Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[Flannel Jesus]

His wording implies they're separate even when they're identical.

That's another one of them... contradiction things.

Identity implies inability to distinguish. Separate implies a distinction accomplished.

Example: 1 = 1

The "1" on the left is the same, but it is not identical to the "1" on the right.

If they were identical they wouldn't be distinguishable/identifiable by "left" and "right"

Which is why he was wrong to imply they're separate when they're identical, glad we can agree on that.

[Flannel Jesus]

many worlds is about this universe.

What?

many
/ˈmɛni/
determiner · adjective
a large number of.

A large number of this universe?

What does that even mean?

What does "a large number of worlds in this universe" even mean?

[seeds]

The quote I quoted doesn't say completely separate after the branching, it's talking about them as if they're completely separate the whole time, even when they're exactly the same.

I don't know what you mean.

You're talking about separate universes AFTER a split, he's talking about separate universes that are separate BEFORE a split.

"one would have to presume that all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in the completely separate universe in which Carroll's copy jumped to the left, would have somehow managed to stay in perfect synchronization"

Do you see that?

Please pay attention to the conversation before you jump to false conclusions, for that quote was in direct response to Atla suggesting that the MWI...

...claims that all the worlds of the many worlds have been there all along.

In which case, in order for Carrols little splitting demonstration to be plausible, there would have to be an amazing synchronization taking place between the inner constituents of all of the universes when, in fact, by reason of the implications of the MWI theory itself, all of the universes would be different from one another due to different outcomes of the splitting process (as in Carroll jumps to the left in one and to the right in the other).

The point was, how could they...

(and when I say "they," I'm talking about the inner workings of separate universes that consist of trillions of suns and planets with all of the near infinite range of dynamic processes [heat, cold, gravity, random collisions of asteroids, free will decisions made by conscious beings, etc., etc.] implied in that scenario)

...again, how could they possibly stay in synchronization with each other over time (a hundred years? a thousand years? a million years? a billion years?) in order to facilitate Carroll's thought experiment if, again, by reason of the implications of the theory itself, the universes are literally different from one another.

Again, please try to pay attention to the narrative.
_______

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm apparently the only one paying attention. They're not "staying in synchronization" with each other - they're just the same thing. They aren't 2 things in sync, they're one thing. Nothing Sean Caroll said implied otherwise.

Even if they were somehow "separate", it's not a given that that's nonsensical anyway. If there are countless worlds, of course some of them are going to be the same as other ones. If I have 50 coins, and I flip each of them 8 times, some of the coins are going to have the exact same sequence of flips. I don't conceptualize it as "always-existing separate universes that happen to be the same", and I don't like that conceptualization for various reasons, but it's not a given that with countless worlds, you can't have many with the same history.

[Atla]

I don't know what you mean.

You're talking about separate universes AFTER a split, he's talking about separate universes that are separate BEFORE a split.

"one would have to presume that all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in the completely separate universe in which Carroll's copy jumped to the left, would have somehow managed to stay in perfect synchronization"

Do you see that?

Please pay attention to the conversation before you jump to false conclusions, for that quote was in direct response to Atla suggesting that the MWI...

...claims that all the worlds of the many worlds have been there all along.

In which case, in order for Carrols little splitting demonstration to be plausible, there would have to be an amazing synchronization taking place between the inner constituents of all of the universes when, in fact, by reason of the implications of the MWI theory itself, all of the universes would be different from one another due to different outcomes of the splitting process (as in Carroll jumps to the left in one and to the right in the other).

The point was, how could they...

(and when I say "they," I'm talking about the inner workings of separate universes that consist of trillions of suns and planets with all of the near infinite range of dynamic processes [heat, cold, gravity, random collisions of asteroids, free will decisions made by conscious beings, etc., etc.] implied in that scenario)

...again, how could they possibly stay in synchronization with each other over time (a hundred years? a thousand years? a million years? a billion years?) in order to facilitate Carroll's thought experiment if, again, by reason of the implications of the theory itself, the universes are literally different from one another.

Again, please try to pay attention to the narrative.
_______

But why did you reject the MWI immediately, instead of just fixing this bug in it? After the bugfix, all the branches are seen to be always in sync, irregardless of how much branching (or rather apparent branching) is taking place.

[Flannel Jesus]

The lesson to learn from this thread is, there are interpretations within interpretations of every interpretation of quantum mechanics.

VA likes to interpret the Copenhagen interpretation as saying consciousness causes collapse - but not all copenhagenists do that (and most in fact don't).

Seeds likes to interpret MWI as either "duplicating the entire universe instantaneously" or "a bunch of separate universes which remain miraculously in sync", and other people who actually like the MWI often don't like either one of those descriptions.

[Atla]

And I would agree with that. But he wouldn't. His wording doesn't imply that. Which is why I said "I don't think any of that matches what mwi peeps believe." His wording implies they're separate even when they're identical, and that's not it.

No, imo he said that they were not separate before, and should remain not separate after. Which I agree with. Such temporal assymetry is an obvious inconsistency in MWI, but then again in all of physics.

Okay, it honestly doesn't even seem like we're reading the same quote at this point. I don't think we can get anywhere.

Which is probably for the better, this is all a side track.

I think the fault is with the MWI this time, as there is no correct way of interpreting a contradiction, exactly because it's a contradiction.

[Skepdick]

What does "a large number of worlds in this universe" even mean?

Yes. The words "world" and "universe" (and "reality", and "existence" and "cosmos") are synonymous and interchangeable.

