Quantum Theory and The Many Worlds Theory

Well, in honesty, I don't really follow your argument, YesNo. I'm not sure what the conclusion is supposed to mean, or how it derives from the premises. I don't really even understand the premises you are arguing.

I'd have to read Born's address, but I suspect what he is getting at is that determinism in a classical universe, even if true, is useful only in idealized states (as in the lab) because in tracing antecedent conditions, things get so complicated so fast that we can't trace the determinism.

This is true for all law-like statements about nature. We had to go to the moon and drop two objects of different size to determine them hitting the ground at the same time, because we needed a frictionless environment (no atmosphere, idealized) to show empirically that this is how nature behaves.

Many Worlds removes statistical indeterminacy from QM because the indeterminacy is a function of supposing there is wave function collapse. Without wave function collapse, a statement like, "there is a seventy percent chance that x will be found located at y, and a thirty percent chance that it will be found at z" resolves to seventy worlds with x at y and thirty worlds with x at z.

The goal of MW was not to restore determinism to physics. Rather, that was a consequence of the interpretation. The goal was to treat the whole universe as a quantum mechanical system, rather than arbitrarily split between a quantum world and a classical world; to show that this could be described mathematically (it can) and then to work out the ontological consequences.

While I'm far too ignorant about QM to discuss this on the level Cioran is, one piece of "common sense" philosophy I might introduce that could aid in his points is this: Consider that we evolved to be able to cope with and interpret reality in a manner that aided our survival. Most of our instincts and "common sense" comes from having to survive and reproduce, with surviving involving things like escaping from predators and being able to hunt and eat prey. This level of reality appears so differently to what happens on a quantum level that we have difficult grasping it. This is a limitation of our perspective, specifically, of how evolution has programmed us to think with regards to survival and reproduction. As I've said before, crocodiles don't need to understand QM in order to be able to eat and reproduce. It's entirely possible that reality is completely and utterly different to how we are programmed to experience, and, in fact, the history of scientific endeavor is an tome-like account of our common sense perceptions being subverted upon learning how things ACTUALLY work. Trying to understand MW on the level of our common sense, everyday experience would be like expecting a frilled shark to understand that the sun revolves around the earth. It's simply not a part of how they experience reality. The point of this is that what is true about the universe may very well never make sense to us on an intuitive, common-sense, instinctual level, for no other reason than that our evolution was not concerned with dealing with how reality actually works to begin with. We have to realize that our limitations of perspective may be the greatest thing preventing us from understanding how reality works.

That's a spectacular point MS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

What is this with your devotion to common sense? Does common sense tell you that the world is quantum or relativstic (it's both)?

---

It's neither.

You can't say what the world *is*. Even within the confines of physics, you can only produce models that predict things in different domains. For instance GR only works in the large, QM in the small. At the Big Bang we have both situations, and our little physics models break down. The human being evolved from slime into being a clever, if barely sane, ape. How can we expect such a being to understand "the world"?

I prefer to accept my limits as an ape and play in the sandbox of common sense. If you like to play with wacky MW models then fine, each to his own. But you shouldn't mislead people into thinking that MW is the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Quote:

---

Did common sense tell everyone that the reason that the apple falls to the ground is the same reason that the moon circles the earth...

---

Common sense evolves, the Newtonian model that fits nicely into our limited ape mind, and so common sense adapts to take it in very happily. But the Quantum Interpretations do not, they make no appeal to common sense, that's why there are so many of them and why physicists who Quixotically refuse to "shut up and calculate" can't agree on a good interpretation.

Quote:

---

Excuse me? Einstein was "driven out of physics" into the patent office? Maybe you should check your history.

---

By "driven out" of physics I was assuming you meant "was forced to take a paid job outside physics". But really "driven out" can only be used in an ironic fashion here, Everett wasn't, really, in any sense "driven out". Theoretical physics is something you can do anywhere, so how can you be driven out of it?

Quote:

---

As to being "accepted by all physicists," acceptance has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Copernicanism was certainly not accepted for a long time, and Galileo's attempt to teach it as "true" as opposed merely to a model that gave identical predictions with Ptolemy gave him a fair spot of trouble with the Church, as I recall.

---

I agree, but it doesn't follow that any wacky interpretation is true. And discussing the wacky interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are not something that should be part of anyones general culture - it's a Big Endian activity

Quote:

---

Of course it's a mathematical model. Are you saying that there can only be models, and the world has no actual true nature? If the world has no actual true nature, is it all in the mind, or a matter of opinion? Are you advocating philosophical idealism?

