Cogito ergo sum.
Printable View
Cogito ergo sum.
It's not that hard. Go on, you can do it! No one will mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think it probably does often happen; what was the enlightenment all about? You just need not to accept anything without reasonable evidence. Isn't that easy? Isn't that a good thing? I find it a relief. Bye, bye metaphysical baggage! Good riddance...Quote:
To expect them to do so would be like expecting them to accept an extraordinary claim (for them) based on flimsy or no evidence. It is probably a good thing that it doesn't often happen.
Maybe you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
If I only meditate hard enough, faithfully for decades, maybe even I will finally believe there are many worlds or it really was the tooth fairy who left that quarter or no matter how fat Santa gets he can still slide through the exhaust flue.
BINGO.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Repeatedly misrpresenting MW is a sure sign the interlocutor doesn't know (or care) what it says. The fact that he brushed off numerous papers to which I linked him shows he doesn't care.
He doesn't care because YesNo is one of those people who has decided what the world must be like (something comfortable and comforting to him) and no amount of facts or evidence are going to interfere with his prior beliefs.
You vodka man are the one who argues from beliefs. YesNo is a very consistent skeptic and has always played that role. He argues about the validity of your drunkard's beliefs. You go drink another pood and sleep the monkey's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cioran
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
You have no respect for people. Your character is not fit for any redemption. Eventually you will regret it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I need say no more, since you're such a glowing example of why chosen ignorance shouldn't be respected.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
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
All the cheap marketers that work with you, along the same lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cioran
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cioran
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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...Quote:
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
================================================== ================================================== ====
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Because the Copenhagen interpretation is a simpler solution that doesn't violate experience including evidence in double slit experiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Here's a quote from Wikipedia about Carl Sagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_SaganQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The claim that our experience of freedom is an illusion is an extraordinary claim. So, where is the extraordinary evidence?
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/Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
To quote the most salient part:Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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?Quote:
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.
In general, I wouldn't ask someone to change if they're happy, only if they are making decisions to further that happiness based on their ignorance that affects others. Sadly, this is pretty much how politics and human societies operate. The people who vote are the often the ones most ignorant about the issues, the facts, and how what they're doing affects others. Plus, if someone is ignorant, it's best advised they don't go around talking about that something like they aren't ignorant. Humans being social animals means it's hard for one to be ignorant and happy without either one affecting others.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I think we're talking two different things; I just meant people can choose to believe something is true/untrue because it's comfortable/uncomfortable. This doesn't guarantee that they will always be comfortable, never face inner demons, etc., it simply means they will choose not to add to their discomforts. So, eg, one might choose to believe in an afterlife because it's a comforting thought, but this doesn't make the notion of an afterlife true, nor does it mean that person will be completely comfortable when it's their time to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Can one choose to believe in something? I'd like to believe in an afterlife, but I'm too skeptical. If there is a difference of opinion like MW/Copenhagen I find it more comfortable not to adopt any position.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I don't think you have to adopt any position at all, except the recognition of the Mystery we are. That's not enough to give up your skepticism, but it is enough not to postulate it as necessary either, which I accept you do not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Let's see. It's 9 AM here and all's well. Have fun. God bless you.
