Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 20 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Many-worlds interpretation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Many-worlds interpretation is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Physics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Criticism Section

This article appears to be heavily biased towards the MWI; there exists only a section addressing common objections to the MWI based on misconceptions. Perhaps the article would benefit from a return to neutrality in the form of a 'Criticism' section, which mentions some of the main objections to the MWI which aren't ill founded. 220.235.96.106 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of any? (And can you source them?) -- cheers, Michael C. Price 07:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the article is heavily biased towards MWI, and in particular the "Criticism" section does not accurately represent the whole range of published views on the subject. Just doing a random review of six books on quantum mechanics and its interpretations, I find that all six of them are decidedly NOT favorable toward MWI, and some of them are outright derisive. These books are by recognized scholars and experts in the field, so they ought to be accurately reflected in this article, regardless of whether we agree with them.AIMW32 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a section called criticism. 1Z (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, the section is called "Reception", and the point is that the section (as presently written) is preposterously biased in favor of MWI. According to Misplaced Pages policy, the section needs to be evenly representative of the reputable sources and literature on this subject. Most of the reputable sources are decidedly not favorable to the MWI interpretation, but a reader of this Misplaced Pages article, as presently written, would never suspect this. So the section needs to be re-written to be more balanced and representative.AIMW32 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not call having informative responses to criticisms "preposterously biased". However, if in the interests of "balance" you wish to include quotations from the six books that "are are decidedly NOT favorable toward MWI, and some of them are outright derisive.", go ahead; it is true that many "experts" are derisive - and the fact of their derision is worth reporting - although whether they still form a majority is not so clear. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 07:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are some guidelines:

1. WP:CITE your sources, don't just make it up.
2. Or at least, make it is plausible. You did not find that most "scholarly literature on quantum mechanics and its interpretations" WP:DONTLIKE MWI from your "cursory" survey.
3. And see WP:OR before embarking on an extensive survey. It won't get any traction either. Cite one from an WP:RS.
4. Try to resist editorializing, but honestly, if you want to say MW-haters talk a lot of smack, I don't think that's likely to be challenged.—Machine Elf  09:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific conditions of time travel.

Regardless of artificial or natural time travel claims, if time travel (wormholes) exists then parallel realities precisely make sense period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.20.160.72 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Reception" Section

As mentioned above, I think the section on "Reception" needs to more accurately reflect the available reputable sources. Here is the kind of section that I think would be appropriate and representative of the views of the scientific community.

Reception

From the beginning, the response to the many worlds interpretation of quantum has been quite varied. Hugh Everett’s thesis advisor, John Wheeler, originally looked favorably on the idea, but in later years withdrew his endorsement. In an interview in 1986 Wheeler said “I supported this to begin with, because it seemed to represent the logical follow-up of the formalism of quantum theory. I have changed my view on it today because there's too much metaphysical baggage being carried along with it, in the sense that every time you see this or that happening you have to envisage other universes in which I see something else happening. This is to make science into a kind of mysticism.” Also, when (at Wheeler’s urging) Everett visited Neils Bohr in Copenhagen in 1959, hoping to convince Bohr of the soundness of the idea, Bohr and his circle reacted very negatively, even derisively. (This may have contributed to Wheeler’s loss of confidence, since he was a great admirer of Bohr.) Bohr's close colleague, Leon Rosenfeld, wrote in 1959 after meeting with Everett “This work suffers from the fundamental misunderstanding which affects all attempts at ‘axiomatizing’ any part of physics. The ‘axiomatizers’ do not realize that every physical theory must necessarily make use of concepts which cannot in principle be further analyzed. … The fact, emphasized by Everett, that it is actually possible to set-up a wave function for the experimental apparatus and a Hamiltonian for the interaction between system and apparatus is perfectly trivial, but also terribly treacherous; in fact, it did mislead Everett to the conception that it might be possible to describe apparatus + atomic object as a closed system. … This, however, is an illusion.”

In his book "Particles and Paradoxes, The Limits of Quantum Logic" Peter Gibbins remarks that the MWI "is taken very seriously by a few physicists and philosophers, and not at all by most others", and he follows this with a review of the range of criticisms.

Similarly in “The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, R. Hughes says the MWI has been subjected to each of four types of criticisms: "(1) the internal consistency of MWI can be challenged, (2) it's philosophical coherence can be doubted, (3) one can object to the lack of fit between MWI and other physical theories, and (4) one can critize it on general methodological grounds." In particular Huges discusses what he regards as a problem concerning the lack of a valid probability measure for the outcomes of events. He says that those who contend MWI solves the measurement problem typically imagine that the probability distribution for the various possible outcomes of a sequence of quantum events can be associated with the relative number of future “worlds” that contain one set of outcomes versus another, but according to Huges there is no suitable principle of individuation to distinguish “worlds” in such a way that their relative numbers can be "counted" in any statistically meaningful sense. He concludes that the MWI does not provide us with any new understanding of the measurement process, because each observer is still faced with the dualism that the interpretation sought to eliminate. The only difference is that any "apparent" transition not governed by the Schrodinger equation "is now accompanied by an ontological cloudburst beside which the original modest dualism of von Newmann looks unremarkable, if not pusillanimous".

Euan Squires has written that "the general view of the theoretical physics community has been to reject the many-worlds interpretation... has become more fashionable in recent years". After reviewing again the problem of a lack of a suitable probability measure, Squires sums up his view as follows: "The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory only makes sense if some notion of selection, generally at random and probably associated with consciousness, is added to the theory."