What does "a large number of worlds in this world" even mean?
What does "a large number of universes in this universe" even mean?
What does "a large number of realities in this reality" even mean?
What does "a large number of cosmoses in this cosmos" even mean?
What does "a large number of existences in this existence" even mean?

[Skepdick]

Which is why he was wrong to imply they're separate when they're identical, glad we can agree on that.

We aren't agreeing. I am pointing out that "They are identical" is still a contradiction.

they
/ðeɪ/
pronoun
1.
used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

TWO things can be "the same" in some abstract sense of sameness but they can never be identical.

[Flannel Jesus]

What does "a large number of worlds in this universe" even mean?

Yes. The words "world" and "universe" (and "reality", and "existence" and "cosmos") are synonymous and interchangeable.

What does "a large number of worlds in this world" even mean?
What does "a large number of universes in this universe" even mean?
What does "a large number of realities in this reality" even mean?
What does "a large number of cosmoses in this cosmos" even mean?
What does "a large number of existences in this existence" even mean?

Quantum Mechanics is a theory about this universe. The Many Worlds interpretation takes the quantum wave functions and the schrodinger equation and says, those things are real (or real enough, anyway), they're really happening, and the consequence of that is, the quantum rules of THIS universe produce alternate quantum paths, which can no longer interfere with each other after certain conditions are met due to Decoherence.

It's a theory about THIS universe, not other universes. If it's true about this universe - if the wave function is ontologically real (or real enough) and superposition really happens, then THIS universe has those non-interfering quantum paths which have decohered from each other.

[seeds]

I'm apparently the only one paying attention. They're not "staying in synchronization" with each other - they're just the same thing. They aren't 2 things in sync, they're one thing. Nothing Sean Caroll said implied otherwise.

How can they possibly be the "same thing" when according to this famous thought experiment...





...which was designed to debunk this many-worlds nonsense, you have a live cat in one world, scratching your hand and snatching the fish off your dinner plate,...

...while its alleged copy is dead and rotting away in the ground of the world it supposedly branched-off into?

How can these universes be the "same thing" if the copy of Sean Carroll who jumped to the right in this universe went on to give more lectures and write more books,...

...while the "copy" of Sean Carrol who jumped to the left in that other universe, didn't realize that by jumping to the left in that other universe, he was jumping off the edge of a thousand-foot cliff and died after hitting the bottom of a ravine?

Again, how can these worlds be the "same thing"?
_______

[Flannel Jesus]

How can these universes be the "same thing" if the copy of Sean Carroll who jumped to the right in this universe went on to give more lectures and write more books,...

...while the "copy" of Sean Carrol who jumped to the left in that other universe, didn't realize that by jumping to the left in that other universe, he was jumping off the edge of a thousand-foot cliff and died after hitting the bottom of a ravine?

Again, how can these worlds be the "same thing"?

Again, you're mixing up when you're talking about universes BEFORE a quantum split vs AFTER.

As soon as you start being consistent in what you're talking about, the answer will be consistent as well.

Notice how in the film reel of that picture, BEFORE the quantum split, there's only 1 film real, not 2.

AFTER, there is 2.

Every time I said 'same thing', I was explicitly talking about BEFORE. They're not 'in sychronization' with each other AFTER the split, are they? This whole 'in sychronization' thing can only be talking about before.

[seeds]

How can these universes be the "same thing" if the copy of Sean Carroll who jumped to the right in this universe went on to give more lectures and write more books,...

...while the "copy" of Sean Carrol who jumped to the left in that other universe, didn't realize that by jumping to the left in that other universe, he was jumping off the edge of a thousand-foot cliff and died after hitting the bottom of a ravine?

Again, how can these worlds be the "same thing"?

Again, you're mixing up when you're talking about universes BEFORE a quantum split vs AFTER.

As soon as you start being consistent in what you're talking about, the answer will be consistent as well.

Notice how in the film reel of that picture, BEFORE the quantum split, there's only 1 film real, not 2.

AFTER, there is 2.

Every time I said 'same thing', I was explicitly talking about BEFORE. They're not 'in sychronization' with each other AFTER the split, are they? This whole 'in sychronization' thing can only be talking about before.

Are you completely incapable of following the narrative?

I told you that the bit about the universes needing to be in precise synchronization with each other was based on Atla's insistence that the many-worlds of the MWI "...have been there all along...".

Btw, are you defending the MWI because you actually believe it's true? Or, are you simply defending it in a role of playing devil's advocate for its plausibility?

Either way, it still brings us back full circle to my initial post...

viewtopic.php?p=713576#p713576

...and the fact that if one wants to promote the MWI as being a possibility, then one...

(that's one with at least two working brain cells)

,,,will have to accept that ultimate (material) reality consists of an ever-expanding, never-ending/omnidirectional EXPLOSION of instantaneously branching universes.

If you're okay with something that is infinitely more ridiculous than anything a theist would propose, then so be it.

Furthermore, if you keep insisting that the "real scientists" such as Sean Carroll or Max Tegmark do not claim such a thing, then regardless of how nerdy intelligent they may be, it is obvious that they haven't extrapolated the implications of the MWI to their furthest and most logical conclusions.

Indeed, if they had done so, then they (and you) would be hard-pressed to refute my "Tiny Toot" theory.
_______

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm sure they'll get right on refuting a "tiny toot theory" from some random on the internet.

[Atla]

What I consider to be the "essential" MWI, is actually pretty simple to describe: QM is the 5th dimension. Forget all that branching nonsense.

We are 4-dimensional beings looking at a 4-dimensional slice of the 5-dimensional world. QM is how the 5th dimensional behaviour looks like in our slice.