Faulty interpretation of MWI?
No.13750497 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>13750653 >>13750682 >>13750995
How does this interpretation of MWI make sense?
>When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state.
Ok, fair enough. Seems logically consistent so far...
>As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action.
And now this interpretation stops making sense. How can "an action have more than one possible outcome"? Only the position of quantum particles has "more than one possible outcome", not macroscopic events. There isn't a 50/50 chance of me "choosing" to carry out an action; that is a deluded and infantile way of seeing the world, totally in contrast with the reality of determinism.
>This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing.
And now it just gets silly. "I was almost hit by a bus, so therefore in another universe I was hit by the bus!" Makes no sense at all. You can't upscale the concept of subatomic particles existing in different positions in parallel universes (which is already slightly preposterous, but not out of the question) to the macroscopic world of every-day physics (for example, pretending that a dice may fall on a different score despite being thrown in an identical way).
>When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state.
Ok, fair enough. Seems logically consistent so far...
>As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action.
And now this interpretation stops making sense. How can "an action have more than one possible outcome"? Only the position of quantum particles has "more than one possible outcome", not macroscopic events. There isn't a 50/50 chance of me "choosing" to carry out an action; that is a deluded and infantile way of seeing the world, totally in contrast with the reality of determinism.
>This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing.
And now it just gets silly. "I was almost hit by a bus, so therefore in another universe I was hit by the bus!" Makes no sense at all. You can't upscale the concept of subatomic particles existing in different positions in parallel universes (which is already slightly preposterous, but not out of the question) to the macroscopic world of every-day physics (for example, pretending that a dice may fall on a different score despite being thrown in an identical way).
