Exploring Sparse Many Worlds: Is a Compact Representation of Existence Possible?

  • I
  • Thread starter Jarvis323
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Many worlds
In summary: They are not connected to each other in any way. So it's perfectly possible that the two versions of me are looking at different parts of the Moon.
  • #36
Jarvis323 said:
it seems MWI is speculating that there is nothing beyond the mathematical elements of QM.

MWI is an interpretation of QM. Any interpretation of QM is "speculation" in the sense that it makes claims that go beyond what the basic math of QM predicts. If it just stuck to the basic math of QM, it wouldn't be an interpretation, it would just be the "shut up and calculate" QM that physicists actually use to make predictions.

Jarvis323 said:
I am asking about compatibility.

Compatibility with what? I'm afraid I don't understand the issue you apparently have. Again, we are talking about interpretations of QM here, not about some speculative theory that goes beyond QM.

Jarvis323 said:
If there were a version of MWI that didn't impose unnecessary limitations/barriers

Again, I don't understand the issue. What limitations/barriers are you complaining about?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
PeterDonis said:
MWI is an interpretation of QM. Any interpretation of QM is "speculation" in the sense that it makes claims that go beyond what the basic math of QM predicts. If it just stuck to the basic math of QM, it wouldn't be an interpretation, it would just be the "shut up and calculate" QM that physicists actually use to make predictions.
Compatibility with what? I'm afraid I don't understand the issue you apparently have. Again, we are talking about interpretations of QM here, not about some speculative theory that goes beyond QM.
Again, I don't understand the issue. What limitations/barriers are you complaining about?
MWI speculates that the wave function is real; that things can actually be physically in superposition. It seems to me, but I am not an expert, that speculating that the wave function is real is enough, and I don't understand why it would be useful to go beyond that and speculate further that nothing exists beneath the wave function. So far I am not aware of any useful purpose for that, so without concrete clarification, I am not convinced that the second assertion is actually part of MWI.

I am talking about compatibility in general. It is more limited in that it unnecessarily restricts the set of possibilities for what is real, and what is the nature of what is real; it is a more restrictive and speculative interpretation that doesn't add anything of value.
 
  • #38
Jarvis323 said:
speculating that the wave function is real is enough, and I don't understand why it would be useful to go beyond that and speculate further that nothing exists beneath the wave function.

Because if you don't, you are not making an interpretation of QM; you are leaving it wide open that some other stuff can come in and invalidate the predictions you are making from the math of QM. And no interpretation of QM can do that. All intepretations of QM agree with the predictions of QM.

If you have other stuff going on besides what is in the basic math of QM, you don't have an interpretation of QM; you have a different theory. And this thread is not about any such theory. It is about interpretations of QM. If you want to talk about some hypothetical theory that allows other stuff to happen besides what QM predicts, find a reference and start a new thread in the appropriate forum (probably the Beyond the Standard Model forum). It is off topic here.
 
  • #39
PeterDonis said:
Because if you don't, you are not making an interpretation of QM; you are leaving it wide open that some other stuff can come in and invalidate the predictions you are making from the math of QM. And no interpretation of QM can do that. All intepretations of QM agree with the predictions of QM.

If you have other stuff going on besides what is in the basic math of QM, you don't have an interpretation of QM; you have a different theory. And this thread is not about any such theory. It is about interpretations of QM. If you want to talk about some hypothetical theory that allows other stuff to happen besides what QM predicts, find a reference and start a new thread in the appropriate forum (probably the Beyond the Standard Model forum). It is off topic here.
You don't have to leave it wide open that some other stuff will invalidate QM, you can simply leave it open that some other stuff can exist which doesn't invalidate QM.
 
  • #40
Jarvis323 said:
you can simply leave it open that some other stuff can exist which doesn't invalidate QM.

This still means you are talking about a theory that goes beyond QM. Which is off topic in this thread and this forum. If it isn't in the math of QM, it's not there as far as interpretations of QM are concerned.
 
  • #41
PeterDonis said:
If you want to talk about some hypothetical theory that allows other stuff to happen besides what QM predicts, find a reference and start a new thread in the appropriate forum (probably the Beyond the Standard Model forum). It is off topic here.
One thing that QM doesn't predict is gravity. If gravity isn't mathematically expressed by the wave function. And MWI says only the wave function exists, then MWI says gravity doesn't exist?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore
  • #42
Jarvis323 said:
One thing that QM doesn't predict is gravity.

Sure it does. You can include the gravitational potential as part of the potential in the Schrodinger Equation.
 
  • #43
PeterDonis said:
This still means you are talking about a theory that goes beyond QM. Which is off topic in this thread and this forum. If it isn't in the math of QM, it's not there as far as interpretations of QM are concerned.
Rather it means I am not talking about a theory besides the math of QM. I am simply remaining agnostic about it.
 
  • #44
Jarvis323 said:
Rather it means I am not talking about a theory besides the math of QM. I am simply remaining agnostic about it.

Going around and around in circles about this is pointless.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy and Motore

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
315
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top