technical discussion, and they need to be believers so that I can demand answers to specific questions. Most physicists have rigorous justifications for their physical opinions only for those parts of physics that they need professionally, and that usually doesn’t extend to “quantum foundations”.
Most physicists are intrigued or even enthusiastic about that topic, and they’ll certainly have opinions and thoughts about it, but when pressed they’ll admit to agnosticism, shrug their shoulders, take resort in diffident positivism, etc. When it comes to MWI, you can’t have a critical discussion if for the other person it’s just a fuzzy opinion, rather than an idea as clear as relativity or a specific equation of motion.
I could undoubtedly have a serious debate with someone like Tegmark, because he’s very serious about the multiverse concept, and he’s written technical works of quantum cosmology which provide a framework for questions like, countable or uncountable, what’s the ontological meaning of the measure, how do you avoid a preferred frame, and so on. But the framework is subtly or even radically different for each serious MWI advocate, which is why it’s just about impossible to set down a general-purpose critique of MWI.
Then it dawned on it me that you were just explicating rather than advocating MWI—that is, explaining a few details of an idea that you know something about because of your profession, but not necessarily an idea that you would champion as The Answer.
Yes, this is what I was doing.
My personal view is that the many worlds interpretation is probably closer to being correct than other popular (e.g. collapse-based) interpretations. What I mean by this is that it wouldn’t surprise me if the “correct” interpretation has not been fully realized by anyone yet, but once it is developed, we will be able to look back and say that many worlds was not as far off.
I lean toward the wave function having real physical significance rather than being just a mathematical tool; people said the same thing about quarks, once upon a time. (Many people still think quarks are just a mathematical tool, despite the 17-year-old discovery of the top quark which is too heavy to hadronize before it decays.)
As Rolf mentioned in his thread, high energy experiment doesn’t really deal directly with interpreting quantum mechanics and wave functions. While I’m probably better versed in QM than many physicists whose focus is on classical scales, I would not claim to have a conception of many worlds which is as clear as relativity.
I never said it violated any laws of physics, but within a computer simulation you could easily have a simulated God with the power to change the simulation or people walking on water etc.
That’s exactly why I said “in simulation”. Obviously even if MWI is true that does not makes universes with different laws real.
In a simulation you could also make it so that after a person “die” he ends up in a “heaven” or “hell”. This is 100% inevitable in Many Worlds
I never said it violated any laws of physics, but within a computer simulation you could easily have a simulated God with the power to change the simulation or people walking on water etc.
You supported your claim with the statement “every nonzero thing has to happen,” which, on its face, ignores the constraint of the laws of physics. You haven’t shown that your claim is compatible with the laws of physics as we understand them, and for a claim of “100% inevitability” that burden of proof is on you. The physical possibility of that level of simulation is far from a settled question.
And again, even if this claim is true, it doesn’t imply or equate to the actual truth of any religion.
The statement that “every non-zero thing has to happen” in this context obviously refers to the wavefunction of QM.
I am not arguing FOR the simulation hypothesis, but I thought it was generally accepted that simulation is possible… And IF it is, then due to the non-zero of MWI (if MWI IS TRUE) automatically means that these absurd simulations HAS to exist.
I never said that this would equate to actual truth of any religion. I am as atheistic as one can possibly be. Obviously these would not be actual Gods in the sense that they are supernatural, but they would be so pragmatically WITHIN this simulation.
The statement that “every non-zero thing has to happen” in this context obviously refers to the wavefunction of QM.
Clearly, that was not obvious to me. There is a common misunderstanding that many worlds implies that “everything is possible,” and that statement seemed to match this pattern.
I thought it was generally accepted that simulation is possible...
It is accepted by many, but it has not been demonstrated to the level where solely postulating many worlds qualifies as an acceptable argument for your point.
I never said that this would equate to actual truth of any religion.
I am not sure how else I could have been expected to interpret “then all religions has to be true (in a simulation).”
No. The many worlds interpretation is still restricted by the laws of physics and the available quantum states of interacting wavefunctions. In many worlds, every possible thing happens given the above constraints (with the appropriate measure), but not every “nonzero” thing. There are plenty of “nonzero” things we can imagine that aren’t actually possible. See Gell-Mann’s principle: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” (emphasis added)
Further, “true” in a simulation does not actually qualify as true for most religions, given their own stated claims. The conflation of the simulation argument with theism has been previously discussed at length on LW. See, e.g., this comment from the very large thread:
Do you have any opinion on whether continuum-many things are possible, or whether there’s just a finite or countable number of possibilities?