Likewise, Roger Penrose comments : "It seems to me a theory of consciousness would be needed before the many worlds interpretation can be squared with what one actually observes... Claims have been made that the 'illusion' of can, in some sense, be effectively deduced in this picture, but I do not think that these claims hold up. At the very least, one needs further ingredients to make the scheme work. It seems to me that the many worlds view introduces a multitude of problems of its own without really touching upon the REAL puzzles of quantum mechanics."

Alistaire Rae’s response to the MWI was also negative. He wrote : "The idea of a near-infinite number of universes which can never interact with each other and whose existence can therefore never be verified seems to most scientists to be an extreme breach of this principle and certainly greater than that implied by the de Broglie-Bohm hidden-variable theory." Rae goes on to say "In recent years a combination of “many worlds” and subjectivism has been suggested. This proposes that there is no collapse, the wave function evolves according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, and that is all there is in the physical universe. However, we conscious observers are incapable of seeing the world this way; it is in our nature that we can be aware of only one result of any measurement process so, although the others are still out there, we are unaware of them. One of the problems that this approach gives rise to is to explain how different conscious observers always see the same results, and indeed it has been suggested that this points to all our consciousnesses being linked to some 'universal consciousness', one of whose jobs is to see that this agreement occurs!"

J. C. Polkinghorne has this to say : ", entities are being multiplied with incredible profusion. Such prodigality makes little appeal to professional scientists, whose instincts are to seek for a tight and economic understanding of the world. Very few of them, indeed, have espoused the Everett interpretation. It has, however, become more popular with what one might call the 'Gee-whizz' school of science popularizers, always out to stun the public with the weirdness of what they have to offer... Reality is not to be triffled with and sliced up in this way."

Huw Price has written "...quantum cosmologists have become enthusiastic supporters of the no-collapse view... Philosophers have been rather less enthusiastic, and there are a number of astute critical studies of the no-collapse proposal in the philosophical literature on quantum mechanics. One that is well-recognized by the view's proponents is... the issue as to why the many-branched reality it envisages should appear classical... but I want first to draw attention to a problem which seems not to be recognized at all by the proponents of the no-collapse view... It concerns the notion of probability in a model of this kind." Price then goes on to recount the problem discussed above, pointing out the lack of a suitable probability measure. He also comments that the task of critiquing MWI is complicated by "the fact that the interpretation is ill-defined in a number of crucial respects (among them, the issue of what, if anything, actually 'splits')."

David Wick writes: "Many-worlds go, in my opinion, beyond the reasonable and into science fiction... Contemplating all possible worlds suggests hubris but is philosophically respectable; claiming that they all co-exist is not."

In a series of interviews with prominent quantum physicists in 1986, including John Bell, John Wheeler, John Taylor, and David Deutsch, the first three spoke negatively about MWI, and even Deutsch (regarded as a well-known proponent of MWI) conceded that “I now think Everett was slightly wrong.” According to Deutsch, Everett thought that his interpretation followed directly from the formalism of quantum mechanics, but Deutsch believes that “even in his interpretation, one requires a little bit of extra structure in order to arrive at the interpretation… it is the little piece of mathematics which provides the connection between the wave function… and the concept of the many parallel universes. I don’t think one can do without this extra structure”. Deutsch agrees that this “little bit of extra structure” is needed “to tell us something about how any individual universe in this vast stack of cosmic alternatives fits into the stack”. Furthermore, Deutsch believes Everett was wrong to claim that MWI is empirically indistinguishable from the other interpretations. Deutsch contends that quantum mechanics under the MWI is not empirically equivalent to conventional quantum mechanics, because he says a sufficiently sensitive consciousness actually would perceive a superposition of universes – just as many critics of MWI have always asserted. He said “If we had fine enough senses, then we could detect or feel (whatever that would mean) the presence of the other universes”, and he suggests that it may become possible to test this with artificial intelligence devices within a few decades.

John Bell, although saying the the MWI had “some merit”, did not view it favorably. He said “I have strong feelings against it… it’s extremely bizarre, and for me that would already be enough reason to dislike it. The idea that there are all those other universes which we can't see is hard to swallow. But there are also technical problems with it which people usually gloss over or don't even realize when they study it. The actual point at which a branching occurs is supposed to be the point at which a measurement is made. But the point at which the measurement is made is totally obscure. The experiments at CERN for example take months and months, and at which particular second on which particular day the measurement is made and the branching occurs is perfectly obscure. So I believe that the many-universes interpretation is a kind of heuristic, simplified theory, which people have done on the backs of envelopes but haven't really thought through. When you do try to think it through it is not coherent.”AIMW32 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this. One thing that worries me here is that the Bell quote seems to be talking about something different from MWI as it is described in this article (he seems to be talking about a form of MWI in which measurements have special status and branching is instantaneous). The same may be true of some of the other quotes. (I'm not sure what to do about this - I just wanted to point out the problem.) --Zundark (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bell was reacting to early work by Everett. Ideas of decoherence came later. 1Z (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is some difficulty here, due to the fact that, at various times, various people have expounded various concepts, all of which are commonly grouped under the header of "the many worlds interpretation", and it's difficult to talk about the "reception" of all those ideas in a single article. This goes back to the very beginning, because one could say DeWitt (after his brief initial opposition) quickly became a supporter of Everett's interpretation, and yet, as many people have pointed out, the interpretation that DeWitt described was not identical to what Everett described. Likewise the people who regard themselves as proponents of "many worlds" today usually have in mind some particular vairant that is different from both the Everett and the DeWitt conceptions. For example, as noted above, Deutsch says Everett was wrong to believe that a viable interpretation arises purely from the formalism of quantum mechanics, and he (Deutsch) now agrees with many of the critics of Everett who always insisted that some additional feature was needed to even have a coherent interpretation. Furthermore Deutsch believes a sufficiently sensitive observer actually WOULD sense the superposition of worlds, which Everett (and many current proponents of "many worlds") would vociferously deny. So is it correct to count Deutsch as a supporter of Everett's interpretation, or as a critic and debunker of it?

