News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by lisper on Friday April 19, 2024 @05:56PM (#40092359)
It seems pretty clear cut to me. I've seen no argument against it that doesn't involve some logical fallacy. If you think you know of one please enlighten me.
Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by AnimalMuppet on Friday April 19, 2024 @08:34PM (#40093401)
Well, I'm not an expert. But I know that, among those who are experts, many-worlds is not the consensus or even the majority view. So, while it may seem clear cut to you, it doesn't to everyone. That's why I keep saying that no, it's not clear.

I realize that's argument by authority, and that's considered a fallacy...

Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by lisper on Friday April 19, 2024 @08:41PM (#40093441)
I'm not an expert either. I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. But the math behind QM -- at least the parts that matter for this discussion -- is pretty straightforward linear algebra. Really, anyone can learn it. So don't take my word for it, look into it and decide for yourself. You can start here:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Physics-Princeton-Foundati...

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Al...

Or, if you don't feel like buying a book:

https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

Or, if you prefer a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

BTW, it may come as a surprise to learn that I am actually not a big proponent of many-worlds despite recognizing that it is in fact a logical consequence of the math. If so, you may find this interesting too:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/on-shadow-photons-and-re...

and a follow-up written ten years later:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo...

Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by knightoffaith on Saturday April 20, 2024 @10:30AM (#40097603)
>QM is pretty straightforward linear algebra

The chasm between my grades in linear algebra and my grades in quantum begs to differ... :(

Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by lisper on Saturday April 20, 2024 @01:23PM (#40098942)
There are two different ways of approaching QM: the physicist's way and the computer scienctist's way. You were probably taught it the physicist's way, which is not wrong, but obscures the parts you need to know to understand the MWI. That part really is pretty simple. You should try again.
Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by 2snakes on Friday April 19, 2024 @09:44PM (#40093859)
According to Einstein nature is parsimonious:many worlds is proliferate.
Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by lisper on Friday April 19, 2024 @10:49PM (#40094283)
Sure, but parsimony only applies when all else is equal, and here all else is not equal. Newtonian mechanics is a lot more parsimonious than GR.
Re:Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) by 2snakes on Friday April 19, 2024 @11:37PM (#40094575)
That’s human theories which is way downstream of the classical interpretation/paradigm of nature being defined as physical processes.