Choosing by comfort seems a very reasonable way to proceed, given that there is no rational way to choose between the options... some physicists push Copenhagen, others many worlds, others... well one of a bushel of views. Holding to an unprovable view, that doesn't provide one with comfort, is enough to drive one to drink...
People in general are morons who don't understand how their own brain routinely distorts reality and invents its own and has no clue how to correctly process evidence in order to build reliable beliefs. Go ahead and be people in general; I prefer to be people in special.Originally Posted by YesNo
YesNo only argues against strawmen as he has continually failed to argue against the actual claims of MW, preferring instead to invent his own version and skewer it while avoiding all of the problems that Copenhagen et al. introduce.
How is choosing by comfort a reasonable way to proceed? What in the world would make anyone think the world exists in a way that's comfortable for us? We're susceptible to about a billion things that can kill us as individuals and dozens that could easily wipe us out as a species. What is comforting about that? Plus, there IS a rational way to choose between options, even options where the evidence is not completely settled. If you take QM, then it's a matter of choosing which interpretation is simplest (Occam's Razor) and consistent with what we know, and both of those things favor MW and NOT Copenhagen. In fact, things like Bell's Theorem have made Copenhagen even more unlikely since we now know that no variables could account for all the discrepancies between QM and classical physics; so what else is there to explain why they clash except that it's QM all the way down, which gives us MW?
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
You have no respect for people. Your character is not fit for any redemption. Eventually you will regret it.
I have no respect for people who choose to be ignorant/oblivious when facts are staring them in the face. Other than that, I respect people just fine. We've been hearing fire and brimstone threats since the dawn of religion; nothing to worry about there.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
What facts are there in Einstein's retardation about a unified field theory or Hawking's contract with the Roman Catholics to fabricate a new genesis. A toilet without water? The imagination without knowledge? This case has been closed. But I'll have to come back here and there to reveal your BS monopolizing the thread.
I need say no more, since you're such a glowing example of why chosen ignorance shouldn't be respected.
LOL
I've posted as much as mal, and only have two more posts than you, cacian, and YesNo. Way to pwn yourself with statistics!Code:Who Posted? Posts 10 MorpheusSandman Posts 10 mal4mac Posts 8 cacian Posts 8 cafolini Posts 8 YesNo
Last edited by MorpheusSandman; 08-16-2013 at 04:44 PM.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
All the cheap marketers that work with you, along the same lines.
I read the links you posted. I just didn't agree with them. You might want to consider reading Roland Omnes, Quantum Philosophy. He worked on decoherence and doesn't like MW any more than I do. The critical thing that I took from Omnes text is that he claimed to have shown that there is no mathematical need to accept many worlds. One world is just as mathematically consistent.
So without evidence and with no logical need to accept MW, why bother with it?
Furthermore, I don't think MW even delivers on its promise of determinacy and locality, because it seems from our own experience that we have some freedom and are not determined. Determinacy means that any freedom you might think you have is an illusion. I can't see why anyone would want to go to such extremes to maintain the illusion of determinacy.
PAP is more puzzling because there is at least a double slit experiment that lends it some credibility. MW seems like a way to deny that those double slit experiments are anything more than illusions.
I agree with cafolini and mal4mac.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
You don't seem special to me, not an insult by the way, I'm sure that, like most people, you're OK. And what's wrong with morons? There's a guy stacks shelves at my supermarket who obviously has learning difficulties, we have nice chats, it's great fun to be a person in general with him. Same with the cat next door, he's a moron, but a fun being...
I didn't say the world is designed to be comfortable for us, but, I think, if given a chance we should choose comfort. Why choose the simplest? There is nothing to show that simplest is correct. I think people choose it because it is more comfortable. Then when they discover they have to use GR instead of Newton's laws they are upset because there's a long night calculating ahead instead of a jaunt to the pub...How is choosing by comfort a reasonable way to proceed? What in the world would make anyone think the world exists in a way that's comfortable for us?
Didn't Hawking suspend that contract in his last missive? I lose touch though; I don't find enough fun in the random walks of Schrodinger's cat these days. Much more fun in the "Count of Monte Cristo".
The converse of these sentences is also true: There is no mathematical need to accept single world/wavefunction collapse, MW is just as mathematically consistent. So without evidence and with no logical need to accept SW, why bother with it? That actually makes more sense considering MW wins via Occam's Razor. Copenhagen and other SW interps are more complicated and have to "add" things like hidden variables to explain why it conflicts with everything else we know. MW solves those conflicts and removes every additional variable. It's simpler, so it should win by default. It's the other interps that should have the burden of proof here.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "it SEEMS from our own experience..." What SEEMS to us has been consistently proven wrong throughout the history of modern science, so why in the world you would think what "SEEMS to us" is in any way a reliable indication of reality? How do you separate our feeling of freedom and indeterminacy from our ignorance of deterministic processes?
cioran has explained this to you multiple times; the fact that you still bring it up is proof that you don't want to learn anything and are dead set against anything that argues in favor of MW and against all SW interpretations. IE, your bias is showing.