Despite the fact that many of the scientists I quoted above were addressing variants of "many worlds" that differ from the variant that is espoused by the "owners" of this Wiki article, all these scientists were giving their reaction to what had been presented to them as the "many worlds" interpretation, so I think this is legitimately part of the "reception" of many worlds. Maybe the best that can be done in this article would be to preface the "Reception" section with an explanation that a variety of ideas related to "many worlds" have been proposed, some differing from each other in significant ways, and this section surveys the reception of this whole class of ideas. In many cases, those who espouse one particular variant of "many worlds" actually agree with the criticisms of the other variants, even though (of course) they believe the criticisms do not apply to their own preferred variant.AIMW32 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If a notable source says "many Worlds", that should count for Wikipedian purposes. WP should not filter, although it may contextualise (see below) 1Z (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to "stick to physics" and don't give too much weight to opinions of people, and instead explain the detailed mathematical arguments that have been published in physics journals. E.g. we can explain Deutsch's thought experiment that demonstrates how exactly one could in principle experimentally falsify the Copenhagen interpretation. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: There is endless complaint about physics articles being too dry and technical here.1Z (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 1Z, we are not here "just" to report the science, but also to report on the response to the theory, place it in context etc etc. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... a "reception" section (which is fairly standard to be included in an article of this kind) is basically intended to report the views, expressed in reputable published sources, of scientists, giving a representative indication of how the subject theory has been received within the scientific community. This consists of reporting and/or summarizing the published views of a representative sampling of recognized experts in the field. I don't think it would be appropriate to suppress this information in the present article, even if some editors here don't agree with how the scientific community has viewed the subject. We have to guard against constructing a novel narrative, i.e., cherry picking published claims with which we (certain Wiki editors) agree, and suppressing the published reaction to those claims within the scientific community. For example, when you say above that Deutsch's thought experiment "demonstrates" how one could in principle falsify Cophenhagen, you seem to think this is somehow definitive and nothing more need to be said, whereas in fact there is nothing like universal assent to Deutsch's claims within the overall scientific community (nor even within the many-worlds community). The criticisms expressed by many scientists are precisely aimed at the claims of people like Deutsch. So, although I agree with you that the article should explain Deutsch's claims (noting that they contradict the views of Everett, et al), I don't think this obviates the Reception section.AIMW32 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not suggesting WP:NPOV as well. It's difficult to be objective, sometimes it's only possible collectively, and that can look a lot like mistakes from a subjective point of view (WP:AGF). Still, your version would be the obvious example of "cherry picking" (even flippant remarks) with no real effort to represent a competing point of view. It self-consciously repeats purported faults needlessly, hanging a lantern on the disproportionate number of negative assessments given (vs. zero positive) which must seem absurd.

While it does allude to the possibility of outdated counter-examples, the backhanded concession is spoiled by inaccurately stating the reaction to MW from "the beginning" has been "quite varied". The initial reaction was emphatically negative, it was ridiculed and summarily dismissed, as was Everett: "undescribably stupid and could not understand the simplest things in quantum mechanics" .

It goes out of its way to paint MW's advocates as opponents by misrepresenting qualified merits as unqualified defects or something of a renunciation and mia culpa. (It would need to provide more citations, not fewer, when contradicting other statements in the article; generally, anything likely to challenged should be cited. Also, the citations are inadequate; consider using citation templates, Template:cite, and please provide a page number where possible).

As was noted, it fails to distinguish between the various "theories" which have been associated with MW. It characterizing them all by the earliest versions or far-fetched attempts to fix it like "many minds", presumably the proper topic of several comments. However, these are portrayed as requirements of any MW interpretation, implying some kind of unscientific mystical (or otherwise disembodied) selection must be made.

Generally, the context of remarks is omitted, in effect, making it seem like other interpretations make better predictions ("selections") or anyway, that they make them at all. Perhaps the sources in question do mistakenly believe that MW doesn't use the square of the wave function, or that it dispenses with the wave function entirely. An accurate description is presented elsewhere in the article and its reception is not about what people mistakenly say it says. On the other hand, an "ontological cloudburst" is notably florid and stunningly wrong headed vis-à-vis hidden variables. In so far as the apparently metaphysical objection would be hypocritical, it may argue that some non-metaphysicists should "shut-up and calculate", foregoing a naïve appeal to Occam's razor, (i.e., instances of "world" count but instances of "particle" do not). But though interesting, it's not so much about MW's reception per se, it's about the irrationality of an individual's reaction, despite being a physicist (presumably).

Further, as an alternative to Copenhagen's fictional "collapse" (now recognized as philosophical dogma), MW provided an objective explanation of a subjective scenario. This is mischaracterized as the introduction of subjectivism by MW, rather than its refusal to ignore the issue. In so far as the fiction is science, similar charity is denied MW, because realism is not incompatible (another amateur foul vs. the null doxa; I don't think scientists should worry too much about paradox but MW is a philosophical slam dunk).

My advice would be to focus on how sources say it's been received, including the competing point of view.—Machine Elf  23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The sampling of comments on MWI that I gave above was not cherry picked. I honestly grabbed – quite indiscriminantly - every book I could lay my hands on that said anything on the subject, and wrote down what they said. I didn’t choose the sources based on whether they were favorable or unfavorable towards the MWI. It just so happens that they were all unfavorable (with the partial exception of Deutsch’s comments, but he was arguably advocating something different from what this Wiki article describes as MWI). Nothing I can do about it, other than go hunting for more books that discuss the relative merits of various interpretations of quantum mechanics, and try to find some that view MWI favorably. It's true that some of the references I cited were from a time prior to when "decoherence" began to be cited by proponents of MWI in response to certain kinds of criticisms, but not all of them were.

