I guess I’ve always been confused by the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the fact that it’s taken seriously. Like is there any proof at all that universes outside of our own exist?

I admit that I might be dumb, but, how does one look at atoms and say “My God! There must be many worlds than just our one?”

I just never understood how Many Worlds Interpretation was valid, with my, admittedly limited understanding, it just seemed to be a wild guess no more strange than a lot things we consider too outlandish to humor.

  • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    12 days ago

    I think you misunderstood, it’s not the Vertiginous Question, it’s simply about describing an experiment.

    I perform an experiment to empirically investigate something, this process depends on me subjectively experiencing the result of the experiment. Before the observation, the system is in superposition, afterwards it appears to not be in my subjective experience. Collapse theories have to add a postulate that something happened upon observation to change the system. MWI has to add a postulate that some mechanism placed me in a certain branch of the possible outcomes. Neither is necessarily simpler than the other.

    Whether other versions of me with their own subjective experience observed something else or not, you need to add that postulate. Their observations are irrelevant empirically, and saying “you actually observed all outcomes” is just factually wrong from an empirical viewpoint.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      12 days ago

      this process depends on me subjectively experiencing the result of the experiment.

      All results of the experiment will be experienced by a future version of you.

      MWI has to add a postulate that some mechanism placed me in a certain branch of the possible outcomes.

      No, this is definitely the Vertiginous Question. The “mechanism” that puts you in a certain branch is the same one puts you in a certain body. Are you also going to demand that neuroscientists answer the Vertiginous question before they can say that other people exist?

      you need to add that postulate.

      That “postulate” already exists if you believe in consciousness in the first place.

      “you actually observed all outcomes” is just factually wrong from an empirical viewpoint.

      Literally the opposite: empiricism requires objectivey, trying to insist that only the things that you personally subjectively experience counts is as far from that as you can get.