Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Is The MW Interpretation Of QM Absurd?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 3:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event. That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:00:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event.

In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes.

That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it

This is false. In the MW interpretation, every second, a billion, times a billion, times a billion universes are created regardless of any specific path chosen. Every path no matter how unlikely or likely it would be if there was only one universe, plays out in some other world and it would be just as likely as an event which would be considered probable if there was only one universe. Since there is no way to know whether we live in one of those worlds, where something occurs that would be extremely unlikely if there was only world, then there would be no reason to be suspicious if someone won Black Jack 7 times in a row by chance as a Many Worlder.

, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

This conclusion is based on a false premise. I suggest you read this if you want to learn more about the problems with probability and the MW interpretation:

http://arxiv.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:40:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event.

In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes.

I don't understand why that would refute my assertion.


That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it

This is false. In the MW interpretation, every second, a billion, times a billion, times a billion universes are created regardless of any specific path chosen. Every path no matter how unlikely or likely it would be if there was only one universe, plays out in some other world and it would be just as likely as an event which would be considered probable if there was only one universe. Since there is no way to know whether we live in one of those worlds, where something occurs that would be extremely unlikely if there was only world, then there would be no reason to be suspicious if someone won Black Jack 7 times in a row by chance as a Many Worlder.

Hence, probability.


, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

This conclusion is based on a false premise. I suggest you read this if you want to learn more about the problems with probability and the MW interpretation:

http://arxiv.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:45:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:40:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 6:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event.

In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes.

I don't understand why that would refute my assertion.

Your assertion didn't even undermine my assertion to begin with. I didn't assume someone winning 7 times in a row was a quantum event; that was a straw-man.



That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it

This is false. In the MW interpretation, every second, a billion, times a billion, times a billion universes are created regardless of any specific path chosen. Every path no matter how unlikely or likely it would be if there was only one universe, plays out in some other world and it would be just as likely as an event which would be considered probable if there was only one universe. Since there is no way to know whether we live in one of those worlds, where something occurs that would be extremely unlikely if there was only world, then there would be no reason to be suspicious if someone won Black Jack 7 times in a row by chance as a Many Worlder.


Hence, probability.

Events that would be unlikely if there was only one world, would be just as likely as things that would be likely if there was only one world. So not only could you not know that you weren't living in the type of universe I was discussing, you couldn't even make a probability argument.



, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

This conclusion is based on a false premise. I suggest you read this if you want to learn more about the problems with probability and the MW interpretation:

http://arxiv.org...

Read the paper.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wouldn't it just be unlikely that this universe is the one where he wins black jack 7 times in a row?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:47:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event. That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

The MWI treats the macroscopic world as a quantum system.

"The many-worlds interpretation takes seriously the fact that the observer is a quantum mechanical system. Not only does an orange have multiple positions it could be in, but the observer has different possibilities, and they are also described by a quantum mechanical superposition."- Sean Carroll
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:55:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:45:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 6:40:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 6:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event.

In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes.

I don't understand why that would refute my assertion.

Your assertion didn't even undermine my assertion to begin with. I didn't assume someone winning 7 times in a row was a quantum event; that was a straw-man.

lol... My assertion was that you were treating it like one. Once again, why does " In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes" refute that assertion.



That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it

This is false. In the MW interpretation, every second, a billion, times a billion, times a billion universes are created regardless of any specific path chosen. Every path no matter how unlikely or likely it would be if there was only one universe, plays out in some other world and it would be just as likely as an event which would be considered probable if there was only one universe. Since there is no way to know whether we live in one of those worlds, where something occurs that would be extremely unlikely if there was only world, then there would be no reason to be suspicious if someone won Black Jack 7 times in a row by chance as a Many Worlder.


Hence, probability.

Events that would be unlikely if there was only one world, would be just as likely as things that would be likely if there was only one world. So not only could you not know that you weren't living in the type of universe I was discussing, you couldn't even make a probability argument.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.




, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

This conclusion is based on a false premise. I suggest you read this if you want to learn more about the problems with probability and the MW interpretation:

http://arxiv.org...

Read the paper.

bleh
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 6:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:45:27 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Wouldn't it just be unlikely that this universe is the one where he wins black jack 7 times in a row?

^ this is pretty much my argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 7:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:45:27 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Wouldn't it just be unlikely that this universe is the one where he wins black jack 7 times in a row?

