TobyBartels comments on Why Many-Worlds Is Not The Rationally Favored Interpretation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (98)
The remaining uncertainty in QM is about which slower-than-light, differentiable, configuration-space-local, CPT-symmetric, deterministic, linear, unitary physics will explain the Born probabilities, possibly in combination with some yet-unrealized anthropic truths - and combine with general relativity, and perhaps explain other experimental results not yet encountered.
The uncertainty within this space does not slop over into uncertainty over whether single-world QM - that is, FTL, discontinuous, nonlocal, CPT-asymmetric, acausal, nonlinear, nonunitary QM - is correct. Just because this was a historical mistake is no reason to privilege the hypothesis in our thought processes. It's dead and should never have been alive, and uncertainty within the unmagical versions of QM won't bring the magic back. You don't get to say "It's not resolved, so probability slops around whatever possibilities I happen to be thinking about, and I happen to be thinking about a single world." This really is the classic theistic tactic for keeping God alive.
In similar wise, any difficulties with natural selection are to be resolved within the space of naturalistic and genetically endogenous forces. None of that uncertainty slops over onto whether Jehovah might have done it, and the possibility shouldn't even be thought about without specific evidence pointing in the specific direction of (a) non-endogenous forces (b) intelligent design (c) supernatural agency and (d) Jehovah as opposed to the FSM.
If there's uncertainty within a space, then you might indeed want to try looking outside it - but looking outside it to Jehovah, or to having only a single quantum world, is privileging the hypothesis.
This is a perfect illustration of Mitchell Porter's point. This is not, in fact, what single-world QM is. This is, more or less, what the Copenhagen interpretation is. Given the plethora of interpretations available, the dichotomy between that and MWI is a false one.