1:01:43 the many worlds idea that you know this wave function which is the beast of 1:01:48 quantum mechanics, the thing that it that it provides for the whole universe in principle um has a very natural way 1:01:56 of describing everything that there is as being split 1:02:01 into quote unquote worlds.No, that is completely wrong. The many-worlds theory does not tell you how probable you are to be in a world, and it does not give you the predictions of quantum mechanics.Um, and that there's a there's also a 1:02:09 very natural beast that comes with quantum mechanics which tells you how probable you are to be in a world and 1:02:16 that that's all you need. And that sort of and that all that there is is this wave function and these probabilities which are part of the wave function. 1:02:21 They're not externally tacked on. Um, and that from that you get out all of 1:02:26 the predictions of quantum mechanics that you could possibly want.
Carroll is a big proponent of many-worlds, and he knows the guest was wrong, but quietly wrapped up the interview.
Many-theory theory stands in opposition to everything the guest was says. He said all of physics, and indeed all of science and life itself, can be understand in terms of models and probabilities. But many-worlds theory is a rejection of that whole concept, as it hypothesizes that everything that can happen, does happen, and probabilities are meaningless.
People who learn many-worlds always assume that it says that some worlds are more likely than others. But no one has ever gotten that to work. Nor would the proponents want it to work, as the whole point is to reject models and probabilities.
Probabilities are calculations. They have no existence except as calculations. You are literally taking data from measurements and doing calculations on it... that's it. There is no 'creation ex nihilo ad nauseam' from math calculations. Or decisions. To think otherwise is to embrace insanity and accept hypostatization a valid logical argument...which it isn't, and never has been.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell:
" The fallacy of Reification—also known as Hypostatization—is very similar to the Equivocation Fallacy, except that instead of using one word and changing its meaning through the argument, it involves taking a word with a normal usage and giving it an invalid usage.
Specifically, Reification involves ascribing substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts."
-Austin Cline
from Examples and Discussion of the Hypostatization Fallacy
This children, is why you should learn some formal logic and philosophy, so you don't get suckered into such simple games of linguistic drivel parading as good arguments. Mathematicians and physicists have no more protection from such nonsense than the average Starbucks barista, because they are uninformed and unconsidered in their education. Stupidity can not be immunized against by mere calculation or smothering complexity. To be wise one needs to understand and consider meanings and arguments, not just memorize long lists of things and the mindless manipulations of language and symbols.