By the way, the existing article doesn't seem to directly address the issue of whether MWI solves or elucidates the measurement problem. The Wiki article on decoherence says specifically that it does not, and includes external links to references defending that poition. Since this is evidently a controversial point, and a very important one, I think this article should contain an explanation of how the proponents think MWI elucidates the measurement problem, and also why critics think it does not.

One other comment/question: Is the image that appears at the top of this article, showing a little film strip of Schrodinger’s cat splitting at the point of decision into a live cat and a dead cat, really representative of how the proponents believe MWI works? If so, then they ought to accept criticisms of this version of MWI. If not, the image ought to be replaced with one that depicts an interpretation that the proponents are willing to defend.AIMW32 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you see can see that the effort did not comply with WP:NPOV. Keep WP:SYN in mind with regard to “he was arguably advocating something different from what this Wiki article describes as MWI”. So he's not what you'd call a “proponent”… You're really going to need complete citations and you'll want to make them as easy as possible to verify by including page numbers. If you can't do anything about it, try something you "can" do… Maybe you should think about integrating smaller, fully-cited edits, into the existing material? It's not just going to go away… but that's a good thing. It saves you from having to "find" up-to-date sources "cited by proponents of MWI" ahem "in response to certain kinds of criticisms".

I wasn't aware the measurement problem could be solved, (or that elucidation expires). Hopefully, the physicists will review the claims being attributed to MWI over at decoherence. From your description, apparently it should be at measurement problem?

A picture of Schrödinger's cat means “the proponents” of MWI are here on WP and “so, then they ought to accept criticisms of this version of MWI.” Or… say goodbye to Mr. Quarkibottoms?!? Yikes, they can't say you didn't warn them.—Machine Elf  19:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been suggested that perhaps some of the references I quoted above were a bit out-dated, so I decided to do a google book search on "interpretations of quantum mechanics" and randomly select a relatively recent work on the subject, and report what they say about "many worlds". The top reference was "Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" (2001), which is a 981 page survey of all the interpretations, by Auletta and Parisi. The chapter devoted to Many Worlds concludes as follows:

"In conclusion, on physical and metaphysical grounds, MWI as a whole is not a sound theory because it does not overcome the greatest problems with which the QM theory of Measurement is faced, while posing many unanswerable questions. Its main weakness is that it does not consider the Measurement theory as a basic aspect of every physical theory, and particularly of QM, due to the peculiar problems that it poses."

I suppose we can go on collecting published views from reputable sources on the subject, and I'm sure some favorable to many worlds will turn up, but I think it's fair to say, based on what I've seen so far, that many worlds is not well regarded by most experts on interpretations of quantum mechanics. If that's true, then the article needs to reflect that fact.AIMW32 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

When a source is on Google Books, provide the link so it's easy for people to verify. You can link directly to page or to a search within a book. You don't provide the page number, and searching through 981 pages is no one's idea of a good time. Page 251… here it is in a citation template:

<ref name="AulettaParisi2001">{{cite book |first=G. |last=Auletta |first2=G. |last2=Parisi |year=2001 |title=Foundations and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: in the light of a critical-historical analysis of the problems and of a synthesis of the results |publisher=World Scientific |isbn=9789810246143 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lSAfY0LEKBMC&lpg=PA251 |page=251}}</ref>

And here it is live with the quote immediately preceding your selection.

References

1. Davies, Brown, “The Ghost in the Atom”
2. Squires, "The Mystery of the Quantum World"
3. Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind"
4. Rae, "Quantum Mechanics" (3rd ed)
5. Polkinghorne, "The Quantum World"
6. Price, “Time’s Arrow and Archimedes Point”
7. Wick, "The Infamous Boundary"
8. Auletta, G.; Parisi, G. (2001). Foundations and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: in the light of a critical-historical analysis of the problems and of a synthesis of the results. World Scientific. p. 250–251. ISBN 9789810246143. But perhaps also the idea of a universal wave function as such (apart from the problem of the plurality of worlds) is not adequate. If we wish to maintain some statistical value for it, then we cannot use the wave function for very big systems—and certainly not for the whole universe—because it is impossible—even in principle—to reproduce exactly the same conditions (to make identical copies of a state of our universe) —we shall return to this point later .

They gets them a hankering to maintain a statistical value for the entire universe, tho admitting it's utterly ridiculous; they take charge, and deny the use of the wave function for "very big systems", and absolutely forbid it to be used by the universe. Never mind the disingenuous hankering for "very big systems" on which to "maintain some statistical value", they don't believe the wave function was involved in the big bang… for example… "because it is impossible—even in principle" not merely ridiculous from a human perspective. MWI won't deliver miraculous copies of the universe, collated and stapled. I bet it can't even fax a globular cluster.