No. The whole point is that you cannot even make a probability argument, as worlds where someone wins at black jack 7 times in a row are just as likely as a world where that did not happen.

In the many-worlds interpretations (MWIs) of Everett and others, if I am the observer, there are several versions of me but no version is singled out as the one corresponding to my perceptions. However, it can be shown that the probability law implies one version must be singled out. Thus MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 7:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:59:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 6:45:27 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Wouldn't it just be unlikely that this universe is the one where he wins black jack 7 times in a row?

^ this is pretty much my argument.

Which I already shut down, and you didn't understand.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 7:03:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because a world where I win at black jack 7 times in a row by chance is just as likely as a world where I only win 1 by chance; the MWI is absurd.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 7:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:47:29 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event. That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

The MWI treats the macroscopic world as a quantum system.

"The many-worlds interpretation takes seriously the fact that the observer is a quantum mechanical system. Not only does an orange have multiple positions it could be in, but the observer has different possibilities, and they are also described by a quantum mechanical superposition."- Sean Carroll

Yes, but a totally different kind of quantum system.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 7:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 7:03:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Because a world where I win at black jack 7 times in a row by chance is just as likely as a world where I only win 1 by chance; the MWI is absurd.

You are confusing the concept "win at black jack 7 times in a row" with "win at black jack 7 times in some specific and exact way". MWI only says that "winning 7 times in a row as a result of a certain course of action" is as likely as "winning once as a result of a certain course of action".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 7:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 7:30:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 7:03:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Because a world where I win at black jack 7 times in a row by chance is just as likely as a world where I only win 1 by chance; the MWI is absurd.

You are confusing the concept "win at black jack 7 times in a row" with "win at black jack 7 times in some specific and exact way". MWI only says that "winning 7 times in a row as a result of a certain course of action" is as likely as "winning once as a result of a certain course of action".

This is the problem; any action is as likely as any action; thus you cannot make probability arguments such as; "person A is cheating, because this would be too unlikely for this to happen by chance".

You have no basis for that in the MWI. Thus, it must be rejected:

"In the many-worlds interpretations (MWIs) of Everett and others, if I am the observer, there are several versions of me but no version is singled out as the one corresponding to my perceptions. However, it can be shown that the probability law implies one version must be singled out. Thus MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse, which singles out one version of the observer as the perceiving version." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 6:52:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

MWI is hopelessly absurd, but that isn't why.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 6:55:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 3:50:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]

That statement clearly misses the point, if you supplement MWI with hidden variables or collapse, then it isn't MWY anymore.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 7:24:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 6:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event.

In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes.

That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it

This is false. In the MW interpretation, every second, a billion, times a billion, times a billion universes are created regardless of any specific path chosen. Every path no matter how unlikely or likely it would be if there was only one universe, plays out in some other world and it would be just as likely as an event which would be considered probable if there was only one universe. Since there is no way to know whether we live in one of those worlds, where something occurs that would be extremely unlikely if there was only world, then there would be no reason to be suspicious if someone won Black Jack 7 times in a row by chance as a Many Worlder.

Your analysis is inconsistent because you are jumping reference frames, you are taking no probabilistic distinctions of winning seven times in a row and then applying probability distinctions to the casino owner. There would also be no reason to think the casino owner would be suspicious or not, it's just as equally likely that the particular world happens to be one where the casino owner is suspicious of seven wins in a row. All outcomes are equally likely, there is no basis for a "Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation" anything, the only therefore you get is therefore everything.

That's one of the many problems with MWI, it gives no basis for reasoning, predictions, or anything else, everything just is, it has no explanatory power whatsoever....it's completely useless.

A theory that predicts everything isn't predicting anything.

, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

This conclusion is based on a false premise. I suggest you read this if you want to learn more about the problems with probability and the MW interpretation:

http://arxiv.org...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:48:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

I think Phil Ivey is part of he MW theory

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

or maybe he read the back of the cards, Clever guy tho.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 11:14:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 6:55:10 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:50:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]

That statement clearly misses the point, if you supplement MWI with hidden variables or collapse, then it isn't MWY anymore.

No sh*t sherlock that is the whole point lol We have to supplement the MWI with another interpretation because the MWI fails.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 11:15:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 6:52:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

MWI is hopelessly absurd, but that isn't why.