================================================== ================================================== ====
All I meant by "special" was that I have educated myself about how my cognitive processes work, so I'm not at the whim of whatever illusions/delusions it concocts because of it coming equipped with billions of years worth of inherent biases that were more concerned with survival and reproduction than truth finding. I've nothing against "morons" per say, especially not those with learning disabilities, but there are plenty of people without such disabilities that prefer to remain ignorant instead of educated, that prefer to combine that ignorance with a cocksure arrogance that obstinately refuses to change regardless of what evidence is presented. This is the dark side of human cognition and what I fight against. The only way to overcome it is to, firstly, inform yourself about how your brain functions so you can avoid the biases that prevent reliable processing of evidence and belief-forming; and, secondly, to educate yourself as much as possible about the the world. Most don't do either, much less both. I do both. Hence the "people in general" VS "people in special." It's not just an IQ thing, it's a willingness to learn VS willingness to remain ignorant.
I don't know what you mean "choose comfort if given a chance." We can ALWAYS choose comfort if we want. My question was what would make you think that what's comfortable is true? The reason to choose the simplest explanation amongst otherwise equals is because it's the most likely to be correct. Mathematically this can be proved via the conjunction fallacy, or, in laymen's terms, Occam's Razor. No, it doesn't guarantee that the simplest answer is correct, but it simply means it's more likely than others that are more comfortable. I agree that, eg, GR is more complicated than Newton, but it was known even in Newton's time that there were some things his theory didn't account for. The fact that GR was more complicated means nothing if it's demonstrably more accurate. But if you're talking something like QM where all you have are varying interpretations that are all consistent with the math, we should prefer the simplest explanation, and the simplest explanation is Many-Worlds By FAR.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
Because the Copenhagen interpretation is a simpler solution that doesn't violate experience including evidence in double slit experiments.
We don't experience many worlds. We experience one.
There is evidence to accept QM. The solution that requires the least number of unverified worlds would be the best.
Dismissing the wave function collapse might make some think that MW is simpler, but it turns out the consequences of that removal brings with it many worlds which is far from simple. So MW loses via Occam's Razor.
The Copenhagen interpretation does not require hidden variables and requires only one world. It doesn't conflict with the double slit experiment which is something that "we know". It also doesn't conflict with our sense that we have at least some freedom which is also something that "we know" we have.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia about Carl Sagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations, in Cosmos, was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Many worlds proponents make a lot of extraordinary claims. The existence of many worlds is one of them. So, where is the extraordinary evidence to back up this extraordinary claim?
Without experience or evidence science would make no progress. It would all be one metaphysical claim at odds with the other.
The claim that our experience of freedom is an illusion is an extraordinary claim. So, where is the extraordinary evidence?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Wrong on both accounts. MW is demonstrably, factually simpler than Copenhagen and MW doesn't violate either experience or anything in the double slit experiment. See here for a laymen's explanation, since you don't seem to respond to any of the technical stuff: http://www.askamathematician.com/201...r-many-worlds/
To quote the most salient part:You’ll often hear that there’s no experiment that can be done to prove which approach is the correct one. I’m of the opinion that the experiments have already been done, but that most people (myself included) don’t like the results. However, among people who have stopped to consider the options (and there aren’t many good reasons to do so), most of us have decided to accept the results and move on.
The big advantage behind the Copenhagen interpretation is that it makes people (like you!) important, and different from particles. <sarcasm>Sure, they may be in multiple states, but I’m definitely in exactly one state. Unlike particles, people can tell the difference.</sarcasm>
It’s creepy to think that there are different versions of yourself “out there” doing “stuff”, but it’s awesome to assume that you’re special and that your mind (not brain) has some kind of power over reality...
Time and again, we’ve managed to show that larger and larger objects can be in multiple states, using the double slit experiment or variations of it. At last check, the double slit experiment was successfully preformed on C60F48, which has fully 108 atoms, or 2,424 protons, neutrons, and electrons. The entire molecule (actually, thousands of them) actually interfered with itself, demonstrating the ability to be in multiple states.
Which raises the question: what’s the damn problem? Everything that can be tested has demonstrated quantum superposition, so why not just extend that to “everything obeys the same quantum mechanical laws, including superposition.”? Why not indeed?
One may be tempted to say “the physics at small scales is just different!”. Fair enough. However, there are no physical laws that work differently on different scales. For example, at very small scales water acts like honey, and to swim you need to use things like flagella. At the other end of the scale (our scale) water behaves… like water, and things like fins and flippers suddenly work really well, but flagella don’t. However, the same physical laws (specifically, the Navier-Stokes equation) govern everything.
More generally, all laws apply at all scales, it’s just a question of degree. Relativity works at all velocities, but you don’t notice the weird effects until you’re moving really fast. What we call “Newton’s laws” are just an approximation that work at low speeds.
If the Copenhagen “size argument” (that larger objects somehow have different laws) holds up, it’ll be the first of its kind.We experience exactly what MW predicts we would experience if MW is true.
