I definitely see the value of choosing the least complex theory or Occam’s Razor. The problem is that it works really well in hindsight. But before the debate is settled it is hard to measure which theory is the simpler one.
The appeal of MWI is that it gives a very coherent explanation of quantum phenomenons (maybe not Born rule) without assuming anything extra. There is no additional collapse, there are no extra hidden variables. The existence of parallel worlds that many people find uncomfortable is not its assumption but the result of vigorous logical deductions. I would be lying by saying I don’t see the simplicity and beauty of it. However, I just want to point out MWI does need to assume perspective-independent objectivity. Which CI could (and I think should) go without. If Thomas Nagel’s steps are valid, then it can be argued that CI is less complex. But again, complexity is hard to compare, I have no problem if others find MWI simpler.
I also think we do start with perspective-based reasoning. Even thinking about what happens within my brain requires “a view from nowhere” (assuming perspective-independent reality, step 3), or an outsider’s perspective (step 2).
The existence of parallel worlds that many people find uncomfortable is not its assumption but the result of vigorous logical deductions
The existence of decoherent worlds is pretty hard to deduce from the SWE alone -- one pure state evolves into another. And a pure state doesn’t decompose into a set of objective worlds without a preferred basis .
I definitely see the value of choosing the least complex theory or Occam’s Razor. The problem is that it works really well in hindsight. But before the debate is settled it is hard to measure which theory is the simpler one.
The appeal of MWI is that it gives a very coherent explanation of quantum phenomenons (maybe not Born rule) without assuming anything extra. There is no additional collapse, there are no extra hidden variables. The existence of parallel worlds that many people find uncomfortable is not its assumption but the result of vigorous logical deductions. I would be lying by saying I don’t see the simplicity and beauty of it. However, I just want to point out MWI does need to assume perspective-independent objectivity. Which CI could (and I think should) go without. If Thomas Nagel’s steps are valid, then it can be argued that CI is less complex. But again, complexity is hard to compare, I have no problem if others find MWI simpler.
I also think we do start with perspective-based reasoning. Even thinking about what happens within my brain requires “a view from nowhere” (assuming perspective-independent reality, step 3), or an outsider’s perspective (step 2).
The existence of decoherent worlds is pretty hard to deduce from the SWE alone -- one pure state evolves into another. And a pure state doesn’t decompose into a set of objective worlds without a preferred basis .
I think you are right. Preferred basis is another problem.