If it can happen, it does happen?

[Severian]

Prove what? That there are no other worlds? That people, insted of accepting the complexity of this world, invent deterministic pictures furnished with hidden parameters or other interpretations? The fact that there are many of them and they are different proves already what you ask.

 

I was asking you to prove that the Many World Interpretation is wrong (since you made the claim that it is).

[Bob_for_short]

I was asking you to prove that the Many World Interpretation is wrong (since you made the claim that it is).

 

Let us suppose that MWI is right. Than we should have the other worlds at hands together with our world in order to make sure that other possibilities are well realized in them. But we don't have them. Then why to involve or invent something in our science that we do not have for sure?

Conclusion: MWI is wrong as it appeals to non existing other worlds.

 

The same is valid for lost and hidden variables.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Bob_for_short

[swansont]

How do you show that we don't have them? They are purported to be orthogonal.

[Bob_for_short]

I have searched many times there where they should be and found nothing.

[iNow]

I have searched many times there where they should be and found nothing.

 

I have searched for gold many times where it should be and found nothing. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that gold does not exist.

[Moontanman]

So... in some universe I've already done the dishes?

 

rusty

 

No, in this universe there is another you who did the dishes. There are not enough different possibilities for everything to happen. Some things are more likely, the most likely things happen over and over. If the universe is truly infinite then everything that happens happens elsewhere exactly the same an infinite number of times.

[Bob_for_short]

I have searched for gold many times where it should be and found nothing. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that gold does not exist.

 

Correct. Somebody fooled me with other worlds and someone fooled you with gold mines (run out of gold obviously).

Edited October 30, 2009 by Bob_for_short

[swansont]

I have searched many times there where they should be and found nothing.

 

How, exactly, can you do that? They are orthogonal systems.

[Bob_for_short]

I made a double-slit experiment with only one photon. I obtained one point on my screen. I wanted to get the other points from the other worlds in order to superimpose them and obtain an interference picture. I looked at the screen, behind it, and also in all perpendicular and non perpendicular directions. I have not found any other screens, leaving alone other worlds, and thus no additional points.

Then I repeated my experiment with projecting many-many photons at the same time and immediately obtained a descent interference picture (ensemble of points). I managed to carry out the experiment in this sole world without problem. So I decided that MWI guys were cheating me for fun.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Bob_for_short

[swansont]

You've only underscored iNow's point. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. You only looked in this world, and since the systems are orthogonal, it's not surprising that you found nothing. The interpretation predicts you will find nothing.

[ajb]

The interpretation predicts you will find nothing.

 

Is the many-worlds simply an interpretation or a reformulation without wave-function collapse?

[rrw4rusty]

My next post on this subject must be made under 'Pseudoscience and Speculations' as I tie Many Worlds to Dark Energy and brane-wondering closed-loop zero-mass strings to Dark Energy in a post entitled:

 

An End to Darkness

[Royston]

Is the many-worlds simply an interpretation or a reformulation without wave-function collapse?

 

Both isn't it ? Assumption then reformulation. The interpretation is a consequence of the reformulation...or in other words, it's the only viable interpretation for a wave function not collapsing to an eigenstate.

 

MWI is certainly attractive, at least I think it is, but is completely untestable, for all the reasons given. Personally, I'm more confused by the Universe harboring many worlds, where those worlds are orthogonal, yet the Universe encompasses everything within it...ugh.

[toastywombel]

I made a double-slit experiment with only one photon. I obtained one point on my screen. I wanted to get the other points from the other worlds in order to superimpose them and obtain an interference picture. I looked at the screen, behind it, and also in all perpendicular and non perpendicular directions. I have not found any other screens, leaving alone other worlds, and thus no additional points.

Then I repeated my experiment with projecting many-many photons at the same time and immediately obtained a descent interference picture (ensemble of points). I managed to carry out the experiment in this sole world without problem. So I decided that MWI guys were cheating me for fun.

 

I am curious as to how to did a double slit experiment with one photon? How did you observe that there was only one photon? If you did observe it there would obviously be more than one photon in the environment you were experimenting in, or else you would not of seen anything.

[swansont]

I am curious as to how to did a double slit experiment with one photon? How did you observe that there was only one photon? If you did observe it there would obviously be more than one photon in the environment you were experimenting in, or else you would not of seen anything.

 

It's one photon at a time, not one photon and the experiment is done. You make it so that the intensity is very small, and there is only one photon in the apparatus at a time.

 

e.g. if the apparatus is a third of a meter long, it take a nanosecond for the photons to travel through it. You make sure the intensity is well below a billion photons/second, as well as making sure they photons are not sent in bunches.