Quantum Theory and The Many Worlds Theory

[Cioran]

Albert Einstein: "The Old One does not play dice."

Many Worlds: "You're right again, Einstein!"

[YesNo]

Yet again, determinism is not a precondition of the Many Worlds interpretation. It is a consequence of it. If it so happens that determinism is rendered false in any interpretation of reality, then this fact (if it is a fact) does not impeach the Many Worlds interpretation. It just means that whether MWI is true or not true, determinism is false. What MWI does is restore classical determinism. If it so happens that classical determinism turns out to be false, then it is false regardless of whether MWI is true, and so has no bearing on the truth or falsity of MWI.

I have learned a lot about this topic because of your participation, Cioran. Thanks! I don't understand all the implications of the determinism issue, nor much about QM, but if one hears the ideas used they start making sense.

There is the topic of "copying" that is now on my mind. Deutsch used the idea in The Fabric of Reality, page 307. Here's just some sentences using the word related to "time travel":

It is not meaningful to ask "which" copy of me would have which experience: so long as we are identical, there is no such thing as 'which' of us. Parallel universes do not have hidden serial numbers: they are distinguished only by what happens in them. Therefore in rendering all this for the benefit of one copy of me, the virtual-reality generator must recreate for me the effect of existing as two identical copies who then become different and have different experiences.

I was also looking at the "no-cloning theorem" of QM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

There are a bunch of these "no-go" theorems, but it seems that QM prohibits copies, or clones, being made of a universe even on a small scale. The question that is in my mind at the moment is whether the MWI is in conflict with QM because of all the copies that it needs. Now I don't understand the proof of this theorem. I wish I did, but I think it means that QM does not allow copies of the world to be created.

If that is true, that would mean that the multiverse has only one universe in it--or QM is false.

[cacian]

Laugh out loud.

You just really can't stand to admit that you are wrong, can you?

Does the sun orbit the earth, or not?

As to "SI." I don't know what you mean by that. Whatever "SI" is, to argue that because "SI" (whatever that is) is nasty, SI's model "isnt allowed," is to commit the logical fallacy of ad hominen. Nothing that I would do, but that is something surely that you might do.

Does the sun orbit the earth? Are you able to answer the question?

Ad Hominen argument. First time I have heard of it thanks for bringing it up.
''Nothing that I would do but that is something surely that you might do'' is this what it means?
Sorry I just want to confirm.
I was reading about 'ad hom' this and found this:

Inductive fallacies are not formal in this sense. Their merit is judged in terms of rational persuasiveness, inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). For instance, the fallacy of hasty generalization, can be roughly stated as an invalid syllogism:

1.A is an X
2.A is also a Y
3.Therefore, all Xs are also Ys

The answer surely is
therefore X and Y are As.
because it should be
a=x
a=y
then
a=y=x
That is the answer A=X=Y. The only answer.


Is this the same as saying two rights do not make it wrong? or two wrongs don't make it right?

[mal4mac]

Laugh out loud.

You just really can't stand to admit that you are wrong, can you?

I can stand to admit when I'm wrong. But on this topic, I'm not wrong.

P.S. Sorry about the SI abbreviation - I was too lazy to spell out Spanish Inquisition thinking it was obvious from context, and I was wrong about that...

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic and/or inflammatory posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[cacian]

I can stand to admit when I'm wrong. But on this topic, I'm not wrong.

P.S. Sorry about the SI abbreviation - I was too lazy to spell out Spanish Inquisition thinking it was obvious from context, and I was wrong about that...

Spanish Inquisition? that sounds like a good topic to tackle haha. SI is Spanish for YES so you are not too far out.
It is nice to see the Spanish Inquisition in QP. A bit of spice does not hurt.

[Cioran]

I can stand to admit when I'm wrong. But on this topic, I'm not wrong.

Not wrong about what? Are you saying that you are right that we cannot know whether sun the sun orbits the earth?

Does the sun orbit the earth, or not?

P.S. Sorry about the SI abbreviation - I was too lazy to spell out Spanish Inquisition thinking it was obvious from context, and I was wrong about that...

Why would Galileo have been hauled before the Spanish Inquisition? He was not a subject of the kingdom of Spain. He was summoned before the Roman Inquisition.

Where did I make an argument that because the inquisition was a bad thing, then its arguments about the geocentrism v. heliocentrism debate were wrong? Clearly I made no such ad hominem attack, so why did you suggest that I did?

[Cioran]

ad homimem:

a claims x

a has some personal characteristic of the nature y.

Therefore, because a has characteristic y, his claim of x is false.

In fact, x is true or false regardless of whether a has characteristic y or not. So ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.

Example:

Hitler said vegetarianism is good.

Hilter was an evil man who killed millions.

Therefore, vegetarianism is bad

[YesNo]

If the sun, along with the other stars, revolved around the earth, that would contradict special relativity which says that matter does not go faster than the speed of light. There are stars that are more than one light-day from earth. If they were moving in a circle around the earth, they would travel more than 2*pi*1 light-days in one day's time which means they would go faster than light.

