It is an excerpt from the must longer podcast: Harvard Scientist Rewrites the Rules of Quantum Mechanics | Scott Aaronson Λ Jacob Barandes. Aaronson comments on his blog in March.
This is a good criticism of Many-worlds theory, and agrees with what I have posted. Briefly, there is no value to a theory that says anything can happen. The probabilities do not make any sense. Some many-worlds advocates either add a probability axiom, or they have some way of saying you can believe in the probabilities even though they are not literally correct. But these explanations do not really work.
Research on decoherence does not really help either. It may inform about when a split world becomes invisible, but it does not say anything about whether the split world should be regarded as real.
Aaronson has occasionally said that he believes in many-worlds, so I expected more push-back from him. But no, he seemed to concede these points. His main defense of many-worlds was that he finds it useful when explaining quantum computers to his students!
Apparently it is easier to believe in quantum computers if you also believe in many-worlds. That is what David Deutsch says anyway.
I would have commented on this earlier, but I tried to watch the longer video, but I got bored with their discussions of goofy alternative theories.
No comments:
Post a Comment