**From:** Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (*sentience@pobox.com*)

**Date:** Sat Dec 11 2004 - 23:30:49 MST

**Next message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Previous message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: What about MWI of QM as regards dead loved ones?"**In reply to:**Jeff Medina: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Next in thread:**Damien Broderick: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Reply:**Damien Broderick: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Jeff Medina wrote:

*> Dani,
*

*>
*

*> A photon, not being an observer, has no point of view, and thus the
*

*> 'problem' of relativistic spacetime corrections for a photon's
*

*> reference class is ill-founded and meaningless.
*

*>
*

*> Harvey,
*

*>
*

*> Whoa. I currently find MW the most plausible interpretation of quantum
*

*> physics, and I don't subscribe to *ANY* of the drivel you just
*

*> attributed to MW theorists. Messianic rapture? Were you mauled by a
*

*> gang of MWI-spouting mafia at some point or something? Perhaps you're
*

*> not clear on what the MWI is, or the arguments for it?
*

I second this sentiment. Harvey, I think you must have encountered the

wrong version of many-worlds. I also find Everett-Wheeler the best

quantum theory, and not because of any emotional consequences it might

or might not have. As Tegmark points out, once you think the universe

to be spatially infinite, the existence of quantum worlds is quite

irrelevant/unnecessary philosphically; the spatial infinity provides as

many worlds as one could wish, or fear. I find MW the best theory

because of its pure, mathematical elegance. In fact, I confess myself

utterly incapable of comprehending quantum physics without it.

The so-called "Copenhagen interpretation" contains hidden informal

parameters by refusing to specify what constitutes an "observation" or

how far a "quantum collapse" extends; the Copenhagen "theory" (it does

not even deserve the phrase) is fitted to the facts post-facto using

this informal parameter. We eliminate this ill-specified adjunct of the

"quantum collapse", delete the strange interloper that is so utterly

incompatible with the quiet elegance of unitary evolution, just subtract

"collapse" entirely from the theory, and lo, we arrive at exactly the

same experimental predictions - except that predictions are delivered in

advance, rather than fitted post-facto. Everett tells us exactly how to

calculate when decoherence occurs and how much decoherence it is, all

under exactly the same quantum laws that are already necessarily

postulated to explain "uncollapsed" behaviors.

As a slight side effect we find that "worlds" (in a quantum

configuration space filled with swirling clouds of probability amplitude

in close mutual causal connection) "fork" (a cloud of amplitude develops

into separate clouds, groups of points in configuration space

interacting with each other but not with nearby clouds of amplitude), a

phenomenon interpreted by embedded observers as the other clouds

"vanishing". But it would be exceedingly strange to take an elegant

theory which describes exactly how the clouds diverge, and adjoin a

weird and grossly unnecessary postulate which says that as soon as two

clouds fall out of causal contact (which, according to Everett, is not a

discontinuous process, but a smooth one), all but one of the diverging

clouds suddenly vanishes from quantum configuration space (when? why?)

I emphasize that many-worlds is simply the straightforward extrapolation

of quantum theory exactly as it stands, with the unnecessary "collapse

postulate" eliminated. Quantum theory already yields decoherence. And

decoherence is sufficient to explain - nay, predict quantitatively in

advance - everything observed. We do not need to see it post facto and

call it a "collapse", afterward saying that it was caused by an

"observation", and lift our hands and shrug over why the observation

collapsed only so much and no more. Under Everett, all matter in the

universe is governed by exactly the same laws. There is no

distinguished event of "observation".

Now that I understand many-worlds I cannot imagine a quantum theory that

works any other way. It is like understanding natural selection and

then trying to imagine exactly the same biology except that it works by

"elan vital". Elan vital was an early misinterpretation of biology,

grossly ad-hoc and post-facto. The same may be said of Copenhagen and

quantum mechanics. When they set forth the Schrodinger equation they

had *already* explained, formally, with a theory capable of making

advance predictions, all that they had observed, without any need of a

collapse postulate; yet no one realized that the Schrodinger equation

sufficed by itself, until Everett wrote his beautiful paper years later.

So they adjoined a collapse postulate, awkward and ill-specified and

informal and out of joint with the rest of physics. As if angel's wings

had been adjoined to Newton's equations to fulfill the task of pushing

planets about in the sky, because no one had thought to apply Newton's

equations to planets and see that the task of explaining was already

done - until a few decades later; and then people said, "Oh, but it is

already explained, it is done by angel's wings. And since the angel's

wings already explain the motions of the planets - we just look and

whatever we see, we say it is the angel's wings - your theory can never

be proven."

As a slight side effect of Everett's simpler quantum mechanics, obtained

*purely* by eliminating one awkward dangling postulate from a theory

already complete without it, we find predicted the high-level phenomenon

previously interpreted as "collapse" caused by "observation", and now

revealed as diverging clouds of amplitude - that is, forking worlds.

But for one who has already come to terms with the spatial infinity of

the universe, this should be no additional burden.

I have not used the term "MWI". Many-worlds is not an "interpretation".

Many-minds, the deranged mad cousin of Everett, is an "interpretation"

and one which makes no sense. Copenhagen is an "interpretation".

Many-worlds is a unified theory that applies to quantum fields, period;

making no mention of observers, minds, or anything else. MW is not an

"interpretation". It is a formal model, unlike its competitors.

*> Pardon my incredulity, but I find your statement offensive; and doubly
*

*> so due to your having presented zero justification for your strange
*

*> slander.
*

These are the possibilities:

1) Harvey has not seen the elegance of the math, and having not seen

the elegance of the math, is extremely disturbed by the possibility of

himself forking a million times per second.

2) Harvey has enough knowledge that he *should* have seen the math, but

is extremely disturbed by the prospect of forking a million times per

second, and so he searches for an excuse.

3) Harvey has already come to terms with the spatial infinity of the

universe implied by contemporary astrophysics, and so many-worlds means

nothing to him emotionally one way or the other; but Harvey has not seen

the elegance of the math, has encountered the wacky philosophical

deranged brother of Everett known as "many-minds", or heard some other

extremely poor justification of many-worlds.

4) Harvey has not come to terms with spatial infinity, so MW would be a

new emotional shock to him, and also he has not heard the good physics

reasons for MW. This would explain his reaction.

*> Call me crazy for suggesting this, but how 'bout we avoid dismissing a
*

*> posit of physics found plausible by a number of actual physicists
*

63% according to that legendary informal poll. Certainly a very large

number of prominent physicists. That is mere argument from authority,

of course. But I see no reason to suppose that these prominent

physicists are messianic transhumanists, when so great a bounty of

mathematical elegance lies at hand, to explain their choice of explanation.

**Next message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Previous message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: What about MWI of QM as regards dead loved ones?"**In reply to:**Jeff Medina: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Next in thread:**Damien Broderick: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Reply:**Damien Broderick: "Re: Quantum Weirdness"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT
*