tom

The main contenders are: 1. Everett got it wrong due to my personal inability to comprehend. 2. Everett got it wrong because of my personal incredulit...

We know that every physical law is computable, and that any future law will be too. This is called the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (not to be conf...

Everettian QM is better than that - it is fully deterministic. i.e. given the state of the system at any time, plus the laws of motion, the state at a...

Some people, being incapable of any deeper thought, put a lot of store by what something is called. The original name for Everettian QM was The Theory...

No idea what you are on about. All physical interactions are local, having no effect on space like separated regions. Everett respects relativity.

You appear not to understand the implications for contextuality of locality.

I enjoy collecting these fallacies - this one I will call the attribution of religion. Can things get any more pathetic on a philosophy forum ... prob...

It's the "PBR" paper, and it argues exactly the opposite.

I'm gong to make a list of the arguments against Everettian QM that appear in this thread. The argument from personal incredulity is most of them. The...

Quite the opposite! Everettian QM is observer-independent, furthermore, you only exist in an infinitesimal slice of the multiverse.

I mentioned earlier that the Mach-Zehnder interferometer falsifies any idea that photons don't pass through transparent media. It occurs to me that it...

I'm sure you spotted I was being deliberately tendentious in some of the points in the list. I did this because I have given up any hope that critics ...

Unless you subscribe to Everettian QM, in which case you retain both.

It is impossible to arrive at an explanatory scientific theory via induction. For details see "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper, or, ...

All David Wallace's work is first class, and this talk particularly accessible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJT9qY21nA

Over to you. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer explained ...

So, you are defending the assertion that: " ...by purporting that there is indeed an "inductive argument" for the opposite? Seriously? "Virtually no i...

Sure, but try making a fantasy or fictitious EXPLANATION. Seriously, try it. If the bomb-tester is too complicated, then try constructing a fictitious...

How do you explain quantum interference if the other path does not "exist"? How can things that don't exist be physically causal? Why does the Elitzur...

Well, there is indeed "no inductive reason for counting these laws as true"- because there is no such thing as an inductive reason for any explanation...

I'm going to quibble with you here. The Copenhagen Interpretation does quite a bit more than postulating wavefunction collapse in order deny reality: ...

Some pertinent advice for the left, from the left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

And due to the endless name-calling, people stop caring what you say.

You describe yourself as a Positivist, i.e. you hold the view that all statements apart from those describing or predicting measurements are meaningle...

This is precisely the sort of name-calling nonsense that causes people to look more closely at Trump, then vote for him.

To paraphrase... On making observations of fossils, paleontologists developed a theory of dinosaurs to explain fossils. They made an ontological commi...

So, being an instrumentalist, you would class dinosaurs as just an 'interpretation' of fossils, rather than actually having existed? Perhaps you think...

I challenge you to find anywhere in the formalism of Everettian Quantum mechanics mention of 'many worlds'. Go ahead! The axioms of quantum mechanics ...

I challenge you to find anywhere in the formalism of Everettian Quantum Mechanics mention of parallel universes. Go ahead! The axioms of quantum mecha...

I refer you to my post about macroscopically definite cats above. I reckon 'many worlds' must mean 'many worlds', what else could it mean? Frankly, yo...

Macroscopically definite states, just as the formalism indicates.

Text-book QM claims that Schrödinger's cat is in a macroscopically indefinite state - a superposition of being alive and being dead. Everett claims th...

My apologies, I misread where Wayfarer's quote came from. It came from an article that Orzel did NOT like apparently.

Nope, it doesn't refer to that. What Everett claimed is that the bare formalism of quantum mechanics may be treated in a straightforward realist way, ...

Nope, nowhere in MW is the claim made that measuring the spin of an electron means "you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one elec...

The old argument from consensus. Only a minority of physicists advocate Everett. It's a scandal, which future historians will recognise as being an ob...

Many Worlds is realist.

Sure, Many World advocates ignore that point. http://www.cheapuniverses.com/ Orzel is also wrong. by the way.

The realism is required by the epistemology of science.

No, it's a testable theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02048 It is different from standard treatments of QM in that does not have the Born rule as an ...

And as a result of MW being the ONLY explanatory theory that can reproduce all the results of QM, it is also the only testable theory. https://arxiv.o...

I note you are unable to defend your baseless claims. Orzel's understanding of Many Worlds has improved over the years: http://scienceblogs.com/princi...

Really? Where? Where is MW being "defended" by use of fuzzy terms?

Sorry, but absent a parachute, that is impossible.

Newton's theory is wrong because it is a false explanation. It could be (and indeed was) protected from problematic observations by making ad-hoc modi...

Not quite. The block-universe is a stationary space-time which must exist according to Relativity. So its originator was Einstein. Quantum mechanics a...

Under MW, entanglement is not just a (statistical) correlation. "Correlation" is the wrong word. It is the anti-explanatory word used by anti-realists...

You can prove that with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer.

Of course, the most important reason for adopting Many Worlds: There exists no alternative explanatory theory to Everett-interpreted quantum mechanics...

"The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Dublin Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays" Schrödinger 1995. p 19