Well, I guess that would depend on whether you think one can "choose" anything (ie, the question of free-will). I don't know if we consciously "choose" to believe something the way, eg, you might look in your fridge and "choose" to drink milk as opposed to water. Beliefs are more of an unconscious, cumulative thing. EG, I can't pick a singular moment where I went "OK, I choose to believe MW is most likely true," it just slowly seemed more and more true the more I researched QM.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
You can find a difference of opinion on any matter if you look hard enough. There are people who deny the holocaust, think the Earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is a myth, etc. These aren't differences of opinions, they're differences in how people attain and logically process facts. Similar with MW/Copenhagen, all of the evidence out there favors MW. Those who choose to reject it do so because they don't like what it implies, not because they don't think what it claims is most likely to be true. It's a bit like how some look at many of the things evolution implies--ie, that we're no different than other animals, that we were not "created," that morality is not objective but a bi-product of social evolution, etc.--and reject it because of that; they don't reject it because the evidence isn't overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's a horrible way to arrive at true beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Well that's what you say, but I can't believe that most professional quantum physicists are denying the truth simply because they don't like the implications. I mean the implications are not all that dislikeable, anyway. Why didn't the atomic physicists deny the possibility of an atom bomb... now there's a case where you might think dis-likeability would have made them ignore the truth! But just because they think a multitude of universes seems a bit excessive, at first sight, they aren't going to deny the truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
So to an "outsider", and even with a physics degree I count myself as an outsider, it can only look like you are tub thumping for your favourite interpretation. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see you having any success in persuading anyone in this thread that MW is *the* true description of reality. Even if you did, it's the wrong tack! You need to do what Eddington did with GR, he moved heaven & earth to perform the eclipse experiment that persuaded (just about) all physicists that GR was correct, and the public (me, YesNo, et. al.) then followed along in admiring GR as a great theory. So why not devote all the energy you put into these threads into devising an experiment that shows MW to be the one true theory? Or if you think the evidence is already there, why not devote your time to convincing the doubting physicists, those are the ones who will raise you to special status if you succeed! Not me and YesNo.
Most of them aren't denying it, at least depending on who you ask. The largest poll done had a result of 58% of 72 leading cosmologists saying they believed MW was true, only 18% rejected it, and the other 26% were either in the "not sure" or "no opinion" camp. Now, that poll is "controversial" in that it's unclear just how representative it is of the actual majority view but, AFAIK, no better/larger one has been done. Most others commenting on it are just going off their own experience. At worst we could say it's unclear how "accepted" it is. However, I don't know why you'd find it surprising that scientists are human too and would have trouble letting go of their previous assumptions (more on this later).Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
What's unlikable about it is that there's no (apparent) way to "contact/confirm" these other worlds even if the interp is true. It also implies (again, depending on whom you ask; the issue is a bit more complicated than some like YesNo make it out to be) that we have no free-will, since everything that can happen does happen in one world or another. When you "make a decision" all that's really happening are the particles that make you up are "going one way" in the world you experience now and yet they also "went the other way" in another world you aren't experiencing (actually, this is a gross simplification and leads to misunderstandings of the interp, but to explain it more accurately would require much more time/space/info). That's a very unpleasant thought to many, essentially taking away any sense of "specialty" that we humans felt we had as a life-form. It also has to do with the fact that Copenhagen came first and got very entrenched in the literature, and even scientists are not quick to let go of their metaphysical assumptions, especially for something as counter-intuitive as MW.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Perhaps I'm "tubthumping" to an extent, but you won't find anything I've claimed to be untrue. Plus, go back to less than a year ago and you'll find that I was very much on the fence on this issue. It took me reading a lot into it to realize that it was the best interpretation by, like, a whole lot. Even now, though, I'm not insisting that MW HAS to be true, what I'm saying is that, thus far, all the evidence is in favor of MW and it is by far the most likely answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The problem with "proving" MW is that there's nothing really like Eddington's eclipse experiment that can be done; ie, there's no ONE experiment that can prove MW since what it's claiming--that QP works all the way down and that there's no "split" between the quantum and classic worlds--can only really be falsified, not confirmed. If the theory is true, then what we'd expect to find was that all objects (including us) would be in superposition, and, thus far, all objects we're capable of putting in superposition have indeed been shown to be in superposition. See this extract:You may also be interested in reading this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q8/many_worlds_one_best_guess/ which is a longer, more thorough synopsis of why MW is the "best guess" we have, and it also proposes some theories about why it's not even more widely accepted than it is. I think one thing it doesn't mention is that there are a lot of physicists that just don't care. There's now a very common group of physicists that just say "shut up and calculate" without worrying about the implications of what interp is right. As Cioran has mentioned before, this wasn't good enough for someone like Einstein, who was as much a natural philosopher as he was a scientist (and he did not support Copenhagen; though Einstein proposed hidden variables, which was ruled out by Bell's Theorem shortly after Einstein's death). Einstein wanted to know "the truth," and a lot of modern scientists don't care, since "the truth" wouldn't really impact their ability to use quantum calculations for practical (ie, engineering) purposes. Regardless, here's a good extract from that article:Quote:
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.