---

Of course there can only be models. What do you mean by "true nature"? How can we know such a thing. We are only apes limited by our little ape brains. I'm advocating Kant's transcendental idealism, which aknowledges the limitations of our little ape brain. Read his first critique to "get" this...

Quote:

---

Also, see above, on the debate of Ptolemy vs. Copernicus. Both provided models of the solar system. Both models made identical predictions. The Church told Galielo that it was fine to teach Copernicanism as a model to make predictions, but that it was not fine to teach it as showing how the solar system really is. And yet, it turned out that solar system really is heliocentric, and so Potelmy's model, while useful, was wrong. Here is a clear example of what you seem to be denying can happen: an example of a model not just being useful, but actually true. Would you deny that heliocentrism is actually true?

---

Yes, it's just a better model.

Actually Copernicus' model wasn't as good Kepler's, which showed that the Sun isn't actually at the center of the solar system, it's at the focus of an ellipse.

There is no way you can get to "actually true".

Quote:

---

Read the piece on Everett.

---

Nah. I've read too many pieces on Everett... I'm off to play internet chess...

Quote:

---

...QM is a fact; angels are a fiction.

---

The results of QM experiments are facts, MW is a fiction. Actually people see angels in altered states of consciousness so they are less fictional than MW (or have you seen Universes splitting in your dreams...)

Quote:

---

Again, if you don't approve of the discussion, feel free to recuse yourself from it.

---

You complained about people driving Everett out of physics, and now you're trying to drive me out of the thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Since MWI requires an initial state and wave function to exist for a deterministic physics either in each particular world or the universe as a whole, MWI is not a valid interpretation of QM.

---

I'm sorry YesNo, I have to agree with Cioran here. I'm not sure what your conclusion is supposed to mean, or how it derives from the premises. I don't really even understand the premises you are arguing.

MW, Copenhagen, Transactional... are all valid interpetations, all valid models. Just like Copernicus and Ptolemy (with) Epicycles are valid models... Tycho Brahe had another intruiging model... an interesting "sun and earth centred model".

Maybe the main problem with quantum interpretations is that, speaking metaphorically, THEY ALL HAVE EPICYCLES. And who can be bothered with epicycles... far too messy... hence the nicety of instrumental approach... you don't have to think about epicycles, just apply the equations and look at the planets in the sky, and ignore the daft arguments between Brahe, Copernicus, Ptolemy, et. al....

By the way, Kepler was also wrong of course, the planets don't move in smooth ellipses, there is, for instance, a precession in the perihelion of mercury. This is predicted by Newtonian theory... but even that model is wrong! The precession of the perihelion of mercury is predicted accurately only by GR. And GR, as Quantum cosmologists point out, is a limited theory. So we don't have any grasp on the reality of the solar system, just a cascade of models that get more accurate, but become increasingly difficult to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Consider that we evolved to be able to cope with and interpret reality in a manner that aided our survival. Most of our instincts and "common sense" comes from having to survive and reproduce, with surviving involving things like escaping from predators and being able to hunt and eat prey. This level of reality appears so differently to what happens on a quantum level that we have difficult grasping it. This is a limitation of our perspective, specifically, of how evolution has programmed us to think with regards to survival and reproduction. As I've said before, crocodiles don't need to understand QM in order to be able to eat and reproduce. It's entirely possible that reality is completely and utterly different to how we are programmed to experience, and, in fact, the history of scientific endeavour is a tome-like account of our common sense perceptions being subverted upon learning how things ACTUALLY work. Trying to understand MW on the level of our common sense, everyday experience would be like expecting a frilled shark to understand that the sun revolves around the earth. It's simply not a part of how they experience reality. The point of this is that what is true about the universe may very well never make sense to us on an intuitive, common-sense, instinctual level, for no other reason than that our evolution was not concerned with dealing with how reality actually works to begin with. We have to realize that our limitations of perspective may be the greatest thing preventing us from understanding how reality works.

---

Great point MS! A point I made in my last post before reading yours... but you put it far better...

Cioran seems to think he is getting a grasp on reality through studying MW, but MS is far more compelling in his reasons why this is probably a futile endeavour. If, like me, you agree with MS, then why should anyone read Everett? I have read some Everett and it's not much fun; far better to read Dickens, or if you must explore "the big questions", a proper philosopher like Plato or Kant. Why get lost in backwaters like Everett?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

It's neither.

