I guess I’ve always been confused by the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the fact that it’s taken seriously. Like is there any proof at all that universes outside of our own exist?

I admit that I might be dumb, but, how does one look at atoms and say “My God! There must be many worlds than just our one?”

I just never understood how Many Worlds Interpretation was valid, with my, admittedly limited understanding, it just seemed to be a wild guess no more strange than a lot things we consider too outlandish to humor.

  • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    11·
    6 months ago

    English comprehension fail, no I didn’t.

    You articulated a standard of falsification that would render it impossible in all cases.

    I said you can’t prove other works exist or not if you can’t access anything other than this universe’s information, which is true,

    Yes actually, you can, as I already explained. You only response to that has been to simply restate “no you can’t!”

    You think “the laws of physics” state there’s only one outcome for every trait of a radio wave or excited particle? Because that’s what your statement here means. We’re talking about how everything is a cloud of possibilities and you want to tell me now that every trait and path is predestined? That’s just wrong.

    I’m not sure what exactly it is you think I was saying, because this doesn’t remotely resemble it.

    Because reality is not objective, duh.

    Actually, it is. That’s kind of foundational for science. If you’re going to straight up reject physical realism then you can’t really talk about science at all.

    I was being polite.

    No, you were being quite rude.

    Show me the experiment, and this time don’t just link any old shit in the hope I won’t read or understand it.

    I provided you with literal peer reviewed physics papers. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Despite my words, I know what I know, and you don’t get to condescend to me without proving me wrong. Which you haven’t done yet, due to the aforementioned failures in your English comprehension.

    Ok, I’m done. You are an arrogant jackass with no interest in truth or science

    • voracitude@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      6 months ago

      I provided you with literal peer reviewed physics papers. What the fuck is wrong with you?

      I want a paper that analyses information observed from other worlds, which yours DID NOT. Try taking your own advice to that other person in this topic, and read what I wrote.

      Because reality is not objective, duh.

      Actually, it is. That’s kind of foundational for science. If you’re going to straight up reject physical realism then you can’t really talk about science at all.

      Okay, apparently I need to take you to school before I go to work. I didn’t realise it was my turn with you this week. Just to catch you up: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/advanced-information/

      Because the theories of Bohm and Everett did not make any experimentally testable predictions that differed from standard quantum mechanics, most physicists regarded these kinds of proposals as rather esoteric and preferably only discussed during coffee breaks or in philosophy and history of science departments

      (That bit, by the way, is why I’m right and you’re wrong. Not experimentally testable? Not falsifiable. Period.) And

      Bell pointed out that von Neuman’s proof was not correct (he gave the proof of this statement in a later publication [8]), and he also formulated the first Bell inequality, which was a spectacular theoretical discovery. Using a special version of the Bohmian-EPR thought experiment, he showed mathematically that no theory based on local hidden variables would be able to reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.

      With this mathematical illustration, Bell provided a proof of the assertions made by Bohr and Schrödinger, and thus showed that all attempts to construct a local realist model of quantum phenomena are doomed to fail. Bell used the words local and realist here in a technical sense: the former indicates the impossibility of instantaneous signalling, limited by the finite speed of light, and the latter means that the outcome of any experiment is fully determined by properties of the system, often referred to as hidden, that exist independently of any actual or potential measurement.

      Now I’ll be blocking you. Happy reading.