FWIW, I'm not a physicist myself, so I have no hope of convincing any scientist of authority that MW is the best interp. In fact, I haven't formally studied science since high school. I'm just an interested amateur. I look to those much smarter than myself to tell me how reality works, and I try my hardest to cross-check what they say against what other smart people say that disagree. MW is one of those cases where I eventually realized there were no good arguments against what it's fundamentally claiming. Those that do argue against it seem to be arguing wholly against what it implies, not what against it claims. EG, you can read over this long thread, and if you know anything about MW you will immediately understand that the vast majority of objections being made are not objections to what MW is actually claiming; the MW proponents in that thread are having to repeatedly point this out, just as I have done for YesNo in this thread and others.Quote:
When we turn our attention to macroscopic phenomena, our sight is obscured. We cannot experiment on the wavefunction of a human in the way that we can experiment on the wavefunction of a hydrogen atom. In no case can you actually read off the wavefunction with a little quantum scanner. But in the case of, say, a human, the size of the entire organism defeats our ability to perform precise calculations or precise experiments—we cannot confirm that the quantum equations are being obeyed in precise detail.
We know that phenomena commonly thought of as "quantum" do not just disappear when many microscopic objects are aggregated. Lasers put out a flood of coherent photons, rather than, say, doing something completely different. Atoms have the chemical characteristics that quantum theory says they should, enabling them to aggregate into the stable molecules making up a human.
So in one sense, we have a great deal of evidence that quantum laws are aggregating to the macroscopic level without too much difference. Bulk chemistry still works.
But we cannot directly verify that the particles making up a human, have an aggregate wavefunction that behaves exactly the way the simplest quantum laws say. Oh, we know that molecules and atoms don't disintegrate, we know that macroscopic mirrors still reflect from the middle. We can get many high-level predictions from the assumption that the microscopic and the macroscopic are governed by the same laws, and every prediction tested has come true.
But if someone were to claim that the macroscopic quantum picture, differs from the microscopic one, in some as-yet-untestable detail—something that only shows up at the unmeasurable 20th decimal place of microscopic interactions, but aggregates into something bigger for macroscopic interactions—well, we can't prove they're wrong. It is Occam's Razor that says, "There are zillions of new fundamental laws you could postulate in the 20th decimal place; why are you even thinking about this one?"
This is not to say that MW has no problems/is a perfect interp. Right now, the biggest issue with MW is: "where do the Born probabilities come from?" There is no definitive answer to this right now, but there are many interesting possibilities, one of which is given here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/py/the_born_probabilities/ However, to me, and I suspect to all MW proponents, this "problem" is infinitely smaller than the problems facing Copenhagen. Copenhagen literally seems to contradict everything else we know about how reality functions, and there are no explanations for why this is ("shut up and calculate" started precisely because nobody could figure out why it was). Put another way, the problems Copenhagen create are completely absurd and contrary to everything else we know; while with MW we have one major question that is irksome, but it certainly doesn't overturn everything else about reality.
Posts like these are why I stopped bothering with this site long ago, and only ocasionally check in for a hoot. Whether it's a discussion of art, literature, creative writing, philosophy or science, the dum dums and trolls always dominate. Also, the software here is horrible. When you try to use quick reply or advanced reply, you are always automatically scrolled to the top, as you are trying to reply to something lower in the reply field. Terrible incompetence in whoever runs this site.
Why should anyone care whether you agree with them or not, since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't even understand what MW says? Also, I do not believe when you say you read the links I gave. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Of course it does! Just another example of how you don't understand it at all.Quote:
Furthermore, I don't think MW even delivers on its promise of determinacy and locality ...
Quote:
... because it seems from our own experience that we have some freedom and are not determined.
Holy ... mackeral! So, for you, determinism is the opposite of free will?
Hint: It's not.
Of course, wholly wrong again. MW explains the otherwise inexplicaable two-slit experiment.Quote:
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.
Who cares?Quote:
I agree with cafolini and mal4mac.