You can't say what the world *is*. Even within the confines of physics, you can only produce models that predict things in different domains. For instance GR only works in the large, QM in the small. At the Big Bang we have both situations, and our little physics models break down. The human being evolved from slime into being a clever, if barely sane, ape. How can we expect such a being to understand "the world"?

---

And yet these same apes came up with GR and QM in the first place -- totally outside common sense, yet both work and are true.

Quote:

---

I prefer to accept my limits as an ape and play in the sandbox of common sense.

---

Each to his own.

Quote:

---

If you like to play with wacky MW models then fine, each to his own. But you shouldn't mislead people into thinking that MW is the answer to life, the universe and everything.

---

I've never said any such thing. You should stop misleading others that others are misleading them.

Quote:

---

Common sense evolves, the Newtonian model that fits nicely into our limited ape mind, and so common sense adapts to take it in very happily. But the Quantum Interpretations do not, they make no appeal to common sense, that's why there are so many of them and why physicists who Quixotically refuse to "shut up and calculate" can't agree on a good interpretation.

---

You do know that Newtonian mechanics is false, right?

Quote:

---

By "driven out" of physics I was assuming you meant "was forced to take a paid job outside physics". But really "driven out" can only be used in an ironic fashion here, Everett wasn't, really, in any sense "driven out". Theoretical physics is something you can do anywhere, so how can you be driven out of it?

---

He was driven out by negative ad homimen attacks that soured him on academia in general.

Quote:

---

I agree, but it doesn't follow that any wacky interpretation is true. And discussing the wacky interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are not something that should be part of anyones general culture - it's a Big Endian activity

---

So something that has captivated the greatest minds in science for a century is not something that should be part of anyone's general culture? I suggest you speak for yourself.

Quote:

---

Of course there can only be models. What do you mean by "true nature"? How can we know such a thing. We are only apes limited by our little ape brains. I'm advocating Kant's transcendental idealism, which aknowledges the limitations of our little ape brain. Read his first critique to "get" this...

---

Thanks, I've read Kant.

Quote:

---

Yes, it's just a better model.

Actually Copernicus' model wasn't as good Kepler's, which showed that the Sun isn't actually at the center of the solar system, it's at the focus of an ellipse.

There is no way you can get to "actually true".

---

Is true that the sun goes around the earth, or is it false? Once you admit it is false, then your whole argument that all we can have are models, and that there is no "true way" the world "is," fall to pieces, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Nah. I've read too many pieces on Everett... I'm off to play internet chess...

The results of QM experiments are facts, MW is a fiction. Actually people see angels in altered states of consciousness so they are less fictional than MW (or have you seen Universes splitting in your dreams...)

---

This objection is remarkably vacuous. It's like someone in Galileo's time saying, "We don't feel the earth moving, or have you felt it move in your dreams?"

Quote:

---

You complained about people driving Everett out of physics, and now you're trying to drive me out of the thread!

---

Not at all. You keep complaining that people should not be talking about this stuff. So why are you still talking about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Great point MS! A point I made in my last post before reading yours... but you put it far better...

Cioran seems to think he is getting a grasp on reality through studying MW, but MS is far more compelling in his reasons why this is probably a futile endeavour. If, like me, you agree with MS, then why should anyone read Everett? I have read some Everett and it's not much fun; far better to read Dickens, or if you must explore "the big questions", a proper philosopher like Plato or Kant. Why get lost in backwaters like Everett?

---

Ironically enough, I think you completly missed the point of MS's post. He's saying that we should not expect the world to conform to our common sense. I think that is correct, and it supports my interpretive arguments and goes against your own.

I might point out that the theoretical physicist David Deutsch thinks we already have the empirical demonstration of the truth of the Many Worlds, and he wrote about this as far back as 1998 in his book The Fabric of Reality. The proof is quantum computers, which already exist in a rudimentary form.

Here in an interview with Deuttsch. A nicely relevant quote is produced below. (mal4mac, you may skip all this for Internet chess, of course!)

Quote:

---

WN: How do you think using quantum computers will change how people think about computing, and consequently the universe and nature?

Deutsch: "How they will think about it" is the relevant phrase here. This is a philosophical and psychological question you're asking. You're not asking a question about the physics or the logic of the situation.

