Comment by eli_gottlieb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli_gottlieb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So if you mean: "The many-worlds interpretation of QM explains nothing more than any other interpretation of QM does, and therefore it's surprising that intelligent people take the many-worlds interpretation seriously", I think that's wrong. But perhaps what you're surprised that people take seriously is some other thing like, e.g., some particular application of the anthropic principle that appeals to "many worlds"?

Both of these, actually.

I see no reason that reality has to be neatly explainable to our tiny little human minds. Why should I consider unfalsifiable metaphysics to be in the domain of science at all, rather than the domain of religious speculation?

[1] Actually, that's maybe slightly debatable; it depends on fine details of what you understand by "explain". For instance: any theorem in pure mathematics is logically necessary[2] and therefore has no observable consequences that you couldn't derive without it -- but it still seems reasonable to say, e.g., that a proof that even-length palindromes have to be multiples of 11 "explains" why I've never seen a palindromic prime number with 4, 6, 8, ... digits. So the fact that QM (many worlds) has no extra observable consequences beyond "uninterpreted" QM might not be enough to guarantee that it doesn't explain anything.

That's the issue of falsifiability. That theorem falsifies all predictions of a palindromic prime number with 2*n for n > 1 digits.

>I see no reason that reality has to be neatly explainable to our tiny little human minds.

It doesn't. But using the best approximations that our human minds have come up with has produced good results so far, I don't see a reason to give up and say that we will never understand it.

Regarding the many worlds interpretation. For me, it arose naturally out of the equations we use to describe quantum mechanics (actually quantum computers, but the physics is the same). Assume that a particle is in an even superposition of 2 states. This can be represented by: (|a> + |b>)/sqrt(2), meaning that their is a 50% chance of observing a, and a 50% chance of observing b. When it interacts with another particle, they are said to become entangled. Assume the interaction is such that both particles would be in the same state. The state of the two particle system is now (|aa> + |bb>)/sqrt(2).

Note that the state of the second particle is a superposition of the two states. However, consider this from the perspective of the first particle, when it is in the 'a' state. The second particle is in the 'a' state as well. Similarly, when the first particle is in the 'b' state, the second is as well. However, neither particle can observe that the other one (or itself) is in a superposition. As these particles continue to interact, more particles become entangled. Eventually the researcher and equipment become entangled as well. At this point, the equipment can no longer detect that the particles are in a superposition anymore. However, from the perspective of a particle not entangled, it is clear that their is a superposition.

The many worlds interpenetration comes from the fact that when you use this model to describe the interaction of all of the particles, the superposition never dissapears. Rather, you are left with a superposition of many different states of the world (Universe), which, if measured, would randomly collapse to one of them (or entangle observer).

Why should I consider unfalsifiable metaphysics to be in the domain of science at all, rather than the domain of religious speculation?

Today's 'unfalsifiable metaphysics' is tomorrow's Physics.

Neil deGrass Tyson makes a compelling point[0] that:

"But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance".

He then goes on to show examples where Greats such as Newton proclaim some aspect of their work as only knowable by God, but then those same issues are tackled later by people who are unsatisfied by God as an explanation.

[0] http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimet...

Well, if you've got an experiment that can distinguish MW Interpretation of QM from other interpretations of QM, go ahead and propose it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com