Really? This site doesn't do that for me. :confused: That said, I agree there are some trolls and dum-dums around here, but that's true of almost every forum... certainly every free/non-invite forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cioran
This depends on how one defines "free will." I think determinism opposes ontological free-will, but not subjective free-will (meaning that our ignorance of deterministic processes is identical, in terms of our subjective experience, to actual free will).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cioran
Quote:
a) by a single detonator as big as a bang
or
This is a really long thread and I'm not going to read most of the response. But I do want to say that I understand these two proposals (a) and (c) to be the exact same. I mean the big bang suggests a sudden creation, as do the biblical creation stories. The difference is the biblical stories take it further along the road of creation, so God creates everything a little more quickly in those stories.Quote:
c) was it by god 's power and the garden of eden syndrome ?
Does it really matter that it was instant or gradual? I'm just happy it got created.
Fermi's slit is and remains theoretical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cioran
Yours, instead, is a completely symmetrical boomerang. When you fart, the two streams come back. Watch out.
MW predicts that we cannot verify these other worlds. Since Roland Omnes has shown that logically we are not required to accept MW--one world would do just fine as far as QM is concerned--MW is an interpretation driven by a metaphysics that wants determinism. It will go after determinism even when uncertainty is what the evidence presents.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
There are no hidden variables. So Copenhagen is not assuming there's something out there. It is MW that is making the assumption there are many worlds out there to explain the uncertainty which violates its metaphysics.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
MW is similar to the original Anthropic Principle that Brandon Carter proposed and mal4mac cited elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principleQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
In both cases, one is faced with a situation where it looks like some choice was made. To remove choice, because it is metaphysically unacceptable, all possibilities have to be available so choice is not needed. In Carter's case, he came up with the existence of a multiverse where every possible initial condition generates its own universe. Then he can argue that we just happen to be living in the universe that allows us to exist. In the MW case, every possible choice has to be part of a new world. That allows MW to describe choice as not a choice.
The many worlds are primary, not the weakening of the wave function. Because the wave function is linear it allows one, with sufficient hand-waving, to assume that there might be a way to get those many worlds into the mathematics describing QM.
The reason it is extraordinary is that we experience ourselves making choices. No matter how influenced we are in those choices, we experience them as choices. No one should give up their experience without evidence. That is not the scientific way. But that is what MW wants us to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
MW makes the extraordinary claim, violating our experience (evidence), that any choice we make is an illusion and expects us to accept that claim without evidence. Why? Because its adherents believe in a deterministic metaphysics that not only QM contradicts, but their own experience contradicts as well.
It is not a belief, but an experience. We also act purposefully. If you have evidence to counter that, please present your extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim. Without that evidence, I would have to go with the evidence of my own experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I am not interested in believing anything one way or the other in this context. We are all subject to QM.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I don't know what you mean by "special". From my perspective, consciousness is involved with any choice. It doesn't make me special to have consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Again, I am not interested in believing anything in this context. I need evidence and argument. Nothing else will convince me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
MW looks to me like a Hail Mary pass by a reactionary metaphysics that got caught in a desperate position with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is looking for any way out so it doesn't lose the game. That it has to postulate the existence of many worlds to get out of its mess only further convinces me that the underlying metaphysics is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
YesNo, I normally don't say this about other human beings, because, perhaps despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm an optimist; but the evidence staring me right in the face that you are completely and utterly hopeless. You don't understand MW, you don't want to understand MW, every argument you make against MW has absolutely nothing to do with what MW is claiming, every argument you make just reveals your metaphysical biases that is leading you to reject something before you even understand it. Cioran and I have tried to explain to you what MW is actually claiming 1,000,000 ways from Sunday, and you still don't get it.
It's remarkable how dense you are, and at some point I have to conclude one of a few options: either you're an intentional troll, who actually DOES understand what we're saying but is only posting to cause trouble because you're a bored, sad, lonely human being; or you're intellectually incapable of understanding MW to begin with; or you're not getting it because your metaphysical biases is not allowing you to get it because you unconsciously don't want to, since getting it may require you to actually formulate arguments that you are incapable of making. Perhaps it's the optimist in me that has me leaning towards the third option. But in no thread where this has been discussed have you yet to form an argument against what MW is actually claiming.