I think that when universal quantum computers are finally achieved technologically, and when they are routinely performing computations where there is simply more going on there than a classical computer or even the whole universe acting as a computer could possibly achieve, then people will get very impatient and bored, I think, with attempts to say that those computations don't really happen, and that the equations of quantum mechanics are merely ways of expressing what the answer would be but not how it was obtained.

The programmers will know perfectly well how it was obtained, and they will have programmed the steps that will have obtained it. The fact that answers are obtained from a quantum computer that couldn't be obtained any other way will make people take seriously that the process that obtained them was objectively real.

Nothing more than that is needed to lead to the conclusion that there are parallel universes, because that is specifically how quantum computers work.

---

Quantum computers work by computing in superposition. That means real resources are really used; it’s real matter and energy. That means the other computers in the other words are real. That’s Deutsch’s position. It’s a pretty compelling point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Well, in honesty, I don't really follow your argument, YesNo. I'm not sure what the conclusion is supposed to mean, or how it derives from the premises. I don't really even understand the premises you are arguing.

---

I'm just beginning to understand this. I see that both you and mal4mac found it confusing, so maybe rephrasing it like this is better:

No deterministic theory or interpretation can adequately describe QM which is non-deterministic.

There are at least two places where non-determinism enters QM:

1) One source of non-determinism comes from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where some paired measurements, such as position and momentum, cannot be determined because the order of measuring them does not commute. As I see it this is what MWI attempts to address in QM by replacing the wave function collapse with many worlds.

2) The restriction of matter to quanta rather than allowing it to get arbitrarily small is another source of non-determinism. This is what Born is saying implies that even classical physics is non-deterministic. Eventually the imprecision in the initial state leads to a drift. That is, there is no initial state that works indefinitely. That initial state must always be refreshed and is therefore not deterministic.

It is only an illusion of classical physics that it ever was deterministic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

I'd have to read Born's address, but I suspect what he is getting at is that determinism in a classical universe, even if true, is useful only in idealized states (as in the lab) because in tracing antecedent conditions, things get so complicated so fast that we can't trace the determinism.

This is true for all law-like statements about nature. We had to go to the moon and drop two objects of different size to determine them hitting the ground at the same time, because we needed a frictionless environment (no atmosphere, idealized) to show empirically that this is how nature behaves.

---

It is not just the complicated nature of the results. Because of quantum theory, there is ultimately no way to get adequate precision to construct a deterministic theory of reality.

Any attempt to create a classical Newtonian deterministic explanation is forced to accept imprecision at the quantum level in measuring an initial state. What I learned from Born is that a deterministic solution requires that a single initial state be used to predict the entire future. If such an initial state can be constructed then quantum theory is false.

All physics is non-deterministic, both classical and quantum, because of quantum theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Many Worlds removes statistical indeterminacy from QM because the indeterminacy is a function of supposing there is wave function collapse. Without wave function collapse, a statement like, "there is a seventy percent chance that x will be found located at y, and a thirty percent chance that it will be found at z" resolves to seventy worlds with x at y and thirty worlds with x at z.

The goal of MW was not to restore determinism to physics. Rather, that was a consequence of the interpretation. The goal was to treat the whole universe as a quantum mechanical system, rather than arbitrarily split between a quantum world and a classical world; to show that this could be described mathematically (it can) and then to work out the ontological consequences.

---

As I understand Born, the initial state problem is not contained in the wave function collapsing or not. He is mainly addressing classical physics. It has to do with the imprecision of the measurements of the system. For determinism to work, the initial state cannot change. It cannot be refreshed and because of the imprecision required by quantum mechanics, future results will drift. Eventually, what originally came out as a "seventy percent chance that x will be found located at y" will be calculated as a sixty-nine percent chance that x will be found located at y". Soon the drift from reality will become an issue for technology and then MWI will be rejected.

The ontological consequence is that the stuff of reality is inherently non-deterministic. Because MWI is deterministic, it does not describe reality. Therefore, the MWI has no basis in reality on which to make an ontological claim that many worlds exist.

Btw, mal4mac, since you are interested in Internet chess, you might be interested in David Deutsch’s multiverse chess. From the article:

Quote:

---

Thus a single quantum processor, with the same clock rate as one of Deep Blue’s processors, could examine a trillion chess positions in one second — and in two seconds it could examine four trillion, in three seconds nine trillion, and so on [see corrections below – DD].

