^ Case in point. Interested parties should note how his post has almost nothing to do with what I actually said and everything he says about QM and MW is wrong (and I mean provably, demonstrably, "would not be found in a single physics textbook or be said by any competent physicist" wrong).
Some obvious examples:
1. "Shrodinger equation... can't be constructed in MW,"
This is patently false. What he means, I suspect, is that the Born equations can't be constructed, and that's a different thing entirely. Wikipedia phrases the difference like this: "The Schrödinger equation details the behavior of (wavefunction) but says nothing of its nature... In 1926, just a few days after Schrödinger's fourth and final paper was published, Max Born successfully interpreted (wavefunction) as the probability amplitude..." About that "probability amplitude," MW, in taking Shrodinger as REAL says "we don't know where it comes from;" Copenhagen, in applying a "collapse," not justified by any math or experimental evidence, says: "It comes from observation (but don't ask how)."
The big question is whether one finds the "incompleteness" of MW or the "paradoxes" of Copenhagen more defensible. It would be one thing if YesNo said "I'm able to reconcile myself to Copenhagen's paradoxes more than MW's incompleteness." That would be fine, understandable, even somewhat rational. But this constant, ignorant attack on MW as a "religion" or "God" with "no evidence" that's "not even an interpretation" followed by statement after statement that ranges from flat-out false (ie, Schrodinger doesn't support MW), to dishonest half-truth reveals his irrational bias. It's not like it's completely unacceptable for someone to favor Copenhagen or criticize MW, but I take umbrage at the ignorant and dishonest way YesNo continues to go about it even after he's been corrected and failed to provide any authoritative support for any of his claims.
2. "the structure of those "worlds" in the many worlds metaphysics is performing a function that a God would perform in other metaphysical systems: it is sustaining the many worlds reality."
This is absolutely absurd. One thing YesNo has never understood is that the "many worlds" themselves, perhaps counter-intuitively, are not all that important to MW, they're just a consequence of MW's very reasonable assumptions. The worlds themselves have no "godlike" role and have nothing to do with what "sustains" MW as an interp. To criticize MW, one has to dispute the assumptions, not the consequences. YesNo almost never disputes the assumptions as I don't believe he even understands them.
3. "Without physical evidence and in light of the vacuous mathematics, I simply conclude the many worlds metaphysics is a delusion... I am an atheist with respect to them and I ground that atheism upon scientific theory and evidence."
YesNo does not understand the difference between "factual models," "theories," and "interpretations" as it pertains to science. Factual models are descriptive, theories are predictive and require evidence, and interpretations take the same models and ask how we should consider them without the ability to make predictions. All "interpretations" of QM have the same "factual models," the difference lies in how they interpret them. They're all consistent with the actual data. So this demand for "physical evidence" for MW is absurd because there's no physical OR mathematical evidence for Copenhagen OR ANY OTHER QM INTERPRETATION. He has absolutely NO "scientific theory or evidence" on which to ground his objection to MW because there are none, they don't exist. ANY theoretical physicist would tell you this.
At this point, I'd almost be willing to pay YesNo to go on a physics forum and try to debate this. Just because maybe after dozens of posters have pointed out his ignorance he'll finally get it through his head that the problem is with him and not with MW or its proponents.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by cafolini
