Poll: Is MWI bonkers?

[Geoff Dann]

Sean Carroll describes the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. (5 mins):

The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics is a realist, deterministic interpretation proposed by Hugh Everett III in 1957. It aims to resolve the measurement problem without invoking wave function collapse.

Core Ideas of MWI:​

1. Universal Wave Function:
   The wave function of the universe evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation, with no collapse.
2. Branching of Worlds:
   Every time a quantum measurement or interaction occurs with multiple possible outcomes, the universe branches. Each possible outcome is realized in a separate, non-communicating "world."
3. Superposition Is Real:
   All components of a superposition correspond to real, distinct outcomes—each exists in a different branch.
4. No Special Role for Observers:
   Consciousness does not cause collapse. Observers are part of the quantum system and also become entangled and branched.
5. Probability as Subjective:
   Since all outcomes happen, probabilities are understood in terms of subjective uncertainty or decision theory (e.g., the Born rule emerges from rational behavior across branches—per some proponents).

Implications:​

• Solves the Measurement Problem without invoking collapse or hidden variables.
• No Randomness in fundamental laws—only deterministic evolution.
• All Outcomes Exist, leading to a vast (perhaps infinite) number of parallel worlds.

Criticisms:​

• Ontology Overload: Requires a huge number of unobservable worlds.
• Preferred Basis Problem: What defines a “branch” or world?
• Born Rule Derivation: It's controversial whether MWI can recover the usual quantum probabilities without additional assumptions.

In summary, MWI asserts that quantum events cause the universe to split into many branches, each representing a different possible outcome, and all of them are equally real.

 

[billslugg]

Since these new worlds cannot be communicated with, the theory cannot be tested. This belongs in a religious forum.

 

[promytius]

I'll vote when anyone from any multiple world gets back to us.

 

[billslugg]

I left a note on their door. I'm sure they'll find it when they take their milk in tomorrow morning.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Since these new worlds cannot be communicated with, the theory cannot be tested. This belongs in a religious forum.

It is metaphysics, so philosophy rather than religion.

The only reason people believe it is because they've concluded all the other options they've been offered are even worse.

 

[billslugg]

The limits to human knowledge would be a good discussion. For example, we can't have other universes because they would be part of the universe. By the same token, we cannot know what happened before the universe existed or that happening would be part of the universe.

 

[Geoff Dann]

The limits to human knowledge would be a good discussion. For example, we can't have other universes because they would be part of the universe. By the same token, we cannot know what happened before the universe existed or that happening would be part of the universe.

Epistemology is my subject. My forthcoming book is primarily listed as being about epistemology, with cosmology as the second category.

2PC comes with an epistemological system called the New Epistemic Deal. It is a new form of neo-Kantianism -- absolutely about the limits to knowledge.

But I believe that is against the rules of this sub?

 

[COLGeek]

Self-promotion/advertising, in any way, is prohibited.