tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1191050854962864191..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Why the multiverse is religion, not science.Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger328125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2294783249632547022021-05-16T14:33:07.119-04:002021-05-16T14:33:07.119-04:00Maybe it's a bit to late to join the conversat...Maybe it's a bit to late to join the conversation but I'll try.<br /><br />I understand the comparison with God and all but religion is a lot more than just believing in God and comparing scientific (or if you want pseudo-scientific) ideas into a social-cultural system is a bit unfortunate. To me it feels like you're trying to provoke a little bit with claims like: "Why the Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951056425763931041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83175470814113019542019-12-30T09:44:03.236-05:002019-12-30T09:44:03.236-05:00I had not given much thought to Multiverse Theorie...I had not given much thought to Multiverse Theories since last reading Max Tegmark: "Our aesthetic judgement therefore comes down to what we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos, and even find its strangeness to be part of its charm." (2004, page 490, Science and Ultimate Reality).Gary Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15299444226289034923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84198025477025691222019-12-30T09:04:18.815-05:002019-12-30T09:04:18.815-05:00"Basically, you assert that something that yo...<i>"Basically, you assert that something that you cannot observe is not scientific."</i><br /><br />This is incorrect. Try again. This time, maybe try to understand what I am saying first. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56591027187297309852019-12-30T08:58:38.193-05:002019-12-30T08:58:38.193-05:00Sabine,
your argumentation seems very weak to me ...Sabine, <br />your argumentation seems very weak to me <br /><br />Basically, you assert that something that you cannot observe is not scientific. <br />Besides, you assert that believing in such unobservable entities is like believing in God. In fact someone who says "multiverse exists" could say just as well "angels exist", because the logical connection between these shoggothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01880526254441405284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19691761296070129562019-11-07T12:47:17.057-05:002019-11-07T12:47:17.057-05:00I try to compare multiverses with mitochondria eve...I try to compare multiverses with mitochondria eve in biology. We will never observe it, but we can write the tree of human and on paper we can state her existence. jack separohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12257076696646564496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79478921014409313462019-08-12T18:42:27.224-04:002019-08-12T18:42:27.224-04:00Let each individuated consciousness be a local vac...Let each individuated consciousness be a local vacua with each different «set» of characteristics being both diffuse and non-active until a developed life-form arises; With contemplation we find that consciousness cannot continue across the decedent event — which taken as a boundary — plausibly invokes such wild speculations as any Wall of Fire or other notions portraying an excess of energy; Nicholas Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632215275782382024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30003485781252326922019-08-08T23:36:10.597-04:002019-08-08T23:36:10.597-04:00On this topic, Sabine, you and I are simpatico. H...On this topic, Sabine, you and I are simpatico. How can another universe or universes be the subject of science if there is no way to verify via the all-important observation/verification process the existence of another universe or universes? Moreover, if we could observe what would be posited as another "universe" from our universe, wouldn't it by default actually be just DBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14055827394202531486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45477123849912132212019-07-30T07:44:31.354-04:002019-07-30T07:44:31.354-04:00@Count Iblis
Regardless of which quantum logic gat...@Count Iblis<br />Regardless of which quantum logic gates are used to represent Alice and Bob, if they measure "1" or " 0" or ( 1,0) or (0,1), they'll get the same result for the same measurement. There's still no way to differentiate which branch is which.<br /><br />In your example, and others like it that I've seen, it seems that you assume branching occurs at i aM whhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194089122242029577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76238070358314717922019-07-30T03:54:57.121-04:002019-07-30T03:54:57.121-04:00At least for me it is not clear what happens. And ...At least for me it is not clear what happens. And i guess for blogger i aM wh it's not clear either.<br /><br />It would be helpful to give a concrete example of such a setup (measurement of different components / axis) and and how it realistically branches and when it branches.<br /><br />Besides this it seems obvious for me that it isn't that clear either what "the internal Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57491016090934097162019-07-29T21:28:34.389-04:002019-07-29T21:28:34.389-04:00Note that you are free to make the quantum compute...Note that you are free to make the quantum computer argument more elaborate. The CNOT operator can be extended so tat they become models for Alice and Bob and you can make the setup such that they measure different components of the spins. The point I make is simply that one can represent everything by the internal dynamics of the quantum computer, so what happens should be clear. Count Iblishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17234653545597441999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83180361223746363262019-07-27T14:43:48.096-04:002019-07-27T14:43:48.096-04:00@ i aM wh,
i think your contributions are not tha...@ i aM wh,<br /><br />i think your contributions are not that off-topic at all, since "superdeterminism" is also needed for the MWI. But i nonetheless will go to your blog and at least take a closer look. These topics are interesting from a philosophical, religious etc. point of view.<br /><br />Today i read a paper from Gerhard t'Hooft who is a proponent of superdeterminism. His Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9805346124178624632019-07-27T11:14:04.712-04:002019-07-27T11:14:04.712-04:00@Stefan
Yeah, if one believes superdeterminism to ...@Stefan<br />Yeah, if one believes superdeterminism to be true, then it follows that "sacred" texts, which are considered by many to be divinely-inspired, really were already written when time began. Of course, so was everything else, but the difference is that the "sacred" texts were pre-determined to be considered by many as "divine" over millenia. So the fact thati aM whhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194089122242029577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23234098520858848012019-07-25T10:24:51.474-04:002019-07-25T10:24:51.474-04:00"and then accuse others of something like &qu..."and then accuse others of something like "magical thinking" without considering the implications of their own assumptions."<br /><br />Much worse, if you point to their assumptions they may answer that they couldn't other than accuse you.<br /><br />The whole program to fit reality fully into a superdeterministic framework is really absurd to me. If i presuppose Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11206705857709896172019-07-25T08:58:33.584-04:002019-07-25T08:58:33.584-04:00@Stefan
