Open Thread, April 16 - 30, 2012

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

I've been analyzing the reasons for my dislike of the MWI lately. I initially thought that it was because it was untestable and so no better than any other interpretation. But this wasn't a good enough explanation for an emotional response ("dislike" is an emotional response). So, after some digging, I have realized that what I dislike is not the anti-Popperianism of it, but the process of futile arguing itself, where convincing the other side, or getting convinced, or building a better model based on the two original positions is not an option. And Copenhagen vs MWI is one of those debates. Now, if only I could figure out why I am still commenting about it...

I've been analyzing the reasons for my dislike of the MWI lately. I initially thought that it was because it was untestable and so no better than any other interpretation.

Wouldn't it be better to dislike all the interpretations equally?

2Viliam_Bur14y

Because they both predict exactly the same set of experimental results? And neither feels like a strict subset of the other? Or is there something more? What is the problem with seeing MWI as a strict subset of Copenhagen? I am not an expert, but it seems to me that MWI explains the results of quantum experiments, and Copenhagen does the same with additional experimentally untestable hypothesis that our amplitude blob is different from the others, because the others magically disappear at some unspecified moment. (You know, just like the Earth is different, because it is down, while the other planets are up there. Imagining people walking upside down makes my head spin.) [...] Cognitive dissonance. One part of your brain tells you to follow Occam's razor, other part tells you to follow the opinions of respected majority. No offense meant; following the educated majority is very strong Bayesian evidence.