If many worlds wasn’t favored by the evidence that distinguishes between the two explanationsand was the more complex explanation from reality’s point of view, then yes, but I don’t think it qualifies for dragonhood under this criteria.
OK, on the one hand we have many-worlds. As you say, no direct subjective corroborating evidence (it’s what we’d see either way). What’s more, it’s the simplest explanation of what we see around us.
On the other hand, we have one-world. Again, ‘it’s what we’d see either way’. However, we now have to postulate an extra mechanism that causes the ‘collapse’.
I know which of these feels more like a privileged complex hypothesis pulled out of thin air, like a dragon.
Could whomever downvoted me above let me know where I’m going wrong here?
Because that’s not what’s actually being postulated. What’s being postulated is “you know the basic math of QM? well… Just take that math really seriously and avoid adding too many extra rules. a CONSEQUENCE of that is many worlds.”
ie, “take the quantum amplitudes over configuration space and the linear update rule. Also keep the whole born statistics thing for now. Hopefully we’ll be able to derive it from the rest. And that’s it. Don’t add any rules about the rest of the amplitude field going to zero or any other such nonsense. Just have all QM all the time”
Voted this down, then changed my mind and undid it. This is a genuine question, the answer to which was graciously accepted. Downvoting people who need guidance to understand a concept and are ready to learn is exactly what we don’t want to do.
So, Many Worlds is a garage dragon?
If many worlds wasn’t favored by the evidence that distinguishes between the two explanations and was the more complex explanation from reality’s point of view, then yes, but I don’t think it qualifies for dragonhood under this criteria.
Surely spontaneous collapse is the garage dragon here. Zero evidence, highly unlikely.
See my top level comment.
Thanks for the link ;).
OK, on the one hand we have many-worlds. As you say, no direct subjective corroborating evidence (it’s what we’d see either way). What’s more, it’s the simplest explanation of what we see around us.
On the other hand, we have one-world. Again, ‘it’s what we’d see either way’. However, we now have to postulate an extra mechanism that causes the ‘collapse’.
I know which of these feels more like a privileged complex hypothesis pulled out of thin air, like a dragon.
Could whomever downvoted me above let me know where I’m going wrong here?
How is postulating entire worlds simpler than collapse?
Decoherence is Simple
Thank you.
Because that’s not what’s actually being postulated. What’s being postulated is “you know the basic math of QM? well… Just take that math really seriously and avoid adding too many extra rules. a CONSEQUENCE of that is many worlds.”
ie, “take the quantum amplitudes over configuration space and the linear update rule. Also keep the whole born statistics thing for now. Hopefully we’ll be able to derive it from the rest. And that’s it. Don’t add any rules about the rest of the amplitude field going to zero or any other such nonsense. Just have all QM all the time”
Voted this down, then changed my mind and undid it. This is a genuine question, the answer to which was graciously accepted. Downvoting people who need guidance to understand a concept and are ready to learn is exactly what we don’t want to do.
Worlds aren’t postulated, in the same way that cows aren’t.