From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 02:03:34 MDT
> > In particular, the Many Worlds Interpretation provides an
> > entirely satisfactory account for an ever growing number of
> > physicists. Years ago followers of MWI were a small minority,
> > restricted almost entirely to cosmologists. I think that as
> > we continue to free ourselves from the bad thinking of the
> > 20th century, the MWI will become more popular. David
> > Deutsch, perhaps the greatest exponent of MWI I believe
> > attributed to his realistic outlook his discoveries in
> > quantum computation.
> Perhaps you're right; I think the current scientific field is against it,
> and not just for the Occam's Razor problems. (Aside: I actually think the
> Razor is a wash in this case. MWI creates more worlds, and therefore more
> entities, but Copenhagen creates a special physical category for
> observers, and so creates more types of entities. MWI is therefore
> favored by Occam's Razor as homogenous, but Copenhagen is favored as
> having fewer actual objects. Who wins?)
The problem here is Popper. Which one is falsifiable? Imo
the MWI (strong version, separate worlds do not interfere,
decoherence separate the worlds but does not destroy
the other n-1 worlds) is *not* falsifiable at all, in principle,
by definition.
s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:58 MST