No, no, no, no, no. No. No. No. Quantum entanglement can not be used to communicate in that manner, on its own. This is well-established, and given the how mathematical the establishment is, it's not going to change anytime soon.
No. No. No. Stop that. No.
"As of our current understanding of quantum mechanics, though, it is impossible to send data using quantum entanglement, preserving the theory of relativity. A lot of work is being done in this area, though, and some physicists believe that faster-than-light communication might be possible with some clever manipulation of entangled particles."
Shame it's so vague about those some physicists!
The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know".
Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?'
Answer A: God makes it happen.
Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun or earth, with respect to each other. The sun "rises" is more an observational effect of a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, having their field of view rotated.
(For the record, answer B can be improved of course, though that's not the point here)
"Simplicity" does not mean a catchall (Answer A). It also does not necessarily mean linguistic brevity either. There is debate around what it means and it's beyond the scope of my comment[1]. This is the problem with string theory, that also tends to be popular among the MWI crowd too. It's overly broad and the math looks pretty, but those are not sufficient conditions for a good scientific theory. (Oblig xkcd [1])
MWI, like string theory, makes little if any falsifiable and testable claims.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
cringe. "Here's a bunch of math so I must be really smart. Trust me guys." Math is awesome, but waving it around as if to automatically lends credibility to your argument is a poor showing IMHO.
Specifically, quantum decoherence is simply not accepted as a thing that exists on a macro scale. You're post presents no claim that is testable, despite the bold headline to the contrary.
Lets look at an example of a what physicists consider to be a falsifiable claim: The Standard Model predicts the existence of a new elementary particle, the Higgs Boson. This could be tested experimentally in theory, and later it was tested in practice, once the capability existed (LHC).
Or another example: orbital mechanics predicts the location of the asteroid Apophis will pass unusually close (<100 000KM) to earth in 2029.[1]
Now of course if Apophis fails to show up, or shows up overly late or in the wrong place etc, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the theory, but there does eventually need to be a credible explanation.
The simplest is usually measurement error, or silly human error etc. But every now and then, there are discrepancies that just don't go away, and those are often the ones that lead interesting new theories pushing science forward.
TBH I don't think your post does that.
The failing of physicists to take your above link seriously, does not epistemically speaking invalidate the claim of course, but it should be pause for concern.
The only well-known interpretation of QM that is experimentally indistinguishable--in theory--from MWI is Bohm's Interpretation. And I think it would be a difficult row to hoe that Bohm's Interpretation is simpler than MWI, as Bohm's universe contains the MWI universe as a subset in the form of pilot waves that never collapse. I.e., the only difference between MWI and Bohm is that in Bohm, one of the "worlds" is granted reality, while the others are not.
Of course, there's nothing in MWI that grants all the worlds reality either. Someone can certainly remain agnostic about that. E.g., Stehphen Hawking has said that MWI is obviously true, though he is agnostic on the reality of the other worlds.
For more information on this, including a tutorial on all the linear algebra that you need to understand, see the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Albert.
Would you mind stating an example of such a claim?
Additionally, there are collapse theories that are much easier to test than consciousness-based ones. By "much easier", I still mean fantastically difficult, but should the day come that one of these collapse theories is proven correct, then MWI will clearly have been falsified.
The executive summary is that it is in theory possible to determine whether a system is in a specific superposition of states, if you know exactly what superposition of states it might be in. So, let's say you wish to see if MWI is true vs a version of Copenhagen that relies on a conscious entity experiencing the results of a measurement in order to cause the wave collapse. If you have an accurate enough model down the very last particle of the entity's brain, and everything else the entity would have to interact with for it to perform an experiment, you can in theory then experiment on the entity to determine if it (plus everything it interacted with) is in the specific superposition of states that MWI would predict.
As I said, not very practical.
Well, David Deutsch argues that it might be practical when the day comes that we have AI's living in quantum computers. (And his experiment is also a bit different from what I described, and a bit more conceivable for us to do with technology we might someday have.) A problem there, is that naysayers will no doubt claim that the AI's aren't conscious.
Also, while Eliezer does sometimes plays with the argument from authority (like in the piece of humour you cited), I have never caught him actually using it to win an argument.
Oh, and one of the points (not the main one!) is to tell that those physicists, with all their authority, are wrong. (Well, at least those in favour of the Copenhagen Interpretation.)
Regarding the rest of your comment, this is addressed in the second linked post.
Well no they probably wouldn't, but my point wasn't about intimidation and not sure how it's relevant.
Personally I'm a huge fan of Bayes theory both theoretically and practically speaking, I'm using it in two side projects I'm currently working on. My only issue was a stylistic quibble with the author, and I will have to accept it if you frame it as humor. I'll grant I probably should have left it out in retrospect, since it deals with interpersonal subject matter.
>Regarding the rest of your comment, this is addressed in the second linked post.
No you haven't I was specifically referring to the second post.
I made two central claims, neither were responded to.[1]
1. Decoherence is not a thing on the macro scale.
2. Physicists do not take your claim that MWI is falsifiable seriously.