---

Then follow the correction and the correction to the correction.


And this (bold face mine; it was italicized by Deutsch for emphasis in the article but since all pulled quotes here are italic, I bolded it instead):

Quote:

---

To predict that future quantum computers, made to a given specification, will work in the ways I have described, one need only solve a few uncontroversial equations. But to explain exactly how they will work, some form of multiple-universe language is unavoidable. Thus quantum computers provide irresistible evidence that the multiverse is real. One especially convincing argument is provided by quantum algorithms — even more powerful than Grover’s — which calculate more intermediate results in the course of a single computation than there are atoms in the visible universe. When a quantum computer delivers the output of such a computation, we shall know that those intermediate results must have been computed somewhere, because they were needed to produce the right answer. So I issue this challenge to those who still cling to a single-universe world view: if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed? I have yet to receive a plausible reply.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

He's saying that we should not expect the world to conform to our common sense.

---

That's what I was saying in a nutshell. Invoking common sense after a century of scientists dealing with QM seems a bit pointless...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I have read some Everett and it's not much fun; far better to read Dickens, or if you must explore "the big questions", a proper philosopher like Plato or Kant. Why get lost in backwaters like Everett?

---

Not that I object to reading Dickens or Plato or Kant, but it seems like you're making this more a matter of personal aesthetic preference than about a desire to understand how reality works. Yes, all we have are predictive models, but that's all we've ever really had to begin with. Our entire brain can only be a map, but never the territory it's representing; in that sense, even our senses don't directly connect us to reality. However, when we're able to use models to predict outcomes, to predict sense experience, it does start to appear as if those models are an accurate representation of something external to our subjective biases, that the map reflects the territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

... it seems like you're making this more a matter of personal aesthetic preference than about a desire to understand how reality works.

---

Yes, I prefer things that give delight to mechanical understanding. If you get most delight in playing with quantum stuff, then fine. I did that for too long perhaps, these days I prefer Sherlock Holmes or whatever classic novel I might be reading at the moment. Novels give me more delight.

I wouldn't actually recommend reading Kant, his writing style is not delightful. But I think you are really wrong in thinking you are "understanding reality" in imbibing these models - try reading through the philsophy section of the library, and popular works that take Kant seriously (e.g., anthing by Bryan Magee.) That was probably the main thing that got me off this "reality quest" an dthe much more fun "delight quest".

The map being close to reality stuff is nonsense - try going for a nice country walk on map of the Cotswolds!

Quote:

---

Yes, all we have are predictive models, but that's all we've ever really had to begin with....

---

So are sunsets or Picasso's paintings predictive models?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

And yet these same apes came up with GR and QM in the first place -- totally outside common sense, yet both work and are true.

---

They work in a limited context, but like Socrates said, "we know nothing", translated: "we can't know the truth". And that's because as MS pointed out, we are apes, not Gods.

Quote:

---

He was driven out by negative ad homimen attacks that soured him on academia in general.

---

Poor baby. The way his supporters complain you'd think he'd joined Bruno on the Inquisitions' stake.

Quote:

---

So something that has captivated the greatest minds in science for a century is not something that should be part of anyone's general culture? I suggest you speak for yourself.

---

The basic ideas of the truly great minds, Einstein, Feynman and Bohr, say, should be. The rest, why bother... At school, and even University, only the truly greats *were* mentioned! No mention of Everett, or the other wacky interpretations. So the school system, backed by the mass of academia, agrees with me...

Quote:

---

Is true that the sun goes around the earth, or is it false? Once you admit it is false, then your whole argument that all we can have are models, and that there is no "true way" the world "is," fall to pieces, doesn't it?

---

In the Biblical model, and everyday experience model, the Sun does go round the Earth. The Newtonian model works better for sending things to the moon, and the like.

Quote:

---

Not at all. You keep complaining that people should not be talking about this stuff. So why are you still talking about it?

---

I think people should be talking about what stuff should be talked about.

Besides the Copenhagen and Many Worlds Interpretations, there is also the Penrose Interpretation which may offer a way for gravity to get involved with QM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation

This is an "objective collapse theory". It still has indeterminism. Penrose claims that particles can be in more than one place at a time yet lose that ability as the gravitational stress goes beyond one "graviton". He also describes an experiment to test his theory.

