Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[accelafine]

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.
_______

Since we are fundamentally 'nothing' then what difference does it make how many 'nothings' there are? Perhaps they should forget about that quantum computer idea. We might all get squished

[Flannel Jesus]

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

What does "forget all the branching nonsense" mean? If you make a quantum measurement - spin up, for example - does the other measurement - spin down - also still exist on the wave function somewhere?

[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.

What does "forget all the branching nonsense" mean? If you make a quantum measurement - spin up, for example - does the other measurement - spin down - also still exist on the wave function somewhere?

Yes. And there is of course no such thing as a "measurement".

[Flannel Jesus]

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

What does "forget all the branching nonsense" mean? If you make a quantum measurement - spin up, for example - does the other measurement - spin down - also still exist on the wave function somewhere?

Yes. And there is of course no such thing as a "measurement".

Ok so if there's a part where the spin is up, and a part where the spin is down, and presumably a conscious you who sees each result, then.... why forget all the branching nonsense? What's the difference between what you're saying, and that?

[Skepdick]

Quantum Mechanics is a theory about this universe. The Many Worlds interpretation...

... the quantum rules of THIS universe...

This universe? These many universes?

Seems pretty obvious that yours isn't a lack of understanding. It's lack of wanting to understand.

Your metaphysic is screwy. And it's not even your fault. It's a common crutch in modern science to pluralize contexts and call it "randomness" instead of "I have no clue what's going on". It's ignorance renamed to sound like some profound principle

[Atla]

What does "forget all the branching nonsense" mean? If you make a quantum measurement - spin up, for example - does the other measurement - spin down - also still exist on the wave function somewhere?

Yes. And there is of course no such thing as a "measurement".

Ok so if there's a part where the spin is up, and a part where the spin is down, and presumably a conscious you who sees each result, then.... why forget all the branching nonsense? What's the difference between what you're saying, and that?

Well okay these are rather two different issues. Imo, most of our interpretations of QM have always been wrong at least twice over.

One issue is that they tried to solve QM in 4 dimensions, MWI fixes that by adding at least one more dimension.

The other issue is the central claim of QM that once we make a measurement, the outcome is fixed from then on. So we had a superposition in the past, then because of the measurement, we have a collapsed state from then on. MWI's branching is just another formulation of this. But this central claim of QM has always been utterly illogical imo, it introduces a temporal asymmetry to nature. But the highest philosophical axiom of all, as far as I'm concerned, is absolute symmetry. QM should be independent of time.

[Atla]

Btw, so far when anyone use ChatGpt to counter my views from a narrow context and I rely on ChatGpt to respond in a wider context, no one has come back with any further counter after that.
Sometimes they would just curse ChatGpt instead.

What a colossal lie. VA's brain simply turns off every time a "wider" counter is presented.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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).

I have never affirmed the above.

Reality is all-there-is, essentially there are cannot be many realities in this sense.
When MWI claims there are many worlds, they are separate worlds within ONE reality, all-there-is.

Philosophical realists like those of the MWI physicists claimed reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

My view:
Whether it is Copenhagen or MWI, ultimate reality [all-there-is] CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
To claim otherwise as an ideology like philosophical realists, that is delusional.

[Flannel Jesus]

Sounds like you have a delusional ideology

[Iwannaplato]

Realist Interpretations
Copenhagen Interpretation: The Copenhagen interpretation, developed by Niels Bohr and others, is often viewed as a realist interpretation in the sense that it accepts the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics as providing a complete description of physical reality, but it emphasizes that this description is necessarily incomplete. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum systems do not have definite properties until they are measured, and the act of measurement causes the wavefunction to collapse to one of the possible outcomes. While it is agnostic about what happens between measurements, it asserts the reality of the measurement outcomes. Thus, while it introduces an element of subjectivity or observer-dependence into quantum mechanics, it still maintains a realist stance regarding the existence of physical systems and their properties.

Many-Worlds Interpretation: The Many-Worlds interpretation, proposed by Hugh Everett III, is also often considered a realist interpretation. It posits that the wavefunction of a quantum system never collapses but instead evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, resulting in a branching of the universe into multiple non-communicating "worlds" or "branches" corresponding to all possible measurement outcomes. Each branch is considered to be as real as any other, and the entire multiverse is viewed as a single, objective reality. While this interpretation leads to a proliferation of parallel universes, it still maintains a realist stance regarding the existence of these universes and their constituents.

Antirealist Interpretations:
Instrumentalist or Pragmatic Views: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics take an antirealist stance, viewing the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics as a tool for making predictions rather than as a description of underlying reality. Instrumentalist views, for example, treat the wavefunction as a calculational device rather than as representing objective states of affairs. These interpretations prioritize the predictive success of quantum mechanics without making ontological claims about the nature of quantum systems.

Quantum Bayesianism: Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, is another antirealist interpretation that emphasizes the subjective nature of quantum probabilities. It regards quantum states as representing an agent's personal degrees of belief or probabilities rather than objective features of the world. QBism rejects the idea of a mind-independent reality and focuses instead on the predictive utility of quantum mechanics for individual agents.

[Iwannaplato]

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).

I have never affirmed the above.

Yes, you have...
viewtopic.php?p=633065#p633065

However,
In the QM FSK, the moon does NOT exists if no humans are 'looking' at it.
One has to shift paradigm and FSK.
In this FSK, the whole moon is taken to be comprised of particles and principle of Wave Function collapse is applicable to each and every particle that make up what is Moon.
'Looking' is not common sense looking but rather, it is humans directing their consciousness at the moon [particle filled] and thus invoking 'measurement' that trigger the Wave Function collapse.

[Iwannaplato]

Sounds like you have a delusional ideology

He's also lying or unaware of what he writes. See my post above.

[Flannel Jesus]

Sounds like you have a delusional ideology

He's also lying or unaware of what he writes. See my post above.

Yeah, it's all smoke and mirrors every time this guy talks about qm. "Everyone has to understand qm exactly the way I do, ignore the fact that the majority of actual physicists disagree with me, ignore the fact that actual physicists themselves don't agree with each other on the correct interpretation, oh and by the way I have no obligation to be remotely consistent or clear in anything I say. Thanks for coming to my TED talk."

[Iwannaplato]

Sounds like you have a delusional ideology

He's also lying or unaware of what he writes. See my post above.

Yeah, it's all smoke and mirrors every time this guy talks about qm. "Everyone has to understand qm exactly the way I do, ignore the fact that the majority of actual physicists disagree with me, ignore the fact that actual physicists themselves don't agree with each other on the correct interpretation, oh and by the way I have no obligation to be remotely consistent or clear in anything I say. Thanks for coming to my TED talk."

After a period of absence I notice a pattern with some of my favorite posters: 1) they don't read well 2) they often quote, but don't really respond to what they quoted. It inspires a response, but not one that deals with what is quoted. 3) they accuse others of what they do.

This kind of behavior shouldn't lead to a discussion, because you have one side interacting with what the other person said, and my favorites not interacting. It can't move forward. Though my favorites can say more things open to critique.

[Atla]

I think you're rejecting what it said to me as narrow because it displeases you. I don't think you're doing it out of rationality or reason. There's nothing narrow about it, it's just correct.

You decide what's narrow or what's wide based on if it agrees with you or not. Nobody counters it because it's a game you made up, a game whose rules you decide. It's a stupid game

You tried to put me down with ChatGpt's answered to your narrow context.

I used the same ChatGpt to counter your narrowed view of the issue in a wider context here;
viewtopic.php?p=713752&sid=54593b206145 ... da#p713752

Do you have a more-wider view to counter my wider view above?

Million dollar question: what did VA counter here, when ChatGPT seems to have simply stated again that there are realist and antirealist interpretations?