"
Mmh, how likely is it that every ...@Stefan<br /><br /> "<br />Mmh, how likely is it that every detector that ever will be used and every decision process (human or machine) is influenced such that all the measurement results together mimic superposition and entanglement?"<br /><br />That's a drastic position to take. Yet, it's the one taken by both MWI and Pilot Wave Theory. And their proponents don't readilyi aM whhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194089122242029577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5171626975527623732019-07-25T03:55:53.404-04:002019-07-25T03:55:53.404-04:00@ i aM wh,
yes, i think you are right. This would...@ i aM wh,<br /><br />yes, i think you are right. This would mean the whole chain of events in the universe is predetermined, presumably by some big bang. It would mean that concepts like superposition, entanglement and the like are only illusions.<br /><br />The theory of evolution would also be a huge misunderstanding, since there is no real selection because there is no alternative for the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59763754873663191442019-07-24T20:35:55.887-04:002019-07-24T20:35:55.887-04:00@Stephan
We're within the Big Bang's light...@Stephan<br />We're within the Big Bang's lightcone, so it's local. Bell only falsifies local hidden variable theories in which the hidden variables came into existence at the time the entangled particles were created. If there are hidden variables that predate that, and also affect Alice and Bob and their detectors, that's not ruled out.i aM whhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194089122242029577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5005738442435280972019-07-24T13:36:03.953-04:002019-07-24T13:36:03.953-04:00@ i aM wh,
I can really only try to answer.
I re...@ i aM wh,<br /><br />I can really only try to answer.<br /><br />I really don't know wether in the MWI the universe has to split into 4 branches - and i am convinced the MWI proponents also don't really know. The whole issue of many-worlds when discussing with MWI proponents is a game of hide-and-seek, whereby the proponents like to say not too much (less words - sign of secret knowledgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36038400696791468432019-07-24T12:51:50.622-04:002019-07-24T12:51:50.622-04:00Thank you so much Sabine Hossenfelder for your int...Thank you so much Sabine Hossenfelder for your interesting input. Sometimes i feel a bit like having a monologue when posting my thoughts, but what i really intend with my posts is that people could evaluate wether what i wrote makes some sense or not. I have some further thoughts on "free will" now and i think they are quite reasonable from a physical as well as from a philosophical Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69517409461418500562019-07-24T11:11:00.588-04:002019-07-24T11:11:00.588-04:00I may have found a solution to the Black hole info...I may have found a solution to the Black hole information paradox.<br /><br />I assume the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is true. It assumes macroscopic systems are never in a superposition. Quantum theory doesn't apply to macroscopic system, according to the Copenhagen interpretation.<br /><br />Because a black hole is always macroscopic, quantum theory doesn't apply to Patat Jehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01677169592055512438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35623170609045075752019-07-24T11:03:30.417-04:002019-07-24T11:03:30.417-04:00I'm just trying to understand MWI's positi...I'm just trying to understand MWI's position on entanglement. Entanglement and the measurement problem are the two reasons why interpretations are so hard, and therefore need to really be addressed, and MWI proponents don't seem to talk about it very much (entanglement). They claim to have resolved the measurement problem and it's easy to see how they make that claim.<br /><br />i aM whhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04194089122242029577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55960627760289848592019-07-24T10:05:57.030-04:002019-07-24T10:05:57.030-04:00PS: You are right in saying that one cannot "...PS: You are right in saying that one cannot "disprove superdeterminism" because "superdeterminism" is not a model, it's a principle. I have said this earlier, you can't empirically disprove principles (supersymmetry). You can also not empirically disprove determinism, for that matter. Ie, the whole discussion about disproving/falsifying principles is a red herring. TheSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76277325593370142232019-07-24T10:02:42.158-04:002019-07-24T10:02:42.158-04:00Stefan,
The whole point of superdeterminism is th...Stefan,<br /><br />The whole point of superdeterminism is that it is, erm, deterministic. Ie, there isn't any such thing as free will. Some people, cough, insist on defining "free will" so that it can still exist, and then screw themselves over by using it as a postulate. The whole argument from free will in quantum mechanics is circular. This is maybe most obvious in the "freeSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53579159031545462932019-07-24T09:32:11.876-04:002019-07-24T09:32:11.876-04:00@ Sabine Hossenfelder,
i think that's only tr...@ Sabine Hossenfelder,<br /><br />i think that's only true for the case that human actions and thoughts are strictly predetermined (strictly deterministic). And this conclusion would then also be predetermined, but would then be the truth, since logically every other option (or combination of options) would differ from strict determinism.<br /><br />If strict determinism is not the case, thenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26349932822810188382019-07-24T07:37:44.546-04:002019-07-24T07:37:44.546-04:00If the result of an experiment depends on your opi...If the result of an experiment depends on your opinion (presumably, that humans have free will), then the result doesn't show what you think it shows. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72354924070414175042019-07-24T07:21:33.122-04:002019-07-24T07:21:33.122-04:00@ i aM wh and Sabine Hossenfelder,
Zeilinger et a...@ i aM wh and Sabine Hossenfelder,<br /><br />Zeilinger et al. have in my opinion shown via an experiment that the idea of the choice of the experimentor to be determined (superdeterminism) is absolutely absurd:<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04431<br /><br />And in my opinion you are totally correct when stating<br /><br />"In other words, your explanation is a local hidden variable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com