From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 08:46:38 MST
scerir wrote:
> Ha-ha. Btw, reading the proceedings of the 1927 Solvay Conference
> I realized that W. Pauli (you know, very close to Jung!) sketched
> a model (for the so called reduction of the probability wavepacket)
> which was ... (hold your breath) ... the Many-Worlds Interpretation.
> Of course Pauli was a much more professional physicist (and also
> philosopher) and called his model the Many Dimensions Interpretation.
> (Unfortunately M. Born stopped Pauli using the old argument of mr.
> Occam).
### I was thinking about the meaning of Occam's razor in this context. In
its essence, Occam's razor demands simplicity of thought rather than
simplicity of the world. A simple explanation of a set of measurements is
preferred to a complicated one, as long as the predictions derived from the
explanations are equally corroborated by additional measurements. The number
of entities which are being measured, or could be in principle measured,
need not be minimized, however.
If we accept the idea that the algorithmic complexity of a universe is the
measure of simplicity of its explanation, but the number of all entities in
that universe is not, then Occam's razor would prefer the simplest algorithm
capable of generating all entities, regardless of the number of entities
observed. If you need to invoke a longer algorithm (a longer explanation) to
produce the same set of observed entities, then this is against the razor,
even if you manage to minimize the set of entities derived from your long
algorithm to equal the set of observed entities.
Specifically, in classical QM you introduce a separate explanation of every
quantum event as a collapse of a superposition with a random component
(which has to be added to the algorithm to synchronize it with observation),
so the length of your atomically correct description of the world grows with
each nanosecond. In MWI you could postulate a simple initial state and a set
of rules of deriving subsequent states, containing the full algorithm (=
your simple explanation) sufficient to predict the structure of the whole
multiverse for all time. Since you are using a simpler thought to predict a
larger number of observations, this would be the solution preferred by
Occam, even if the vast majority of the entities would not be observable.
What do you think?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:51 MST