The irony is that MW doesn't "require" any unverified worlds. I'm starting to think the entire problem is in the name itself; it's a bit like how they changed "global warming" to "climate change" because people couldn't grok how "global warming" could also be responsible for harsher winters. Similarly, people can't grok "many worlds" that we don't "experience," but the many worlds are just a product of assuming it's QP all the way down as opposed to there being some unknown variables or some invisible split between the classic and quantum worlds. It's the latter that makes Copenhagen and all other SW interpretations "more complex" because they have to propose that there's *something* out there we don't know that can account for the discrepancies, and they're assuming these additional complexities without a stitch of evidence and, in fact, with all the evidence against them.
Completely, ***-backwards wrong. Occam's razor would favor any simple initial equation that leads to a complex outcome, not a complex initial equation that leads to a simpler outcome. In fact, where you start is really all that matters, because it's the probability of the initial assumption that's in question. Anything that happens as a consequence of it is completely irrelevant to its probability of being true. The MW themselves do not violate Occam's Razor because they are not a part of the initial equation.
The Copenhagen requires something (hidden variables were initially proposed) to reconcile them with every physical law they violate, including conservation of information, time reversibility, and non-locality.
No they don't. It's the Copenhagen proponents who are making the extraordinary claims that we should trust their interpretation in spite of all the contradictions it creates with what we know about physics and logic. The only claim MW proponents are making is that it's QM all the way down, there is no "split" between the quantum/macro worlds, and that the wavefunction is a real object. None of those claims are extraordinary. Many worlds is a result of those claims. It's the result you have a problem with, not the claims.
Why is it an extraordinary claim? Actual freedom is indistinguishable from an illusion created by our ignorance of deterministic processes. What in the world is "extraordinary" about claiming we are ignorant of deterministic processes?
Let's recap the relevant points:
1. Many Worlds = Quantum Physics works all the way down, ie, there is no "split" between classical/quantum worlds, no hidden variables and the wavefunction is a real object.
2. Quantum Physics works all the way down = confirmed by every test done thus far, including placing quite large objects in superposition
3. Many Worlds = Compatible with everything else we know about physics, including GR, locality, determinism, forward flow of time, conservation of information, etc.
4. The many worlds themselves = completely irrelevant to the initial claims that produce those worlds. They shouldn't really even be an issue. Someone bringing up the "many worlds" themselves as an argument against MW is doing nothing but showing their ignorance of what MW claims really are
As opposed to:
5. Copenhagen = There are hidden variables or some split between the quantum/classical world that causes a wave to "collapse" when observed by a human/consciousness that is not at the mercy of those same quantum processes.
6. Those hidden variables or split = Not confirmed by anything and add complexity to the entire equation unnecessarily.
7. Copenhagen = Incompatible with everything else we know about physics, including GR, locality, determinism, forward flow of time, conservation of information
8. The single world itself = completely irrelevant to the initial claims that produce that single world.
If one pares away 4 and 8 from the above and just looks at the claims being made by both interpretations and checks those against the actual tests that have been done, there is no question that Many Worlds is an infinitely better and more likely interpretation. There is no good reason to prefer Copenhagen. The reasons you (and others) prefer Copenhagen is because:
1. You don't want to believe you don't have free will
2. You don't want to believe that you're just as subject to the "multiple states" that all particles are.
3. You want to believe you're "special" and that consciousness is "special" and whatever.
4. To justify these things you want/don't want to believe, you argue against MW by arguing against the many worlds themselves, which don't matter at all.
Basically, it's gross anthropomorphic bias that prevents you from believing MW and blinds you to all the problems of Copenhagen. You are not being lead by the evidence or by the actual claims being made, you're being lead by what you want to be true. It's the worst kind of Santa Clause syndrome; ignore all the problems created by the notion of a fat man flying around the world in a night delivering presents to children because, after all, it's a comforting thought that makes you feel good.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
Maybe they are not morons, just find thinking hard work, and, instead, choose just to live in an average unthinking way. Why change if they are happy? The Ancient Sceptics suggested living with the conditions you find, because nothing is sure, might as well take the easy path; so your "morons" are taking up an intellectual position that is difficult to argue against, albeit unthinkingly.
One ancient skeptic (Zeno?) was caught in a storm on a ship and knowing what happens to ships in a storm was rather worried, along with his fellow humans, who were running about panicking. But the pig on board just kept happily eating his swill. Zeno was envious of that pig and sought ways to emulate him. Perhaps morons are our teachers? Our guide to happiness..
You see this in Tolstoy as well, with Levin (In Anna K.) envious of the serfs, never so happy as when he is working in the fields with them, never so unhappy as when he is having deep thoughts caused by reading Schopenhauer et. al.
I don't see that... what about inner demons, or just not knowing where true comfort lies?I don't know what you mean "choose comfort if given a chance." We can ALWAYS choose comfort if we want.
Not everyone's understanding of "comfort" is the same... Just same as we wouldn't/couldn't agree on how to reach that state.
"True comfort" is a semantic trap to ease your ideas and moral values (if not force) upon others.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote