Free will and the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM

[seeds]

What is 'nonsensical' about it to you?

Right or wrong, I nevertheless went to great lengths in an alternate thread...

viewtopic.php?p=713576#p713576

...to explain why I believe the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM (MWI) is nonsensical.

And in regard to Schrödinger's cat, well, if it is nonsense to think that copies of our entire universe spring into existence to accommodate every possible alternative outcome to that which we experience in this universe,...

...then that automatically rules-out the existence of an alternate world where the cat is dead after we found it alive when we opened the box in our world.
_______

I saw it back when you posted it. I didn't see any explanation why you think it's nonsensical other than that you 'feel' it to be so.

You're kidding, right?

The entire post was one extremely long explanation of why I think the MWI is nonsensical.

Did you just skim over it or something?

Anyway, how about you tell me how and why you think the MWI makes sense to you?

And, no, it will not suffice to say that you like it because Sean Carrol promotes it, and you trust Sean Carrol.
_______

[seeds]

I saw it back when you posted it. I didn't see any explanation why you think it's nonsensical other than that you 'feel' it to be so.

Yup.

So, you also didn't see any explanation?

Come on guys, stop passing judgment on the messenger and, instead, address the message.

In other words, tell me why you think it is logical to believe that billions of copies of us and this entire universe just now sprang into existence (branched off of our universe) due to the interaction that just took place between your eyeballs and the photons of light emitted by your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence?
_______

[accelafine]

Right or wrong, I nevertheless went to great lengths in an alternate thread...

viewtopic.php?p=713576#p713576

...to explain why I believe the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM (MWI) is nonsensical.

And in regard to Schrödinger's cat, well, if it is nonsense to think that copies of our entire universe spring into existence to accommodate every possible alternative outcome to that which we experience in this universe,...

...then that automatically rules-out the existence of an alternate world where the cat is dead after we found it alive when we opened the box in our world.
_______

I saw it back when you posted it. I didn't see any explanation why you think it's nonsensical other than that you 'feel' it to be so.

You're kidding, right?

The entire post was one extremely long explanation of why I think the MWI is nonsensical.

Did you just skim over it or something?

Anyway, how about you tell me how and why you think the MWI makes sense to you?

And, no, it will not suffice to say that you like it because Sean Carrol promotes it, and you trust Sean Carrol.
_______

I did read it. It was just you saying it's nonsensical. Why should I take your word for that over Sean Carroll's? The only senisble approach is to have an open mind about all of the equally plausible theories circulating. Do you have one to add?

[seeds]

I saw it back when you posted it. I didn't see any explanation why you think it's nonsensical other than that you 'feel' it to be so.

You're kidding, right?

The entire post was one extremely long explanation of why I think the MWI is nonsensical.

Did you just skim over it or something?

Anyway, how about you tell me how and why you think the MWI makes sense to you?

And, no, it will not suffice to say that you like it because Sean Carrol promotes it, and you trust Sean Carrol.
_______

I did read it. It was just you saying it's nonsensical.

Again, are you kidding me?

So then, are you telling me that the only thing that appeared on the device you are using to read the post I linked you to was nothing more than a one-line sentence that said the MWI is nonsensical?

Are you saying that my post did not display any representative images of the universe, and said nothing about a shaken bottle of warm champagne?

Why should I take your word for that over Sean Carroll's?

Why do you think I stated the following in my last post to you?

And, no, it will not suffice to say that you like it because Sean Carrol promotes it, and you trust Sean Carrol.

It's because I want to hear your reasoning for how and why you believe in the plausibility of the MWI, not Carrol's.

The only senisble approach is to have an open mind about all of the equally plausible theories circulating.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Do you have one to add?

Of course I have one to add.

What do you think I've been boring the members of this forum with for the last 8 years?
_______

[accelafine]

You're kidding, right?

The entire post was one extremely long explanation of why I think the MWI is nonsensical.

Did you just skim over it or something?

Anyway, how about you tell me how and why you think the MWI makes sense to you?

And, no, it will not suffice to say that you like it because Sean Carrol promotes it, and you trust Sean Carrol.
_______

I did read it. It was just you saying it's nonsensical.

Again, are you kidding me?

So then, are you telling me that the only thing that appeared on the device you are using to read the post I linked you to was nothing more than a one-line sentence that said the MWI is nonsensical?

Are you saying that my post did not display any representative images of the universe, and said nothing about a shaken bottle of warm champagne?

Why should I take your word for that over Sean Carroll's?

Why do you think I stated the following in my last post to you?

And, no, it will not suffice to say that you like it because Sean Carrol promotes it, and you trust Sean Carrol.

It's because I want to hear your reasoning for how and why you believe in the plausibility of the MWI, not Carrol's.

The only senisble approach is to have an open mind about all of the equally plausible theories circulating.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Do you have one to add?

Of course I have one to add.

What do you think I've been boring the members of this forum with for the last 8 years?
_______

Yes, I saw the champagne thingy etc.
I must have missed your 'theory'. Could you post a link to it?

[attofishpi]

Many Worlds is bollocks

[seeds]

Yes, I saw the champagne thingy etc.
I must have missed your 'theory'. Could you post a link to it?

I'm not sure what to link you to in this forum, for I've tried to explain it in hundreds of posts over the years.

However, if you are truly interested, then perhaps the best bet would be a link to my website which contains a large portion of the contents of a 285-page, highly illustrated book that I self-published back in 2008 which lays out my theory. The book is titled:

"THE ULTIMATE SEEDS: An Illustrated Guide to the Secret of the Universe"

http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

And don't worry, you don't have to read a lot if you don't want to, for there are tons of illustrations to look at that (hopefully) get the point across.

And just to maybe pique your interest, here is a review of the book by one of the judges in the Writer's Digest, 16th annual international self-published book contest...

"The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....The sheer amounts of time and thought that went into this book are breathtaking. The author is equally at ease with words and images: his talent for metaphor extends to a talent for metaphorical visuals. The illustrations both supplement and illuminate the text, and add a great deal to the book."

_______

[accelafine]

Yes, I saw the champagne thingy etc.
I must have missed your 'theory'. Could you post a link to it?

I'm not sure what to link you to in this forum, for I've tried to explain it in hundreds of posts over the years.

However, if you are truly interested, then perhaps the best bet would be a link to my website which contains a large portion of the contents of a 285-page, highly illustrated book that I self-published back in 2008 which lays out my theory. The book is titled:

"THE ULTIMATE SEEDS: An Illustrated Guide to the Secret of the Universe"

http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

And don't worry, you don't have to read a lot if you don't want to, for there are tons of illustrations to look at that (hopefully) get the point across.

And just to maybe pique your interest, here is a review of the book by one of the judges in the Writer's Digest, 16th annual international self-published book contest...

"The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....The sheer amounts of time and thought that went into this book are breathtaking. The author is equally at ease with words and images: his talent for metaphor extends to a talent for metaphorical visuals. The illustrations both supplement and illuminate the text, and add a great deal to the book."

_______

I think I'll pass. I prefer to read the works of actual physicists. In the meantime you might enjoy this video. She's very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU

[seeds]

I think I'll pass.

If you didn't actually want a link to my theory, then why did you ask for one?

I prefer to read the works of actual physicists.

So did I, which is why I exposed myself to the works (and personal philosophical theories) of many actual physicists years ago.

In the meantime you might enjoy this video. She's very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU

Ah,...got it,...I'm a crackpot (and the thing is, I don't deny that possibility).

Why are you here?
_______

[accelafine]

I think I'll pass.

If you didn't actually want a link to my theory, then why did you ask for one?

I prefer to read the works of actual physicists.

So did I, which is why I exposed myself to the works (and personal philosophical theories) of many actual physicists years ago.

In the meantime you might enjoy this video. She's very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU

Ah,...got it,...I'm a crackpot (and the thing is, I don't deny that possibility).

Why are you here?
_______

You don't have a theory. A picture of champagne popping out of a bottle isn't a theory. Do you have maths to back any of it up? What exactly am I being asked to read?

I suspect you are more likely to be interested in someone like Donald Hoffman, but he does have the maths to back up his theory. I really like listening to him. HIs ideas on consciousness are intriguing.

As for 'why I'm here'. It's none of your business and has nothing to do with the price of fish.

[Flannel Jesus]

You don't have a theory. A picture of champagne popping out of a bottle isn't a theory.

The nerve to post a picture of a Champaign bottle and then refer back to it months (or years?) later as if it was some unignorable intellectual moment!

Did you see my picture of a champagne bottle? Huh? How you gonna deal with that?

The conversation is absurd.

[Fairy]

One is, “how many?” If it’s “infinite,” then the chance of any one outcome (say, a habitable Earth of our kind) is infinitely improbable, by definition: for whatever state one posits, there is always an infinite number of other ways things could be. So the “infinite worlds” explanation turns out not to be an “explanation” of anything at all, because it doesn’t any longer “explain” why this particular world exists, and not another.

One is just another word for infinite. The “many” of the one, is just another word for finite.
The many ( finite) of the infinite one, is a finite, temporal, transient appearance of the infinite. A finite appearance known also must include a disappearance and reappearance. Worlds come and go within the one infinite knowing consciousness which never comes and goes, being birthless and deathless.

“Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

Because nothing is known of nothing. Nothing is only a concept known within the only knowing there is which is consciousness, or aliveness. Only aliveness is experienced. There’s no such experience as a state of not being alive.So death is never experienced, only aliveness is experienced. That’s why in conscious knowing, there is always something rather than nothing.

The world, is just one little star or planet, or whatever celestial body one wants to call it. There are many celestial bodies as there are universes. The evidence is seen in the amount of celestial bodies including the human body, that are within this known immediate seeing, known as infinite consciousness.

[Fairy]

“Everything you seek is waiting patiently within, for growing old is only going back to where you’ve been”

“ Try to imagine what it will be like to go to sleep and never wake up. Now imagine what it was like to wake up having never gone to sleep “

[accelafine]

Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.

I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me...

You're not alone, Harbal, for neither do any the people doing the experiments have all of the answers to the various questions that occur to them.

Indeed, that's what the "measurement problem" is all about.

That's why we have the "Many Worlds" nonsense, and the nonsense about cats that are both alive and dead at the same time.
_______

Why did you take down your link? I thought I'd have a look after all.

The cat isn't dead and alive at the same time. It's neither dead or alive while it's in 'superposition'. There is only a probability of 50/50 of it being dead or alive.

[attofishpi]

If I did the experiment the cat would be dead. I'm shit at experiments.