Things you can't verify

[Rivendale]

Carroll is worth taking seriously but he is definitely not Science. Very few physicists take Many Worlds seriously. Most of us find it ridiculous: postulating uncountably many undetectable copies of everything—and calling that "parsimonious".

On this one Carroll's arguments are just bad. No, if one doesn't buy MW, one is not obliged to have a ready alternative explanation for quantum measurement. I'm allowed to doubt that bleach cures cancer even though I don't yet have any other cure for cancer. We don't understand quantum gravity, we don't understand irreversibility. That's enough uncertainty to make the neutral "something we don't understand is going on" hypothesis highly plausible.

Believing in MW will indeed guide your research. That can be bad. If you believe MW, you will not be inclined to dig deeply into exactly how quantum detectors work. That's an opportunity cost. You may pursue some things but you will neglect others.

Did you watch or read the transcript?

[bill4long]

He claims that the many worlds is the most parsimonious explanation.

Occam's Razon is merely a general guide, not any sort of absolute law.

At any rate, Many Worlds might be the most parsiminous interpretation of Quantum Mechanics if one denies that consciousness has any sort of free will, an assumption that contradicts my own experience. Many Worlds is merely a product of Reason. Reason is secondary and is often wrong. Consciousness, on the other hand, with it's capacify for free will, is the primary fact of my own existence. The Copenhagen interpretation is compatible with the primary fact of my existence in a way that Many Worlds is not.

[Rivendale]

He claims that the many worlds is the most parsimonious explanation.

Occam's Razon is merely a general guide, not any sort of absolute law.

At any rate, Many Worlds might be the most parsiminous interpretation of Quantum Mechanics if one denies that consciousness has any sort of free will, an assumption that contradicts my own experience. Many Worlds is merely a product of Reason. Reason is secondary and is often wrong. Consciousness, on the other hand, with it's capacify for free will, is the primary fact of my own existence. The Copenhagen interpretation is compatible with the primary fact of my existence in a way that Many Worlds is not.

True. Occam's razor merely claims the explanations with the least amount of conjecture is usually the correct one. Are you saying that you have solved the hard solipsism claim in reference to the Copenhagen interpretation? I am confused.

Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' mental arbitrariness

. Could you expand more on what you mean by compatible?

[Chap]

Occam's razor merely claims the explanations with the least amount of conjecture is usually the correct one.

Do you mean "correct", as in the sense of "corresponding to reality"? I'm not sure that people usually use the term "Occam's razor" (in the scientific context) with that notion in mind.

Isn't it more that an explanatory model with a smaller number of hypothetical parameters is methodologically preferable as the basis of a research programme to a more complex model, because it is much easier to attempt to falsify it by experiment?

(I don't claim that my description is bullet-proof in every instance that the term is used, but I think the above explanation will fit most cases.)

[bill4long]

Could you expand more on what you mean by compatible?

Copenhagen interpretation does not require me to deny a primary fact of my own existence: free will, however small it is with regard to an outcome. I don't theorize about a direct act of will. I do it. I don't theorize about consciousness. I am it. Many Worlds, as I understand it, is completely deterministic, and has a bizarre implication that my consciousness should be endlessly bifurcating which I don't experience.

Important to keep in mind that Many Worlds and Copenhagen are not theories. They are interpretations. Natually, I'm going to feel an affinity with the one that comports with my experience as a conscious entity.

At any rate, it's kind of fun to get neck deep in the philosophical and experiential considerations of the products of mere reason, such as Quantum Theory, but let's not forget that Quantum Theory isn't complete, as most theoretical physicists agree. There is no quantum gravity and the equations of QM cannot be completely married to General Relativity. (For example, QM says nothing about how gravity should be distributed when an electron encounters a double slit. And then there the problems with black holes.) There are putative solutions, but nobody knows which one mayb bes right or how we can even figure out which one is right. Theorical physics has been mired in the mud for several decades now, for the most part.

In the meantime, as John Lennon said, keep on playing those mind games, forever.

[Rivendale]

Occam's razor merely claims the explanations with the least amount of conjecture is usually the correct one.

Do you mean "correct", as in the sense of "corresponding to reality"? I'm not sure that people usually use the term "Occam's razor" (in the scientific context) with that notion in mind.

Isn't it more that an explanatory model with a smaller number of hypothetical parameters is methodologically preferable as the basis of a research programme to a more complex model, because it is much easier to attempt to falsify it by experiment?

(I don't claim that my description is bullet-proof in every instance that the term is used, but I think the above explanation will fit most cases.)

