my layman's take on it is that the many worlds model sounds most parsimonious
-
-
saying that this is the best description of how it works isn't the same
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
as saying infinite "parallel universes" actually exist though
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
especially since what we know abt quantum effects is that they overwhelmingly cancel out
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
into a singular "most likely" and indeed deterministic universe at the macro scale
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
the question of whether "possible worlds" actually "exist" pre-dates quantum physics
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
and imo it's fairly independent of it
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
modal realism isn't necessary for the MWI and the MWI doesn't support it as much as ppl think
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
like if you were to ask me my opinion of real-world human-scale probability I'd take the
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Bayesian view - there is only one thing that actually is going to happen
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
the "odds" are only a statement of your personal subjective knowledge
-
-
most physics ppl I know are annoyed at "quantum" as a backdoor for mysticism
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
like maybe consciousness is a quantum phenomenon but probably not
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.