I think it's fair to say you could go on selecting these remarkable anecdotes, but there's no virtue in randomly choosing sources, and you could select both favorable and unfavorable ones used in the article, anytime you please. WP:SOAP You may have mentioned your strongly held opinion repeatedly; it seems well established. I was rather hoping you'd explain your intentions regarding the cat.—Machine Elf  02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I like to know where these 42 of 'leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists' are hiding. They weren't at the 50 years Everett (perhaps only David Deutsch). Why are they in the closet? Are they so afraid to be called crackpot, though in the leading field they are in the majority according this poll. Do they come together in dark places? And why David Deutsch says in ted, and here in other words, that only ten percent maybe fewer, talk about parallel universes? http://193.189.74.53/~qubitor/people/david/structure/Documents/By%20Other%20People/PhilosophyNow.html Do the 10 percent consist of the leading ones? Being brilliant together but not in public? And why does David Raub call himself a political scientist, while this is the only poll you could possibly find of him? Can the authorities of the page answer this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC) And if your answer is that the site just says 'cite' this poll, you're still given unnecessary credibility to this poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Because Raub's poll is already very widely cited, a mention on Misplaced Pages isn't likely to boost its prominence. Rather than exclude it, it should be refuted/contradicted, ideally by Deutsch. Even if it were utterly fabricated, the poll needs to be mentioned, because of the attention it has received. --Wragge (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Very widely cited by who? Other than Frank Tippler, and What the Bleep? Both are extremely controversial. The only others are a bunch of internet-surfers, who take it to be true at first sight. And why should David Deutsch be ideally for a good refutation? He is not even mentioned in this poll. If someone claims there are Red Blue Purple Elephants, he has to prove that they are there, the only thing I have to do is show that it's very implausible, exactly what I did in my previous post with the poll of David Raub. At least you can mention that this poll is controversial. And this poll is refuted by Victor J Stenger in the unconscious quantum (I don't have a copy, so I can't quote it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Tegmark is really a freaking ridiculous figure. I quote: Although the poll was highly informal and unscientific (several people voted more than once, many abstained, etc), it nonetheless indicated a rather striking shift in opinion compared to the old days when the Copenhagen interpretation reigned supreme. Perhaps most striking of all is that the Many Worlds interpretation (MWI), pro- posed by Everett in 1957 but virtually unnoticed for about a decade , has survived 25 years of fierce crit- icism and occasional ridicule to become the number one challenger to the leading orthodoxy, ahead of the Bohm , Consistent Histories and GRW interpretations. Why has this happened? The purpose of the present pa- per is to briefly summarize the appeal of the MWI in the light of recent experimental and theoretical progress, and why much of the traditional criticism of it is being brushed aside. I summarize: Altough this is a completely unscientific poll, with people who did a workshop (wow that's impressive) voting freaking twice of which the staggering number of 8! people voted for many-worlds, I can conclude that many-worlds is worldwide the main contestant of Copenhagen. I'm sorry but this guy should become prime minister of propaganda. Elsewhere he says popper isn't right because scientists mostly do justifying of theories, in stead of falsifying. Well perhaps this view is where it went, and got you in all this dishonest psychosis babbling. Bah! And the guy is freaking immoral for publishing articles about quantum suicide. Bah bah bah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Quantum suicide is definitely a triple bah score. But did you notice the references and the following paper? Surely it wasn't to briefly summarize an admittedly poor anecdote. Still, around here, three out of four peg a marksman fair and square.—Machine Elf  21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

--Willempramschot (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to be posting this message three times now but I meant to post it here all along, but that went wrong so you can delete the other one (the one you haven't deleted yet) (sorry for keeping you busy).

the problem with this page is that it's

1 not objective, 2 suggests that it is, by showing some criticism by people who are not really high regarded and then with comments make the arguments seem , and not really meant to be taken seriously, or relevant .

• The only thing that makes it a little better is that david raubs poll finely is a little bit questioned.

- When a poll with 22 people shows that the people asked clearly disfavor the poll, then it states less then 40 (like that is THE limit for a good poll, I don't say that it isn't but let the people decide, please). I conducted a poll that cleary contradicts the polls that do favor mwi (I now you cannot post any reasearch by yourself, so I will leave that up to others. 3' Misleading in other ways: Mwi has a lot of definitions, and physicists don't always use the same term. This site only choses to explain the really 'literal' one (which would be my chose too, when you chose to describe only one) but then seems to suggests that everyone seems to use this term.

'Poll I conducted

I now I can't post research of my own on the 'article' page, so I will leave that up to others. (If you want more information about the poll you can post below this post.

This poll is fully honest. I think I interpreted correctly but you are free to interpret it yourself.

The people who participated in this poll: David spergel, Carlo Rovelli, David polizer, David Finkelstein, Richard Muller, M.J. Rees, George F Smoot the Third, Goldreich, James Daniel Bjorken, Richter Burton, John Preskill, Leon N. Cooper, Robert Wald, James Binney, Yakir Aharanov, Andy Fabian, Ulrich Becker, Jim Al-Khalili, Frank Close, Frank Wilczek, Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin, John Baez. Donald Lynden-Bell, Rafael D. Sorkin, Mark Sredniki, Warren Siegel

This is the mail I sent to all the participants of the poll, with the results . I assure you it's fully honest (the thick part are the results):

