Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[Skepdick]

He's not looking at it, he's looking at a single word and getting fixated on it without trying to understand what physicists mean by it. If he did, he'd see the equivocation.

Yeah - the word he's looking at and fixating upon (or really - against) is "realism". It's a silly word... It usually stands for "I'm going to pretend that I speak on behalf of reality."

It's usually what everyone means when they appeal to reality/realism to justify their words.

It's any sort of opposition to this silliness is what he calls "anti-realism". The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

[seeds]

So you can't imagine it. Nor can anyone else. That's the point

What are you talking about?

The long post you are responding to...

viewtopic.php?p=713576&sid=39ac600f510f ... f0#p713576

...is me "imagining" (in great detail) the absurd implications of the MWI.

Does the MWI make sense to you?

And if yes, then please explain what you like about it.
_______

[seeds]

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

Like I said in the thread where the following (slightly altered) rant is taken from, I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (MWI).

No one cares

I can see why no one would care about my opinion of the MWI, if that's what you mean.

However, shouldn't everyone care if "pop" explicators of quantum theories, such as Sean Carroll and Max Tegmark, with an air of smug confidence, are spreading utter nonsense about reality?

We don't like it when religionists do it (spread nonsense about reality), so why not hold materialists to the same standards?

And just out of curiosity, which part of my little diatribe two pages back...

viewtopic.php?p=713576&sid=39ac600f510f ... f0#p713576

...do you disagree with?

I mean, have you ever heard Carroll or Tegmark or Bryce DeWitt (the coiner of the term "many-worlds") truly extrapolate the implications of MWI to the extent I have done in that initial post?
_______

[Skepdick]

...

Beyond MWI's instrumental value (which is really, just leveraging the effectiveness of the Law of Large Numbers in Probability Theory) it's also a necessary argument in order to avoid conceding fine-tuning arguments by theists.

Why these exact values for these constants? Oh nothing special - infinite monkeys - random settings. Anthropic principle.

OK... and what's generating al these universes? How do you know that the infinitude of universes don't have the exact same fine-tuned constants?
How does the universe-generating machinery ensure that each universe has a unique permutation of settings?

<insert incoherent scientific mumbling>

[Flannel Jesus]

Like I said in the thread where the following (slightly altered) rant is taken from, I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (MWI).

No one cares

I can see why no one would care about my opinion of the MWI, if that's what you mean.

However, shouldn't everyone care if "pop" explicators of quantum theories, such as Sean Carroll and Max Tegmark, with an air of smug confidence, are spreading utter nonsense about reality?

We don't like it when religionists do it (spread nonsense about reality), so why not hold materialists to the same standards?

And just out of curiosity, which part of my little diatribe two pages back...

viewtopic.php?p=713576&sid=39ac600f510f ... f0#p713576

...do you disagree with?

I mean, have you ever heard Carroll or Tegmark or Bryce DeWitt (the coiner of the term "many-worlds") truly extrapolate the implications of MWI to the extent I have done in that initial post?
_______

Your emotional anger at this idea you don't like makes you look more akin to religious reactions to distasteful science, it doesn't make them look religious to me.

Just because you think something seems nonsensical isn't a good enough criteria for me to think it's "religious". Your incredulity doesn't hold weight to me.

[Atla]

Yes. I can't even work out what exactly it is he's 'campaigning' about. A pompous know-it-all who makes up his own 'scientific' terms

He's trying to stop Islam. He thinks that his version of a Kantian-Buddhist antirealism will stop Islam by making Muslims realize that Allah doesn't exist.

Well imo, he would just take away the only reality check that Muslims have left (once there is no real outside world, there is no way to tell anymore that our hallucinations of Allah aren't just hallucinations). Making Muslims even a lot more unhinged, insane, than they are today.

Like that's going to work

We need to have confidence, like VA does. His philosophy may be a pointless, rather nonsensical and self-contradictory mess, and Muslims may never ever agree to listen to him even he had something really intelligent to say, but it's definitely going to work anyway.

[seeds]

...

Beyond MWI's instrumental value (which is really, just leveraging the effectiveness of the Law of Large Numbers in Probability Theory) it's also a necessary argument in order to avoid conceding fine-tuning arguments by theists.

Good point, Skepdick.

However, as per that bolded bit, I think you might be thinking of the "multiverse" theory, which is wholly different from the "many-worlds" theory.

As I'm sure you know, the multiverse theory presumes that if there does indeed exist a near infinite number of universes,...

(which, btw, are presumed to have come into existence via other "Big Bangs," as opposed to branchings)

...then the odds are that at least one of them will have the right conditions to produce beings such as us, hence, no need for the theist's "designer."

