🧵 many worlds interpretation is pathetic
Morphism at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 01:48:01 UTC No. 16104209
The many worlds interpretation is not just false, it is pathetic.
I don't just think they're wrong, i look down on the character of physicists who believe in many worlds. They're weak.
They couldn't solve the problem of how wave function collapsed. And so they just throw it all out and declare "welp to solve the problem of wavefunction collapse, lets just declare that the collapse doesn't exist, and all we have are infinite permutations of all possible quantum words... Oh how does it branch off into a new world? oh, "somehow" idk ~hand waves it away~"
weak and pathetic because they couldn't do the necessary science and couldn't make a theory on collapse. So they just ignore it
modern many-worlders are an insult to all the Great quantum physicists of antiquity. Disrespectful to the Greats. They bring dishonor upon themselves and the whole modern scientific community.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 01:55:28 UTC No. 16104220
>>16104209
you make a good point when you say that they dont even propose how such branching of into a new world even happens. they really have solved nothing so far, and yes many worlds is cringe
Morphism at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 02:28:09 UTC No. 16104247
>>16104220
Exactly, not to mention that ignoring the collapse problem is not a solution to the collapse problem. They just ignore its existence.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 02:41:36 UTC No. 16104259
>>16104209
"Many worlds" in this context is schizobabble or comic book scifi, usually when people use that term now they refer to different universes rather than permutations on quantum events. Not that that's much better.
Morphism at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 03:16:45 UTC No. 16104293
>>16104259
> "Many worlds" in this context is schizobabble or comic book scifi, usually when people use that term now they refer to different universes. Not that that's much better.
which is why it needs to die.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 03:39:21 UTC No. 16104313
>>16104209
>>16104220
>>16104247
>>16104259
>>16104293
Shut up and do the math you morons.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 03:50:05 UTC No. 16104321
>>16104209
superdeterminism is correct.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 04:15:27 UTC No. 16104333
>>16104321
Superdetermism is the belief that the universe is playing a long-running practical joke on us
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 09:44:49 UTC No. 16104575
>>16104209
Your mistake is in assuming the "many worlds" are in parallel rather than in series.
Sorry but you're actually just too low IQ to have this discussion.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:41:12 UTC No. 16104738
>>16104333
no, superdeterminism is the belief that no event could have unfolded any differently.
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:48:07 UTC No. 16105740
>>16104209
Consciousness is what collapses the wavefunction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qb
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 04:24:21 UTC No. 16105879
>>16105795
honestly you have to be aproper spastic to come up with this shit
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 07:51:34 UTC No. 16105999
>>16104313
As opposed to many worlders? Because they blatently disregard the math. The Born rule, i.e. the most important computational tool of QM, has no place in their "interpretation".
Morphism at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:58:22 UTC No. 16106234
>>16105740
correct.
they say that all quantum objects exist as a wavefunction by default, and are then collapsed somehow. And this is a real phase change that is nontrivial. I agree. Yes
so
In double slit experiment, the photon is emitted, and is a wave, and is defined its wavefunction, correct? This is the default state of it as the photon is a quantum object. And the mainstream interpretation is that the detector (when on) collapsed the wavefunction of the photon, making it a particle.
yea, so
so
but in order for something (like a detector) to perform an observation, it must also be be collapsed in-and-of-itself in order to have any causal impact on the photon
so
the problem is, and I dont know why anyone ever asked this:
what collapsed the detector? It is indeed a quantum object, with a cpu, lens, ect. All these parts, and the aggregate whole of the dectector by default should be merely an uncollapsed wavefunction. Unable to have causal impact and perform an observation
In fact
the entire laboratory should be in superposition. All of it. All of it should be an uncollapsed wavefunction.
yes. There must be some object in the laboratory that is very special, such that its existence cannot be in a superposition of states. If there existed an object like that, it would imply the necessity of the rest of the laboratory to collapse with it. Since this hypothetical object cannot be in a superposition of states, then anything it interacted with would collapse.
hmmm, I wonder what that very special object is?
hmmm, come to think of it, nothing ive ever perceived or experienced has ever been in a superposition of states. Nope. Never seen anything like that. I look around my room, and I see a real physical chair. Not a statistical amalgamation of infinite states. The chair has 4 legs, not a probability distribution of legs. Nope. Anyway, still wondering what that very special object that cannot be in a superposition of states is. Anyone have any guesses?
hmmmmmmmmmm...
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 22:28:41 UTC No. 16106903
>>16104209
I'm sorry but the wave function never collapses, that's all
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 22:39:09 UTC No. 16106921
>>16106903
do you even collapse gravity bro?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEH
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 22:48:22 UTC No. 16106929
>>16104321
lol what's the difference between determinism and superdeterminism, what a joke
either way equally falsifiable as free will, it's nothing more than a hobbyists discussion. proving determinism requires a scope beyond phenomenon.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 02:22:16 UTC No. 16107194
>>16106929
>lol what's the difference between determinism and superdeterminism, what a joke
good point - there is none. you can thank john bell for the stupid word.
>either way equally falsifiable as free will, it's nothing more than a hobbyists discussion. proving determinism requires a scope beyond phenomenon.
correct, you have no idea how refreshing it is for me to see someone who actually gets it. though despite being unprovable, the question is still vital.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:57:10 UTC No. 16107301
Yes, it is pathetic. Scientists reached the fundamental limit of observation by a human brain and instead of realizing that there are many brains observing, they concluded that there are many worlds. It is the dumbest logical leap ever.