Highly regarded gentlemen, you are all part of the happy few who answered my question a: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that differentiate during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth) b: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that split during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth constantly being created) c: I don't subscribe to a or b, because I think they are both *(probably) false d: I don't prefer any of the above FIRST SOME REMARKS -2 said c/d, those where counted c 1/2, d1/2, -one said I can't do anything with the poll, cause this has no empirical evidence and therefore has nothing to do with physics, to avoid all accusations of being biased I didn't count him, -one said c with a minor change, I don't subscribe to a or b, to once again avoid all acusations of being biased I didn't count him in, -one said I don't like both descriptions a or b, to me mwi just means unitary evolution but I chose b, to avoid all accusations of being biased I did count him as b, tough this answer really annoyed me. If for you this is just a equation to solve and you don't worry about the consequenses fine. But I now for a fact some people (besides) me do think it's relevant and are disturbed by the notion that they might split every second or there are an infinite number of people. Sorry I now that it's not usual for a poll conducter to give criticism to it's participants, but I needed this to get of my chest. -one said a,but with a very weak meaning of parallel meanings 'existing', once again to avoid being depicted as biased I counted him as a - one didn't say c, but send me a video of him in which the explanation most suited c in my opinion. Though he is inspired by Hugh Everett's interpretation. - one said he thought the multiverse was true, but couldn't subscribe to the copies of universes and inhibiters of earth. He voted a. I decided to didn't count him as a, because his answer was to different from the option he said he subscribed to - one said c, but said he was open-minded -one didn't see a difference in a or b, but chose b because he thought the word 'split' was better (I now have added that in b you multiply as do universes, and c you already exist in many universes, but I think the description itself wasn't incredibly vague) - one said d, He does however subscribe to the Everett relative state interpretation, and does think that all possible universes exist in 'some sense'. He also gave criticism for making MWI sound stupid. Well if that's the case I think you think the MWI questioned in this poll is stupid. He refered to (no explicit) research about asking a question and how the way you do it greatly influenced the poll. Well I can't respond to 'research' that I didn't read, I can respond to good commen sense: maybe some tiny percent of the (c's) or (d's) where subscribing to any mwi with parallel universes that wasn't mentioned in the poll, But I think it's very unlikely (since I think the logical thing would be to make notice of that) It is important that to some of you c included *(probably) and some of you didn't. I did this because I feared people would be more inclined to vote d, even if they really disliked a or b, because they couldn't say c, because of the philosophical notion that you couldn't say an unubservable chimp with high heals is ruling the universe is false, because you cannot test it. This may have had some effect on the poll. Though before I did this (after I think approximatelly more than 15 answers, but I'm not really sure) , c also was most voted by far.

if you want to use this poll for things like wikipedia or other sources you're free to do that, I will vouch for the statement that this poll is fully honest, and I also vouch for the statement david raubs poll most likely isn't. I conducted the poll under the name 'Gertjan Kouweheuve' because I didn't wanted that any of my posts elsewhere would influence the poll. That's the only lie I permitted myself to, with this poll.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Though of course you could bring the argument that Martin Gardner is highly regarded, but I mean not in physics. And Peres perhaps is in someway, and Roger Penrose surely is, but the sneaky quotes hat 'sneaky' makes the arguments seem not that strong, or relevant still remains. —--Willempramschot (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Appearances to the contrary, please don't post such material on the ‘Talk’ page either, see WP:TALK, WP:NOT#OR, WP:SELFCITE and WP:RS. Thanks—Machine Elf  22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can This Article Be Improved?

The "Reception" section discussion shows that the existing article is un-representative of the actual reception of MWI within the scientific community. This points out a larger problem, which is that all the rest of the article needs to be re-written to be consistent with the (soon to be updated) Reception section, which documents the fact that the intelligibility of MWI is disputed by most scientists and scholars who have considered it. Someone reading the existing article would get the impression that MWI is actually a viable and meaningful interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are certainly scientists who believe this (at least for their own personal vision of MWI, no two of which are mutually compatible), but there are many more who do not. I think the existing article tried to accommodate this (to some extent) by being careful to qualify all the claims of MWI enthuiasts with the word "claim", etc., and ideally each of these claims that are disputed by the majority of reputable scientists would be accompanied by an explanation (or reference to an explanation) of why most reputable scientists believe the claim is false (for example, the claim that decoherence resolves all interpretational issues).

My point is that not only does the Reception section need to to revised to accurately reflect the reception of MWI, but all the rest of the article needs to be revised to accurately represent the views of those whose "reception" is documented in the Reception section. This will inevitably lead to an article that appears less enthusiastic and less unequivocally favorable to MWI. However, I believe it will be more in keeping with Misplaced Pages editorial policy. Hopefully the MWI enthuiasists editing this article will understand that these changes are proposed only in the spirit of trying to make the article conform more closely to Misplaced Pages policy. I think we all understand that our own personal enthusiasms are not necessarily shared by the mainstream scientific community. This doesn't mean our views are wrong, but it isn't appropriate for us to try to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to propagandize or promote our own personal enthusiasms.AIMW32 (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you be updating all the other interpretative QM articles also? See also my earlier response when you raised this issue. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your earlier comments missed the point. When I said the existing article is preposterously biased, you answered "I do not call having informative responses to criticisms 'preposterously biased'." Look, MWI makes certain claims, and these claims are criticized in the reputable literature, so we include those criticisms in the article, but then you add your "informative response to the criticisms", and then terminate the dialectic at that point. This convey the impression that MWI made claims, some people criticized those claims, those criticisms were exposed as fallacious, and hence MWI emerges triumphant. The end. But this is backwards from the actual state of affairs as it appears in the available reputable sources, which dispute the "informative responses". This is classic "novel narrative" of the kind that is expressly forbidden by Misplaced Pages editorial policy. I realize that you are merely trying to have the article convey what you regard as the truth, but what you regard as the truth is not what the great majority of reputable sources regard as the truth, and Wiki policy says the latter prevails.

Your earlier response went on to say "if in the interests of "balance" you wish to include quotations from the six books that 'are are decidedly NOT favorable toward MWI, and some of them are outright derisive', go ahead." Yes indeed, that's the plan, except that it isn't just "six books", it is the preponderance of the scholarly literature on this subject. However many it takes to make that point, that's how many will be cited.