What I find interesting about this is the inclusion of general relativity in QM. It also makes some sense out of the superposition of a particle in more than one location. And he outlines an experiment to test the theory. To my knowledge the experiment has not been run.

This would be an alternative to MWI that would explain the superpositions prior to wave function collapse avoiding the need even at that stage to conjecture the existence of other worlds. A particle being at more than one location would be explained by gravity rather than the existence of other worlds in which it exists simultaneously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

They work in a limited context, but like Socrates said, "we know nothing", translated: "we can't know the truth". And that's because as MS pointed out, we are apes, not Gods.

---

The ancient Greeks were sharp cookies. Unfortunately most of their best guesses were wrong. We've moved on since Socrates. Also, you seem to have missed the post where MS was confirming that his point supported my argument, not yours.

Quote:

---

Poor baby. The way his supporters complain you'd think he'd joined Bruno on the Inquisitions' stake.

The basic ideas of the truly great minds, Einstein, Feynman and Bohr, say, should be. The rest, why bother... At school, and even University, only the truly greats *were* mentioned! No mention of Everett, or the other wacky interpretations. So the school system, backed by the mass of academia, agrees with me...

---

That's not true. Everett and his work is in the forefront today. Stephen Hawking is a Many Worldist, for example. So is David Deutsch, the theoretical physicist and founder of quantum computing. Deutsch is still waiting for you (or someone) to answer a simple question: If superposition calculations are taking place that produce a result -- calculations being a physical enterprise involving matter and energy -- then where are they taking place? If they are not taking place in parallel worlds, then they are simply magic! Like saying God did it!

Quote:

---

In the Biblical model, and everyday experience model, the Sun does go round the Earth. The Newtonian model works better for sending things to the moon, and the like.

---

Does the sun orbit the earth, or not? Are you seriously trying to suggest that you don't know the answer to the question? Because once you answer it, of course, your suggestion that all we have are models, and as apes we are foreclosed to knowing reality, is kaput.

Quote:

---

I think people should be talking about what stuff should be talked about.

---

Who appointed you the arbiter of what people should and should not talk about? The conceit of this pretension is breathtaking. Again, if you find this topic uninteresting or futile, then absent yourself from the discussion. To try to dictate to others what they should and should not talk about is rather repellant, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Deutsch is still waiting for you (or someone) to answer a simple question: If superposition calculations are taking place that produce a result -- calculations being a physical enterprise involving matter and energy -- then where are they taking place? If they are not taking place in parallel worlds, then they are simply magic! Like saying God did it!

---

I think interpretations such as the one Penrose presented would explain where quantum superpositions occur: They occur in the real world. There is no need for other parallel worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I think interpretations such as the one Penrose presented would explain where quantum superpositions occur: They occur in the real world. There is no need for other parallel worlds.

---

E-mail Deutsch and see what he says. Maybe he'll even joint this discussion if we're lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Yes, I prefer things that give delight to mechanical understanding.

---

Newtonian mechanics is a false theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Does the sun orbit the earth, or not? Are you seriously trying to suggest that you don't know the answer to the question? Because once you answer it, of course, your suggestion that all we have are models, and as apes we are foreclosed to knowing reality, is kaput.

---

I did! In the "everyday" model the sun orbits the Earth and the Earth stands still and the Earth is flat.

In the Copernican, Kepler, and Newtonian models the Earth orbits the sun.

Quote:

---

Who appointed you the arbiter of what people should and should not talk about? The conceit of this pretension is breathtaking. Again, if you find this topic uninteresting or futile, then absent yourself from the discussion. To try to dictate to others what they should and should not talk about is rather repellant, IMO.

---

I'm not trying to force anyone, and how can I dictate anything? I can't get my Inquisition torture equipment down the internet superhighway. Why can't one question how interesting a topic is? Anyway, you're the one keeping the conversation going, if you find it repellent then stop conversing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

E-mail Deutsch and see what he says. Maybe he'll even joint this discussion if we're lucky.

---

I'm reading his The Fabric of Reality hoping to find out more precisely what WMI is attempting to say. Chapters 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are supposed to be related to QM. So far from chapter 2, I understand that interference patterns are supposed to be the evidence for parallel worlds visible within each of the worlds. Penrose has a more interesting explanation for this paradoxical behavior of quantum particles based on gravity. That may not be verified, but I think something along the lines Penrose is considering will be found and verified. The parallel worlds idea appears too arbitrary a solution for me. I might as well say fairies do it.