undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdanbruc11y ago0 comments

IMHO the many worlds interpretation is one of the least appealing interpretation - millions of millions of millions of universes for nothing. What do you think about the following similar argument? Why are the laws of physics and the physical constants the way they are? There is a universe for every possible set of laws and constants and our universe just happens to be compatible with life. You can just render almost every interesting question moot with similar arguments - I would really prefer something more interesting at the heart of the universe.

0 comments

acqq11y ago

On that level I don't have any problem with "many worlds" as it can be seen just a one more extrapolation of "we're not in the designed special position" principle: first we're not the center around which the planets circle, then our Sun also isn't the center of our set of stars, then our set of stars is one of many other galaxies... if our physical universe is just a lucky variant of other possible (and mostly uninteresting) universes, it at least doesn't appear surprising.

danbrucOP11y ago

But there is an important difference - you can observe the other stuff in our universe and therefore know that we are not (exceptionally) special in our universe. Other universes are usually per definition completely outside of our reach, as hard to grab as a god or Russell's teapot.

acqq11y ago

> completely outside of our reach, as hard to grab as a god or Russell's teapot.

I agree! As in my other comments here, as long as there isn't any scientific result, I also won't regard the products of the proponents of such "interpretations" better than you.

spacehome11y ago

Well, they're not completely outside our reach. Interference between our worlds and nearby ones is very testable, and the reason the theory exists.

alphydan11y ago

That makes it out of reach. You cannot falsify the many-worlds-interpretation simply with interference. All other interpretations make the very same predictions.

DavidPlumpton11y ago

What's more likely? That quantum interference appears because many worlds perpetually exist, or because they seem to exist but somehow don't, or because they sometimes briefly come into existence, hang around for a bit and then randomly collapse breaking all sorts of laws (Liouville thereom, CPT invariance etc.)?

Many Worlds is much tidier than all the alternatives.hh

eli_gottlieb11y ago

Actually, I'd say the "illusion" option is the simplest and tidiest. It is more likely that we interpret a complicated reality from incomplete information than that reality truly is complicated.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

acqq11y ago

danbrucOP11y ago

acqq11y ago

> completely outside of our reach, as hard to grab as a god or Russell's teapot.

I agree! As in my other comments here, as long as there isn't any scientific result, I also won't regard the products of the proponents of such "interpretations" better than you.

spacehome11y ago

Well, they're not completely outside our reach. Interference between our worlds and nearby ones is very testable, and the reason the theory exists.

alphydan11y ago

That makes it out of reach. You cannot falsify the many-worlds-interpretation simply with interference. All other interpretations make the very same predictions.

DavidPlumpton11y ago

Many Worlds is much tidier than all the alternatives.hh

eli_gottlieb11y ago

Actually, I'd say the "illusion" option is the simplest and tidiest. It is more likely that we interpret a complicated reality from incomplete information than that reality truly is complicated.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse