QM is too hard for me, but I may spot inconsistencies all right
QM is way above my brain capacity, but sometimes, I can contribute because I detected an inconsistency in such a theory.
Parallel-universes people (PUP) use a wild ad-hoc hypothesis of PUs. Tiny tiny objects, subject to QM, are undetermined until they are detected. Observation makes them come out either this way or that way. What happens to the one way when detection shows it the other way? So, the PUP postulate the one way happened too but only in a parallel universe.
Sabine Hossenfelder (the above clip) asks why the observer doesn’t also split into one in each universe (only has the best of both worlds).
I have a better question. How come, in the other world, there is a determined outcome without an observer? That’s against QM theory. Therefore, there is no parallel universe, let alone multiple ones.
But then there must be people who fantasize that every choice we make duplicates us to live separately in two parallel universes: the one who managed to resist the temptation to steal alongside the one who didn’t.
This would mean that the more ethically we live, the greater the number of unethical duplicates we generate in so many parallel universes. Absurd and repulsive. Especially because it can’t be checked, but if it were true, the thief who murders and lies and rapes, overall, come out more ethical than a decent person. It’s one thing to understand why physical sciences can’t deal so well with ethics, but quite another to hold that science proves that a labor coach and a mass murderer are ethically equal professions.
Last but not least, I think the multiverse concept is a nice brainteaser and is fine as a means to widen the brain’s horizon, pardon the pun, but as it is now, it falls outside of physical science because we can’t verify it.
This appears to be what Sabine says here too:
And she says too, that the problem gives the impression of stemming from mathematicians who assume that their formulations must reflect reality.
That is exactly what I’ve been saying forever. If you say that spacetime has four dimensions, that is a mathematical model. Then you can’t ask: Why can we freely walk in 7 directions but not into the past? The map is not the territory. You can’t ask why not. As soon as the map doesn’t depict the territory, you hit the limit of its accuracy and usefulness.
Lastly, Roger Penrose has a lot of empathy for QM. It’s successful all right, but it needs serious help. He appears to think in the direction of the wavefunction not collapsing at all. That there never were two possibilities.
That reminds me of Richard Feynman, who, in the booklet QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter seems to say Werner Heisenberg’s Quantum Uncertainty Principle, which looks like the foundation stone of QM’s probability, does not exist, and is the result of using the old terms in the new understanding he developed. That if you quit that, there is no uncertainty. (1983, footnote pp 55-56: “If you … use arrows … there is no need for an uncertainty principle!”) Too bad no one asked him to detail what he meant. In 1964 he still assumed chance and uncertainty were real:
Last but certainly least is the below clip that ‘proves’ the multiverse by a philosophical mistake without a formal name. Fifteen years ago, I thought of calling it the related-in-ignorance fallacy. Or maybe we could call it the Empty Equivalence Fallacy. The EEF goes like this: We don’t understand Free Will, and we don’t understand Awareness, so they must be related. Or: We don’t understand Volition or the Soul, so the Soul creates FW. Or: x divided by 0 = undetermined. y divided by 0 = undetermined. So, x = y. Or: Aliens are foreign to us and so is the multiverse, so that’s where they live.