While, on the other hand, the many-worlds theory suggests the nonsense of the existence of a near infinite number of (almost perfect) "copies" of us and the universe.

Now this may be a slight exaggeration of what the theory implies, but the only difference between the hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets that make up our universe and that of the hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets of the universe that branched off of our universe in, say, a double slit experiment,...

...is that the "copy" of the exact same experiment in the newly branched universe has an electron that hit the phosphorescent screen perhaps a few Planck lengths to the left of where it hit the screen in our universe.

Indeed, that represents the moment and reason for why the branching took place.

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

Anyway, again, the point is that there is a huge difference between the "multiverse" theory and the "many-worlds" theory.
_______

[Flannel Jesus]

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

[Atla]

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

I told seeds a few times that the MWI typically doesn't claim that new universes literally keep springing into existence whenever branching happens, instead it claims that all the worlds of the many worlds have been there all along. This is of course something that Carroll states too. Don't know why seeds is incapable of processing this information.

[seeds]

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

For crying out loud, you grumpy old fart,...

...watch the first 2 minutes of the Sean Carroll (the "actual scientist") lecture video and try to realize that I am simply extrapolating -- to the furthest logical conclusion -- precisely what Sean Carroll (again, the "actual scientist") is implying.
______

[Skepdick]

Anyway, again, the point is that there is a huge difference between the "multiverse" theory and the "many-worlds" theory.

There's no difference. On the surface they appear like different theories. The underlying metaphysical sleight of hand is identical. A combinatorial explosion. In both theories there's instantiation of more worlds/universes happening.

Whether it's one Big Bang immediately branching to create an infinite number of parallel universes; Or Infinite Big Bangs creating 1 universe.

You end up with the exact same configuration.

[accelafine]

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

For crying out loud, you grumpy old fart,...

...watch the first 2 minutes of the Sean Carroll (the "actual scientist") lecture video and try to realize that I am simply extrapolating -- to the furthest logical conclusion -- precisely what Sean Carroll (again, the "actual scientist") is implying.
______

Your 'argument' is that an absurdly huge number of worlds would be created. That's irrelevant if the universe is infinite. Oddly, I find someone like Sean Carroll more compelling and thought-provoking.

[Flannel Jesus]

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of that proposition doesn't crush the theory itself, then I can't help them.

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.

Part of the problem is that the Sean Carroll's of the world will dumb this down for his live audiences by making it seem as if the branching only occurs when large macro-objects do something of which there are perhaps only two possible outcomes, as demonstrated by Carroll in the first 2 minutes of this YouTube video...

https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY

Indeed, the fact that he makes it sound so trivial is what makes me suspect that he really hasn't mentally explored - to the fullest degree - the ridiculous implications of the theory he's promoting.

The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

For crying out loud, you grumpy old fart,...

...watch the first 2 minutes of the Sean Carroll (the "actual scientist") lecture video and try to realize that I am simply extrapolating -- to the furthest logical conclusion -- precisely what Sean Carroll (again, the "actual scientist") is implying.
______

I watched it, and you're confused

[seeds]

Anyway, again, the point is that there is a huge difference between the "multiverse" theory and the "many-worlds" theory.

There's no difference. On the surface they appear like different theories. The underlying metaphysical sleight of hand is identical. A combinatorial explosion. In both theories there's instantiation of more worlds/universes happening.

Whether it's one Big Bang immediately branching to create an infinite number of parallel universes; Or Infinite Big Bangs creating 1 universe.

You end up with the exact same configuration.

No, Skepdick, they are not the same.

In the "multiverse" theory, universes "evolve" into whatever it is that qualifies them being dubbed a "universe," of which, allegedly, the vast majority are incapable of manifesting consciousness.

Whereas, on the other hand, in Everett's "many-worlds" theory, literally all of the universes appear to be pre-stocked with conscious beings.
_______

[seeds]

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head.


The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally explored, even to the smallest degree, these ideas you're so emotionally opposed to.

For crying out loud, you grumpy old fart,...

...watch the first 2 minutes of the Sean Carroll (the "actual scientist") lecture video and try to realize that I am simply extrapolating -- to the furthest logical conclusion -- precisely what Sean Carroll (again, the "actual scientist") is implying.
______

Your 'argument' is that an absurdly huge number of worlds would be created. That's irrelevant if the universe is infinite. Oddly, I find someone like Sean Carroll more compelling and thought-provoking.

Not just "created," but, again, created instantly in an ever-expanding, never-ending/omnidirectional EXPLOSION of branching universes.
_______