But, despite all the evidence of the utter futility of this, I'll respond anyway.
MW explains why we can not experience these other worlds, because we split along with the particles being observed. WE are in a state of superposition just like particles are. I don't know what you mean by "logically required to accept MW." What would a logical argument be that would REQUIRE one to accept any interpretation of anything? One world "does just fine" if you have no problem with all of the conflicts and nonsense that those one world interpretations creates with everything else we know about physics, and if you have no problem violating occam's razor and assuming things happen for no reason by inexplicable magic. And, no, for the billionth time, MW is an interpretation driven by what the experiments (those done by placing increasingly large objects in superposition) and theories (Bell's Theory against hidden variables) are telling us; that QM works all the way down, there are no micro/macro splits, no hidden variables, no wavefunction collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
If CI is not assuming hidden variables, then explain all of the conflicts that CI creates with everything else we know about physics: why do we have two different laws for large objects and small ones? Where is this split? What causes the wavefunction to collapse how it does and why? How is it that particles can affect each other at great distances at thousands of times faster than the speed of light? Unless you can answer these questions, CI is NOT a good interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
And, for the billionth and first time, MW is not assuming there are many worlds out there, MW is assuming quantum physics works all the way down. Assuming QP works all the way down gives us many worlds as a consequence. The many worlds are a consequence, not an assumption. Please try to understand that.
WTF does this have to do with my post about how MW doesn't violate Occam's Razor? All of this is literally a string of non-sequitors. "the many worlds are primary, not the weakening of the wave function," WHAT IN THE CATFUNKING BLOODY CARCASS OF A RAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!!! I also have no clue what you mean by the wavefunction being linear and allowing many worlds with hand waving. What part about "If QP works all the way down you get MW" don't you understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I asked you a question you did not answer: what would make this distinguishable from us feeling like we make choices because we are ignorant of deterministic processes? How would we tell the difference? It is not an extraordinary claim to say we are ignorant of deterministic processes. If I were to flip a coin, physics determines how it will land, but my finite brain cannot calculate the physics necessary to know how it will land, so my ignorance creates the 50/50 probability of the coin toss. Choices are similar; if I'm ignorant of the deterministic processes going on in my brain, then my feeling of "choice" would be identical to that ignorance. I feel a "choice" because I am "ignorant" of determinism is the same thing of the coin toss being 50/50 because I'm ignorant of the deterministic physics. This is not an extraordinary claim because it equally matches what we experience AND has support by the fact that we know we ARE ignorant of such processes outside our brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Because MW has evidence in the fact that every object we're capable of placing in superposition has been found to be in superposition, and it works with everything else we know about physics, and it doesn't propose any additional things that violate Occam's Razor and other scientific laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You experience the sun moving across the sky. You experience standing on a flat Earth. How is "free will" any different from those experiences?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Actually, not according to CI! If you believe Copenhagen, then you must believe we are not subject to the same QM laws as particles. It's MW that says that humans are as much a part of the system as what they're observing.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Sure it does, it makes you "special" in that you are more than the particles that make you up and you are "special" in that you are not subject to the same laws. If you believe Copenhagen, you believe that. The fact that you don't know you believe that goes to show how you have no f'ing clue what we're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
We've given you the evidence. MW claims that everything at all levels are obeying the laws of QM. So far, all the experiments we've done on placing larger objects in superposition confirm this. So far, no experiments violate this. That means the evidence favors MW. MW says there are no micro/macro splits, no hidden variables, and, therefore, no wavefunction collapse. If you believe in the collapse then you have to believe there are hidden variables or SOMETHING that is causing quantum laws to violate every law we have on the macro level. You can not accept the wavefunction collapse and then just hand-wave every problem this creates with everything else we know about physics, not when we have an interpretation out there that DOES NOT have those problems and is compatible both with all the math and the experiments to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Yes, it looks to you. I'm glad you phrased it that way. It looks to you like this, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO F'ING CLUE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. That we've gone several threads now without you presenting one argument against what MW is actually claiming is proof of this. Funnily enough, there actually ARE arguments to be made against MW. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE LEGITIMATE ARGUMENTS ARE!Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You know what, YesNo, just ignore the last post. I'm going to make this very simple and explain exactly what's being discussed here:
Copenhagen: The wavefunction collapses on observation to a particle. CI conflicts with everything we know about macro physics: it is non-local, indeterministic, non-realism, conflicts with General Relativity, and assumes things like the backward flow of time. The only way to resolve these conflicts is to assume that there are hidden variables (ruled out by Bell's Thoerem), or some kind of split between micro/macro worlds, even though no split has been found. Now, to accept Copenhagen you have to come up with some plausible reason for why quantum laws and macro laws are in such conflict. Specifically, the fact that we have two different sets of laws for two levels implies that there is some "split" between these levels. In fact, that's the whole point of the wavefunction "collapse," that the wave "collapses" to the single world of deterministic particles that we experience. It's stating that this "collapse" is only happening at the micro levels, not the macro levels, and you need to explain why that is. What's more, why does the wavefunction collapse how it does? Why is it when you have a probability distribution does a wave suddenly become ONE thing rather than the OTHER?