You concluded your earlier remarks by saying "it is true that many "experts" are derisive - and the fact of their derision is worth reporting - although whether they still form a majority is not so clear." But the whole point of the Reception discussion was to show that the reputable literature makes it very clear that the derisive experts are still very much in the majority. My personal impression (not for inclusion in the article, obviously) is that enthusiasm for MWI - always a distinct minority - has been dwindling for many years, and that even the few remaining prominent proponents of MWI all have very different, and mutually exclusive conceptions of it - and none of them has ever succeeded in articulating their own conception in an intelligible way... but that's just me talking. I'm just trying to get you to see that your triumphalism is far removed from the verifiable material from reputable sources that is supposed to be the basis of this article.AIMW32 (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you be updating all the other interpretative QM articles also? Michael C. Price 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I advocate updating any articles that presently don't conform to Misplaced Pages editorial policy, and that present flagrantly biased views of their subject, at odds with the preponderance of the reputable literature on the subject.AIMW32 (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPA/WP:NPOV/WP:SOAP/WP:IDHT… But “the dialectic” did not terminate at that point. You went on and on, ad nauseum, much as you're doing now, and you accomplished nothing apart from threatening the cat. Your WP:NPOV problem has been discussed at length, and you have refused to compromise in any way whatsoever. You're merely picking up exactly were you left off, so I've made this a subsection. Please review that discussion and reconsider the suggestion that “Maybe you should think about integrating smaller, fully-cited edits, into the existing material”. As I've already brought WP:SOAP to your attention, I've left a warning on your talk page. This is not a venue for you to voice your derision of “proponents” (now so-called “enthusiasts”) of MWI. WP:AGF, and try blogging.—Machine Elf  23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AIMW32, if no MWIist has ever presented the theory in an "intelligible way" that presumably includes this article, in which case your help in improving it desirable. More likely, though, it is just a case that the adherents of one interpretation tend to find other interpretations incomprehensible. However your claim that the number of adherents is dwindling is not my experience, although your claim that every adherent has a different conception of MWI is undoubtedly true to some extent - the same situation exists with the Copenhagen interpretation, for which a myriad of sub-interpretations exists. As for being in the minority, well that is probably true of every interpretation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 00:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article can be improved by explaining the Deutsch type thought experiments where measurements are undone and wavefuctions are uncollapsed in detail. As the article is written now, a reader can get the impression that operationally, the theory is the same as any other interpretation of QM. Only Quantum Suicide is mentioned explicitely, but the validity of that argument has been disputed. It's better to mention the Deutsch-type thought experiment in detail, as that argument only depends on unitary time evolution. Count Iblis (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and probably enough content for its own article, probably. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 06:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

One further point about the Deutsch experiment - Everett wouldn't object "vociferously" to it, as AIMW72 claims, since Everett's original formulation allowed for interference effects between worlds (different elements of the universal wavefunction) to be restored (i.e. worlds merging) in principle, while acknowledging that this would be very hard in practice. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 08:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be posting this message twice, but I think it's better suited here (so you can of course delete it from 'the criticism and misconceptions' section: the problem with this page is that it's 1 not objective, 2 suggests that it is, by showing some criticism by people who are not really high regarden and then with that 'sneaky' makes the arguments seem not that strong, and not really meant to be taken seriously. The only thing that makes it a little better is that david raubs poll finely is a little bit questioned. 3 mwi has a lot of definitions, and physicists don't always use the same term. This site only choses to explain the really 'hard' one (which would be my chose to) but then seems to suggests that everyone seems to use this term. When a poll with 22 people clearly disfavoring the poll, then it states less then 40 (like that is THE limit for a good poll, I don't say that it isn't but let the people decide, please).

This poll is fully honest, I think I interpreted correctly but you of course can do your own interpretation. The people who participated in this poll: David spergel, Carlo Rovelli, David polizer, David Finkelstein, Richard Muller, M.J. Rees, George F Smoot the Third, Goldreich, James Daniel Bjorken, Richter Burton, John Preskill, Leon N. Cooper, Robert Wald, James Binney, Yakir Aharanov, Andy Fabian, Ulrich Becker, Jim Al-Khalili, Frank Close, Frank Wilczek, Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin, John Baez. Donald Lynden-Bell, Rafael D. Sorkin, Mark Sredniki, Warren Siegel

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.212.48 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Highly regarded gentlemen, you are all part of the happy few who answered my question a: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that differentiate during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth) b: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that split during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth constantly being created) c: I don't subscribe to a or b, because I think they are both *(probably) false d: I don't prefer any of the above FIRST SOME REMARKS -2 said c/d, those where counted c 1/2, d1/2, -one said I can't do anything with the poll, cause this has no empirical evidence and therefore has nothing to do with physics, to avoid all accusations of being biased I didn't count him, -one said c with a minor change, I don't subscribe to a or b, to once again avoid all acusations of being biased I didn't count him in, -one said I don't like both descriptions a or b, to me mwi just means unitary evolution but I chose b, to avoid all accusations of being biased I did count him as b, tough this answer really annoyed me. If for you this is just a equation to solve and you don't worry about the consequenses fine. But I now for a fact some people (besides) me do think it's relevant and are disturbed by the notion that they might split every second or there are an infinite number of people. Sorry I now that it's not usual for a poll conducter to give criticism to it's participants, but I needed this to get of my chest. -one said a,but with a very weak meaning of parallel meanings 'existing', once again to avoid being depicted as biased I counted him as a - one didn't say c, but send me a video of him in which the explanation most suited c in my opinion. Though he is inspired by Hugh Everett's interpretation. - one said he thought the multiverse was true, but couldn't subscribe to the copies of universes and inhibiters of earth. He voted a. I decided to didn't count him as a, because his answer was to different from the option he said he subscribed to - one said c, but said he was open-minded -one didn't see a difference in a or b, but chose b because he thought the word 'split' was better (I now have added that in b you multiply as do universes, and c you already exist in many universes, but I think the description itself wasn't incredibly vague) - one said d, He does however subscribe to the Everett relative state interpretation, and does think that all possible universes exist in 'some sense'. He also gave criticism for making MWI sound stupid. Well if that's the case I think you think the MWI questioned in this poll is stupid. He refered to (no explicit) research about asking a question and how the way you do it greatly influenced the poll. Well I can't respond to 'research' that I didn't read, I can respond to good commen sense: maybe some tiny percent of the (c's) or (d's) where subscribing to any mwi with parallel universes that wasn't mentioned in the poll, But I think it's very unlikely (since I think the logical thing would be to make notice of that) It is important that to some of you c included *(probably) and some of you didn't. I did this because I feared people would be more inclined to vote d, even if they really disliked a or b, because they couldn't say c, because of the philosophical notion that you couldn't say an unubservable chimp with high heals is ruling the universe is false, because you cannot test it. This may have had some effect on the poll. Though before I did this (after I think approximatelly more than 15 answers, but I'm not really sure) , c also was most voted by far. The results

