I have argued many times before that the many worlds interpretation does not really work. It seems that Stephen Hsu came to the same conclusion. In the comments to his blog post Lubos explains (once again) why Copenhagen is the only valid way to use quantum theory - just like string theory is the only valid way to think about everything.
I agree to a large extent with Lubos, because the split between observer and quantum world seems rather natural to me. I am always absolutely certain of my state, but apparently have to use quantum theory to describe everything else.
The natural endpoint of Lubos' argument, that there just is no (classical) reality except the observer's observations, is solipsism.
And this really "works well" as a consistent understanding of quantum theory in most cases, except for one issue: The solipsist cannot explain where I came from, just as the Copenhageners are puzzled where those observers actually come from.
The usual story of sex and babies does not work for the solipsist, because mama and papa are only images of my imagination. If I die the world ends, so where did it come from? (*)
If the Copenhagener agrees that there were no observers present at the big bang, then where do they and the universe come from?
Historically, cosmology and quantum gravity were the main reason deWitt, Hawking et al. became interested in the many worlds interpretation, but the rest of us perhaps just needs to get used to the fact that I just don't know everything.
(*) I should add that it is certainly possible that other worlds exist, some similar to mine and some very different. Obviously, I cannot use the experience of my world to assign probabilities to that; there is no valid measure for such a many worlds hypothesis.
- ► 2016 (31)
- ▼ 2015 (26)
- ► 2014 (23)