One would have to choose between that model and special relativity. There may be other objections to the sun going around the earth that I can't think of at the moment.

[cacian]

ad homimem:

a claims x

a has some personal characteristic of the nature y.

Therefore, because a has characteristic y, his claim of x is false.

In fact, x is true or false regardless of whether a has characteristic y or not. So ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.

Example:

Hitler said vegetarianism is good.

Hilter was an evil man who killed millions.

Therefore, vegetarianism is bad

This intricate so what you are suggesting is that the conclusive sentence can be both.
This does not make sense because
While
a says something
and
a is something else

There is a link missing between the first and the second. How does one go from x to y?
Unless there is a link then there is no third consequential correct or fallacious.

The only time one this work is this
a=x
a-y
then a=y=x. That is the only preposition and it is exact.

[mal4mac]

If the sun, along with the other stars, revolved around the earth, that would contradict special relativity which says that matter does not go faster than the speed of light.

The equations do tend to simplify when you think of the sun as being in the center of our system, but that doesn't make it true.

If someone was motivated enough they would be able to patch together a "still Earth" model that gets around your objection. Just search the web, you'll find many doing this

http://primecrackpot.blogspot.co.uk/...-universe.html

Maybe the speed of light is infinite until it gets close to Earth?

As the Earth is "the special thing at the centre" you can validly concoct any model to get around any objection. The Roma Catholic church did this for a long time, and only stopped when the power base moved to the military-industrial-science complex. And the RC church have always been much more inclined to cosy up to power than to stick to their original metaphysics.

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light was going the same speed in the direction of motion of the Earth, and at right angles to it. Relativity was needed to explain that observation. But in a model where the Earth doesn't move the explanation of Michelson-Morley is extremely simple, it does away with the need for special relativity.

I was going to try out the "bat signal argument" to defeat you, but I couldn't make it work "in reverse" It's interesting in showing how to get speeds of 2pi light years/ per second, though, and I did work hard(ish) on it, so here it is:

Paste black paper shaped like a bat onto a spotlight; the signal used to summon Batman. Broadcast the Bat-call to the cosmos. Rotate the spotlight. As the light turns, the bat shadow sweeps across the sky. Just as the rim of a bicycle wheel moves faster than its hub, so too, our bat shadow will fly faster and faster. If the spotlight takes a second to rotate, at one light year out the bat shadow will have to travel at 2pi light years per second. In the "usual" model, this does not violate relativity because a shadow carries no energy. But what about the circle of light "setting off" the bat shadow, you may ask? Isn't the light itself traveling far faster than the speed of light, through rotating in space? No! The bulbs that produce the light are spinning, but the light particles leave the source at 186,000 miles a second. Once emitted, the photons continue to travel at this speed directly away from the source.

Science has nothing to do with "truth"; its intent is actually to develop a set of codes that allow us to make accurate predictions about observations. Regardless of any external, objective truth.

ad homimem:

a claims x

a has some personal characteristic of the nature y.

Therefore, because a has characteristic y, his claim of x is false.

In fact, x is true or false regardless of whether a has characteristic y or not. So ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.

Example:

Hitler said vegetarianism is good.

Hilter was an evil man who killed millions.

Therefore, vegetarianism is bad

Not correct - this is just an illogical argument.

An ad hominem argument "appeals to feelings not reason". An example: "Everett was badly treated by his colleagues which makes me feel bad, so Everett's theory is correct." Or, "I've spent my whole life studying physics and would feel totally downhearted if it was all "just models" rather than Reality, so Everett must have discovered Reality."

[MorpheusSandman]

Not correct - this is just an illogical argument.

Logical fallacies like ad hominems are synonymous with "illogical arguments" because that's literally what they are; the explanation Cioran gave of an ad hominem was just fine. The fallacy you gave an example of (regarding Everett being badly treated) is actually a different fallacy known as "Appeal to pity." All of them are sub-fallacies of the more general "Appeal to emotion" category of fallacy.

[cacian]

Logical fallacies like ad hominems are synonymous with "illogical arguments" because that's literally what they are; the explanation Cioran gave of an ad hominem was just fine. The fallacy you gave an example of (regarding Everett being badly treated) is actually a different fallacy known as "Appeal to pity." All of them are sub-fallacies of the more general "Appeal to emotion" category of fallacy.

If it is fallacy which obviously derives from the word FALSE why is LOGIC word there?

[cacian]

An ad hominem argument "appeals to feelings not reason". An example: "Everett was badly treated by his colleagues which makes me feel bad, so Everett's theory is correct.

Which theory?

" Or, "I've spent my whole life studying physics and would feel totally downhearted if it was all "just models" rather than Reality, so Everett must have discovered Reality."

Everett involved here when you are talking using I? I do not get this.

[MorpheusSandman]

If it is fallacy which obviously derives from the word FALSE why is LOGIC word there?

I'm not sure what you're asking... logical fallacies are incorrect methods of reasoning. The word "fallacy" may share a root with "false," but logic doesn't deal with whether or not propositions are true or false, it only deals with whether or not the methods used to reach conclusions from multiple propositions are correct or fallacious.