Yes JTB. Justified true belief. Or what corresponds to reality via methodological naturalism. It sounds like you are saying that Occam's razor seems to appear correct because it requires less work to negate it.

[Gadianton]

Ockham's razor is a rhetorical device and not a serious tool (at least in our world today). Is there anyone with a Phd in physics who hasn't heard of Ockham's razor? Is there anyone in physics who has thought about a problem, come to a solution, and then said to themselves:

"hmm, by Ockham's razor, my colleague's assessment is the simpler option, but nevertheless, I believe my solution is the correct one."

No. It has never happened. Everyone who thinks they have the right answer to something is going to say their answer is also the simplest and wield Ockham's razor to support their own idea.

Another thing that has never happened: A person becomes a physicist while somehow never hearing of Ockham's razor. This person then proposes a theory to a colleague, who disagrees, countering with their own idea. The physicist who has never heard of Ockham's razor doesn't accept the colleague's counter. But then, the colleague explains Ockham's razor. With this new information, the original physicist says, "You know what, you're totally right! Your explanation is simpler than mine, I've changed my mind!"

I'd say Ockham's razor probably isn't relevant, but if anything, goes against many worlds, because Ockham's beef was with realism. If there ever was a realist interpretation of the world, it's the many worlds theory.

[Rivendale]

I don't theorize about a direct act of will. I do it. I don't theorize about consciousness.

Isn't that just Dan Dennett's version of compatibilism?

and has a bizarre implication that my consciousness should be endlessly bifurcating which I don't experience.

Yes. This brings up the problem of who is the real you?

Theorical physics has been mired in the mud for several decades now, for the most part.

Agree. It has spawned the Deepak's of the world.

[Rivendale]

Ockham's razor is a rhetorical device and not a serious tool (at least in our world today). Is there anyone with a Phd in physics who hasn't heard of Ockham's razor? Is there anyone in physics who has thought about a problem, come to a solution, and then said to themselves:

"hmm, by Ockham's razor, my colleague's assessment is the simpler option, but nevertheless, I believe my solution is the correct one."

No. It has never happened. Everyone who thinks they have the right answer to something is going to say their answer is also the simplest and wield Ockham's razor to support their own idea.

Another thing that has never happened: A person becomes a physicist while somehow never hearing of Ockham's razor. This person then proposes a theory to a colleague, who disagrees, countering with their own idea. The physicist who has never heard of Ockham's razor doesn't accept the colleague's counter. But then, the colleague explains Ockham's razor. With this new information, the original physicist says, "You know what, you're totally right! Your explanation is simpler than mine, I've changed my mind!"

I'd say Ockham's razor probably isn't relevant, but if anything, goes against many worlds, because Ockham's beef was with realism. If there ever was a realist interpretation of the world, it's the many worlds theory.

I agree it is rhetorical. I think the bottom line is to not multiply assumptions. Sometimes it can't be avoided but it shouldn't diminish the overarching premise that given a set of parameters do not assume more than can be demonstrated.

[bill4long]

Isn't that just Dan Dennett's version of compatibilism?

No. By compatible I mean that Copenhagen interpretation doesn't contradict my experience. Many World (apparently) does. (Dennet's "compatiblist" view, as far as I understand it, is that even though everything is deterministic, and nobody has free will, it's a bad idea to tell people they don't, because that will lead to negative consequences. That doesn't have anything to do with my statements about Copenhagen.)

Yes. This brings up the problem of who is the real you?

I only consider my consciousness to be the real "me." My differentiated "node" of consciousness. The Experiencer. Everything else is merely neurological programming, and can be altered and terminated. The metaphor I like to use is being on a roller coaster. You are a conscious "thing" having a "ride" in spacetime and the interface is your brain. The brain is programmed with a particular personality from genetics and environment. This is not the Mormon "spirit inhabiting a body" kind of idea, where when you die you're essentially the same personality in the "spirit world." My view is closer (maybe identical) to the Eastern Vedic view of consciousness.

Agree. It has spawned the Deepak's of the world.

Well, I don't know anything about him except to say that, some people claim he peddles pseudo-science, which I have no tolerance for. I'm a die hard empiricist. I embrace consciousness experimentalism, which is kind of what I was getting at with my silly bit about John Lennon, but any conclusions beyond direct empirical evidence is suspect. (Are the DMT "machine elves" really self-existent entities? I doubt it seriously. But they sure as hell seem like it.) But I'm always open for a good discussion. I think a dose of Psilocybin (magic mushrooms) would convince most people that they as "experiencer" (consciousness) is more fundamental than their "personality" as we normally think of it. (Pardon the clunky prose.) One can achieve the same perception with meditation, albeit with much practice.