I suspect the nature of quantum mechanics limits the possibilities to the countable regime. Max Tegmark discusses this topic here, in the section “How many parallel universes are there?”.
You know, perhaps I should apologize for my question, just a little bit; or for the intent behind it. One of my objections to MWI is that it’s ill-defined to a degree that laypeople would not guess, from the way that its advocates talk. I noticed on Rolf’s thread that you are a physicist, and I thought, OK, I’ll see how much this guy has really thought about it… Then it dawned on it me that you were just explicating rather than advocating MWI—that is, explaining a few details of an idea that you know something about because of your profession, but not necessarily an idea that you would champion as The Answer.
Nowadays I try to limit my arguing about MWI to discussions with physicists who really believe it. They need to be physicists so that it can be a technical discussion, and they need to be believers so that I can demand answers to specific questions. Most physicists have rigorous justifications for their physical opinions only for those parts of physics that they need professionally, and that usually doesn’t extend to “quantum foundations”.
Most physicists are intrigued or even enthusiastic about that topic, and they’ll certainly have opinions and thoughts about it, but when pressed they’ll admit to agnosticism, shrug their shoulders, take resort in diffident positivism, etc. When it comes to MWI, you can’t have a critical discussion if for the other person it’s just a fuzzy opinion, rather than an idea as clear as relativity or a specific equation of motion.
I could undoubtedly have a serious debate with someone like Tegmark, because he’s very serious about the multiverse concept, and he’s written technical works of quantum cosmology which provide a framework for questions like, countable or uncountable, what’s the ontological meaning of the measure, how do you avoid a preferred frame, and so on. But the framework is subtly or even radically different for each serious MWI advocate, which is why it’s just about impossible to set down a general-purpose critique of MWI.
Yes, this is what I was doing.
My personal view is that the many worlds interpretation is probably closer to being correct than other popular (e.g. collapse-based) interpretations. What I mean by this is that it wouldn’t surprise me if the “correct” interpretation has not been fully realized by anyone yet, but once it is developed, we will be able to look back and say that many worlds was not as far off.
I lean toward the wave function having real physical significance rather than being just a mathematical tool; people said the same thing about quarks, once upon a time. (Many people still think quarks are just a mathematical tool, despite the 17-year-old discovery of the top quark which is too heavy to hadronize before it decays.)
As Rolf mentioned in his thread, high energy experiment doesn’t really deal directly with interpreting quantum mechanics and wave functions. While I’m probably better versed in QM than many physicists whose focus is on classical scales, I would not claim to have a conception of many worlds which is as clear as relativity.
I never said it violated any laws of physics, but within a computer simulation you could easily have a simulated God with the power to change the simulation or people walking on water etc. That’s exactly why I said “in simulation”. Obviously even if MWI is true that does not makes universes with different laws real.
In a simulation you could also make it so that after a person “die” he ends up in a “heaven” or “hell”. This is 100% inevitable in Many Worlds
You supported your claim with the statement “every nonzero thing has to happen,” which, on its face, ignores the constraint of the laws of physics. You haven’t shown that your claim is compatible with the laws of physics as we understand them, and for a claim of “100% inevitability” that burden of proof is on you. The physical possibility of that level of simulation is far from a settled question.
And again, even if this claim is true, it doesn’t imply or equate to the actual truth of any religion.
The statement that “every non-zero thing has to happen” in this context obviously refers to the wavefunction of QM. I am not arguing FOR the simulation hypothesis, but I thought it was generally accepted that simulation is possible… And IF it is, then due to the non-zero of MWI (if MWI IS TRUE) automatically means that these absurd simulations HAS to exist.
I never said that this would equate to actual truth of any religion. I am as atheistic as one can possibly be. Obviously these would not be actual Gods in the sense that they are supernatural, but they would be so pragmatically WITHIN this simulation.
Clearly, that was not obvious to me. There is a common misunderstanding that many worlds implies that “everything is possible,” and that statement seemed to match this pattern.
It is accepted by many, but it has not been demonstrated to the level where solely postulating many worlds qualifies as an acceptable argument for your point.
I am not sure how else I could have been expected to interpret “then all religions has to be true (in a simulation).”
Well, I am sorry for being so sloppy with my answer. But it seems we have cleared it up.
Now I would love to see you answer Mitchell_Porters question