Many Worlds: It assumes one thing: QP works all the way down, ie, everything is obeying QP. This means that everything from the micro to macro level is in superposition. <- That is what MW is claiming. Those two claims are supported by every experiment done so far, meaning that increasingly large objects have been shown to be in superposition. If increasingly large objects are in superposition, THERE IS NO WAVEFUNCTION COLLAPSE, and if there is no collapse, you get many worlds. What's more, this interpretation works with everything else we know about physics. You don't have to explain why there is such a conflict between the micro and macro worlds.
THAT is what we're dealing with. Now, you need to explain to me why Copenhagen is MORE LIKELY given what both are claiming and given the current state of the evidence. I don't want to hear anything about "metaphysics" or "choice" or "free-will" or "determinism," I want you to actually look at what both interps are claiming, look at the evidence, and explain to me why CI explains it better than MW. I will respond to nothing else from you except that.
I'll respond later today in more detail when I get time, but what are those legitimate arguments that you see against MW that I don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
All of the predictive power of QM comes from the Born Rule. These probabilities make sense in the framework of Copenhagen, but not in MW (or rather: MW can't derive them). Even MW proponents admit this is a serious problem, and there are various theories out there about it, but it's far from a settled issue. Yudkowsky details the problem as well as one possible solution here that was proposed by Robin Hanson here. Cioran may have some additional information about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Here are two sources taken from the Wikipedia article under "Probability" related to this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretationQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
1) Adrian Kent, "Against Many-Worlds Interpretations": http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9703089v1.pdf
2) N.P. Landsman, "The Born rule and its interpretation": http://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/Born.pdf
It seems to me that Young Earth Creationists could make the same argument that you are making. They could claim that I am ignorant of some God who causes me to have as an illusion that the universe is 13.7 billion years old when it is actually only a few thousand years old. How would I tell the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Well, you tell the difference by the evidence.
The sun moves across the sky because the earth turns and evidence is provided for that explanation rather than the one that the sun is doing the moving. It is the evidence that counts.
It is true that what I experience could be an illusion, but until there is other evidence presented, I have to accept my own experience.
I'm afraid I don't get this one. The 50/50 probability doesn't come from our ignorance, it comes from the coin having two sides and only being able to land on one. Our inability to predict which side a coin will land on when flipped doesn't affect the 50/50 odds of it landing on either side in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Well, Voyager 1 reports that there is no change in the direction of the magnetic field.
There's actually a famous 19th century biologist, Gosse, the inventor of the aquarium, who believed that. He was leader of the Plymouth Brethren, *really* extreme fundamentalists, so had to believe that the earth was only a few thousand years old. But being an excellent biologist he couldn't discount Darwin's theory of evolution. So he had to believe that God had made it look like evolution had occurred. His son's book "Father & Son" is a great read.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
So it's not only the evidence that counts, the circles you move in are likely have a great impact. Obviously he came under scathing attacks from Huxley et. al., but the Plymouth Brethren comforted him, and enabled him to maintain his strange position.