Of course my motives are irrelevant here but for the record I am trying to understand epistomology and its application to my self and, ultimately to AI. How about you, what are your motives?
Not knowing the exact details of where the PoC flaw is in QM is not a devastating criticism of my point, though your tone seems to suggest that you think it is. Why does the USPTO no longer accept applications for perpetual motion machines? Because it violates the first and/or second laws of thermo, no need to dig further into the details. This is just how principles work and once a fundamental error is identified then that’s it, end of discussion.… unless I was a physicist and wanted to dig in and take a crack at resolving the QM quandries which I do not. Jaynes left us a pretty large clue that the PoC error probably lies in the mis-use of probability theory as he described. As a non physicist that’s all (and more) than I need to know.
If you can’t tell us why Primacy of Consciousness is necessary for MWI, then we have no grounds for doubting MWI on the basis of your argument. It’s like saying that X is a perpetual motion machine and therefore impossible, and then when asked in what way is X a perpetual motion machine, replying that it’s implicitly a perpetual motion machine and you can’t relate the exact details.
The proof is left as an exercise for the reader ;-)
Seriously, I can’t explain the whole chain of thought to you. I made my claim that MWI is implicitly PoC and is a rejection of science and amounts to a supernatural theory. I gave examples of the difference between implicit and explicit PoC errors and gave an historical example where philosophy got hung up on an implicit error. I also cited Jaynes’ argument on how traditional probability theory (on which QM rests) projects probabilities onto reality when they are in fact epistemological measures. And I gave an example of how to use principles to avoid unnecessary work such as examining every single case of perpetual motion. And finally I explained that I am not a physicist and have no obligation or desire to find the specific error.
However, if you decide to do the proof as an excersise I will add the following as a hint;
We have this great theory in QM that allows us to make all kinds of calculations and prediction in the microscopic world. It does not integrate with our best theory of the macroscopic world and cosmology—Special and General Relativity. Moreover, there are various “interpretations” of QM that do not change the calcs but are an attempt to bring meaning and understanding to QM. But they all fail in various ways leaving use with unsatisfactory and contradictory choices between causality -vs- acausality, locality -vs- non-locality, faster than light -vs- c as a limit, one reality -vs- many realities, etc.
Nevetheless, I think these different interpretations of QM should be studied because such understanding and perspectives will lead someone to finding the error that gives rise to all the contradictions and false-alternative. Finally, I don’t need to be a physicist nor find the specific error to state with certainty that either QM or GR (or both) are wrong and that the answer, whatever that turns out to be, will be consistent with both of these theories.
Read this, and then come back and tell us where the reasoning requires PoC.
What principle do you believe that MWI is violating that is analogous to a perpetual motion machine violating conservation of energy?
In the case of the perpetual motion machine, it is easy to see that the described system violates energy conservation, because you can compare the energy in the system at different times. From this global violation, one can deduce that there was a mistake somewhere in the calculations that predicted it for a system that follows the physical laws that imply conservation of energy.
So, what is the global problem with MWI that leads you to believe that it has a PoC flaw?
Probably mostly to learn things—though you would have to consult with my shrink for more details. Of course I’m not doing that in this thread—I guess that, here I’m trying to help you out on this issue while showing that I know what I’m talking about. Maybe someday, someone can return the favour—if they see me talking nonsense.
Or maybe it’s just a case of:
Jaynes’ criticism doesn’t apply to the MWI. The MWI doesn’t involve probabilities—it’s a deterministic theory:
Shouldn’t this cartoon be revised “Someone is more wrong on the Internet” ?
BTW, got slammed with work but as soon as I get the chance I am going to reply to comments. Thank you for your patience.