It is one one of the reasons why.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 11:23:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 7:24:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/9/2014 6:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/9/2014 5:47:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:15:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Imagine you are a Casino owner who also believes in the MW (Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, also imagine your security has their eye on a potential cheater. They have good reason to believe he is cheating because he just won 7 times in a row at Black Jack (nobody wins 7 in a row at Black Jack by chance alone). If the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then you have no reason to be suspicious. This is because worlds where where that person only wins once due to luck, are just as likely as a worlds where he wins 7 times in a row due to luck. Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation, there is nothing remarkable about someone who wins 7 times in a row when playing Black Jack. He would tell his security that the person is just as suspicious as one who never wins! Therefore, the MW interpretation is absurd. Thoughts?

This argument isn't valid. It treats winning 7 times in a row as a quantum event when, in fact, it is a composition event.

In the MW interpretation, full universes split off; not just the quantum world of those universes.

That is, the event of winning 7 times in a row can be fulfilled through numerous paths, as can its non-fulfillment. However, the latter possibility (not winning 7 times in a row) has more paths leading to it

This is false. In the MW interpretation, every second, a billion, times a billion, times a billion universes are created regardless of any specific path chosen. Every path no matter how unlikely or likely it would be if there was only one universe, plays out in some other world and it would be just as likely as an event which would be considered probable if there was only one universe. Since there is no way to know whether we live in one of those worlds, where something occurs that would be extremely unlikely if there was only world, then there would be no reason to be suspicious if someone won Black Jack 7 times in a row by chance as a Many Worlder.

Your analysis is inconsistent because you are jumping reference frames, you are taking no probabilistic distinctions of winning seven times in a row and then applying probability distinctions to the casino owner.

Every possible outcome plays out the exact same amount of times, so you cannot make probability arguments under the MWI. I suggest you actually read the paper by the scientists I cited.

There would also be no reason to think the casino owner would be suspicious or not, it's just as equally likely that the particular world happens to be one where the casino owner is suspicious of seven wins in a row.

Yes, but he couldn't argue that it was most likely the case that the player was cheating like he could in if there wasn't MW, because worlds where the player wins by chance 7 times in a row are just as likely as one where he cheats. Therefore, the Casino owner couldn't say that it would be unlikely for the player to win 7 times in a row by chance.

All outcomes are equally likely, there is no basis for a "Therefore, as a Casino owner who believes in the MW interpretation" anything, the only therefore you get is therefore everything.

As a Casino owner, he has no reason to think it is improbable for the player to win 7 times in a row by chance if the MW interpretation is true, because that scenario is just as likely as any other if the MW is true.


That's one of the many problems with MWI, it gives no basis for reasoning, predictions, or anything else, everything just is, it has no explanatory power whatsoever....it's completely useless.

I agree. Besides Bohmian mechanics, I think it is the worst interpretation out there.


A theory that predicts everything isn't predicting anything.

Exactly!


, and thus would exist in a greater percentage of all possible worlds, which means the chances of it occurring in any given instance are less than the chances of it not occurring.

This conclusion is based on a false premise.I suggest you read this if you want to learn more about the problems with probability and the MW interpretation:

http://arxiv.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:50:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 11:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:55:10 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:50:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]

That statement clearly misses the point, if you supplement MWI with hidden variables or collapse, then it isn't MWY anymore.

No sh*t sherlock that is the whole point lol We have to supplement the MWI with another interpretation because the MWI fails.

Perhaps you should learn the definition of supplement Sherlock.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:01:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:50:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/10/2014 11:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:55:10 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/9/2014 3:50:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"MWIs do not provide a sufficient basis for probability. If we are to have an acceptable description of the physical universe, MWIs must be supplemented by some mechanism, such as hidden variables or collapse." - Casey Blood [http://arxiv.org...]

That statement clearly misses the point, if you supplement MWI with hidden variables or collapse, then it isn't MWY anymore.

No sh*t sherlock that is the whole point lol We have to supplement the MWI with another interpretation because the MWI fails.

Perhaps you should learn the definition of supplement Sherlock.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Yes, you are right (my bad). I think she meant "replaced". Sort of like how a meal supplement replaces a meal.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To me, I'm not sure how collapse or hidden variables could be "added" to the MWI. If there is collapse, then it is not the MWI. If there are hidden variables, then it is something like Bohmian mechanics.