Atheist defends the Soul: Substance Dualism with Michael Huemer

MWI is a possible interpretation of QM. It’s incomprehensible but so is QM. While I don’t subscribe to MWI I believe that ultimate reality is fundamentally incomprehensible to us and naive arguments like those presented in the video bears little meaning.

I wouldn't call MWI incomprehensible, I'd call it daft! An explanation that posits a fast and continuous sequence of bifurcations of the entire universe is plain potty.

The only thing about MWI is that it makes me wonder if QM is an approximation to another theory in which reality splits can split but also rejoin (after all QM, is supposed to be time-symmetric). This might lead to a finite network of realities.

David

I wouldn't call MWI incomprehensible, I'd call it daft! An explanation that posits a fast and continuous sequence of bifurcations of the entire universe is plain potty.

The only thing about MWI is that it makes me wonder if QM is an approximation to another theory in which reality splits can split but also rejoin (after all QM, is supposed to be time-symmetric). This might lead to a finite network of realities.

David

There’s definitely an unresolved question on how the ‘atomic’ world with entanglements and so forth relates to the macroscopic world we experience.

I wouldn't call MWI incomprehensible, I'd call it daft! An explanation that posits a fast and continuous sequence of bifurcations of the entire universe is plain potty.

The only thing about MWI is that it makes me wonder if QM is an approximation to another theory in which reality splits can split but also rejoin (after all QM, is supposed to be time-symmetric). This might lead to a finite network of realities.

David

Yeah it's odd that skeptics tolerate it or even endorse it when they attack theories of QM that give consciousness a fundamental role.

At least we all have evidence consciousness exists, whereas these exponentially created infinite universes have yet to be detected and under some arguments can never be detected.

The defense is the theory is a combination of logic and mathematics, but then [according to those physicists who defend it] so is Von Neuman & Stapp's arguments for consciousness having a role in QM. Just shows that if something is in accord with the materialist faith its believers are willing to swallow it.

Another aspect of Quantum Mechanics (QM) that the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) fails to demystify, according to my understanding, is quantum entanglement. MWI posits that every possible outcome of a quantum superposition branches into a separate world. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, where the act of measurement causes the 'collapse' of the quantum state into a classical state. However, the 'Spooky Action at a Distance' remains just as mysterious in MWI.

My point is that MWI (Many-Worlds Interpretation) cannot render Quantum Mechanics (QM) mundane, which I suspect is the aim of some of its proponents.

Another aspect of Quantum Mechanics (QM) that the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) fails to demystify, according to my understanding, is quantum entanglement. MWI posits that every possible outcome of a quantum superposition branches into a separate world. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, where the act of measurement causes the 'collapse' of the quantum state into a classical state. However, the 'Spooky Action at a Distance' remains just as mysterious in MWI.

My point is that MWI (Many-Worlds Interpretation) cannot render Quantum Mechanics (QM) mundane, which I suspect is the aim of some of its proponents.

Is this just a special case of the problem of degenerate wavefunctions where two or more energy levels are the same, and any linear combination of the corresponding wavefunctions is also a solution of the Schroedinger equation.

It would certainly be fun if the philosophers could step in and stir the pot a bit regarding MWI.

David

[Laird]

Find more from Huemer here: https://fakenous.net/


Don't click on the link, seems the site is gone for whatever reason

According to the site as it was at time of last indexing by archive.org, prior to being poached by domain thieves, it has moved to substack: fakenous.substack.com. There's some good reading there.

I also really enjoyed the first video, which is the only one I've watched so far. He's sharp, has strong arguments, and makes compelling points - on cue, which is impressive.