if you want to use this poll for things like wikipedia or other sources you're free to do that, I will vouch for the statement that this poll is fully honest, and I also vouch for the statement david raubs poll most likely isn't. I conducted the poll under the name 'Gertjan Kouweheuve' because I didn't wanted that any of my posts elsewhere would influence the poll. That's the only lie I permitted myself to, with this poll.

Best regards, Edo Blaauw P.s I also had an answer of Leon N. Cooper, but I can't find his email-adress somehow, so if someone how knows him could send this to him that would be nice. P.p.s for your enjoyment: extra comments X1: I think the many worlds interpretation is nonsence. It does not survive Occham's Razor. !me! when asked what his response was to mwi-ers answer <Occam's razor actually is a constraint on the complexity of physical theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory since it has fewer postulates> he said (I don't understand it, but I think some will) !me! X1: Any theory that predicts enormous numbers of copies of the universe none of which are directly observable is introducing a huge redundancy for explaining one small effect. That to me is quite wrong and disobeys Occham's razor. It is easier to imagine that our concept of a particle or a quantum are wrong in some way. There are already hints of this from such matters as the spectra of diatomic molecules which are radically affected by whether the nuclei are identical or not. If as in Oxygen the nuclei are the same and of spin zero then every other line in the rotational spectrum of the molecule is missing! How does the molecule know its tiny nuclei are identical? X2 Sure, my answer is definitely "c". I do not think that MW is good or useful, in any variant. X3 The many-worlds theory is a silly mistake, mistaking possibilities for actualities. It comes from the attempt to deny the statistical meaning of psi vectors and regard them as real things, present in the individual system; and nevertheless to avoid the mistaken theory of "collapse" that such reification originally led to. The theory that people actually use has one world, no collapse, transition probabilities, and incomplete descriptions. X4 NO TO MWI X5 My best answer is c. The theory is false because it is inconsistent.

X-CD1 a c/d vote said he considered it a argumentum absurdum, that we lack knowledge and he would have voted c if it not contained the phrase 'both false'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Though of course you could bring the argument that Martin Gardner is highly regarded, but I mean not in physics. And Peres perhaps is in someway, and Roger Penrose surely is, but the sneaky quotes hat 'sneaky' makes the arguments seem not that strong, or relevant still remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

--Willempramschot (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this where the options, it got a little hard to read.

a: I subscribe to the MW I that contains many parallel universes that differentiate during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth)

b: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that split during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth constantly being created)

c: I don't subscribe to a or b, because I think they are both *(probably) false

and this where the results:

C: 18

D: 7

B: 2

Special Difficulty with Improving This Article - Harrassment

I'd like to call attention to a special difficulty with improving this article. As documented in the Reception discussion above, the reputable literature on this subject is largely critical and unfavorable, a view which is rather under-represented in this article. This is a large part of what needs to be fixed, to bring the article into line with Misplaced Pages policy. Unfortunately, whenever someone comes to this page (even the Discussion page, let alone the actual article) and begins to quote some of these sources and advocate fairly representing these published views in the article, they are immediately subjected to rather troubling harassment and hectoring, accused of using the Discussion page as a soapbox, have warning messages placed on their user pages, and so on. I don't think this harassment is helpful, and it certainly isn't justified. It would be better to assume good faith, and try to work towards improving the article, rather than trying to browbeat and intimidate any editors who dare to suggest that many (most) reputable sources in the literature express a very negative view of the subject of this article. This is a well-documented and fully verifiable fact, as I showed in citations in the Discussion of the Reception section above.

In my comments here on this discussion page I've included far more detailed references and citations of reputable published works than anyone else has, and I believe my comments have all been focused on the task of editing the article and explaining what I think needs to be changed, and why, all appropriate for a Discussion page. The edits I think are needed, in accord with Misplaced Pages policy, involve making the article more balanced and representative of the mainstream view of the subject, which happens to be not nearly as favorable as the view of the most enthusiastic proponents of MWI. This is to be expected. I don't question the good faith of any editors here. I firmly believe they are trying to make the article accurate as they see it. I'm just trying to bring some more well-sourced perspectives into the article, to make it more representative of the reputable sources in the literature. But if the harrassment continues, I'll just give up (as I suspect many have in the past). I don't think anyone should feel good about driving an editor like me away from this article, who has just surveyed the literature and tried to bring that perspective to the article. That would really be disgraceful. But at the very least, readers of the article can review the Discussion page, and see the tactics that have been employed to keep the article in its present form. They can draw their own conclusions. (Excuse me for being ticked off.) AIMW32 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(It might be better to keep your comments shorter - people don't want to read all that.) Note that harassment isn't considered acceptable behaviour on Misplaced Pages. As for the article content, you could ask on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics to see what other people think. --Zundark (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AIMW32, you complain that the "Common objections and misconceptions" sections always gives the last word to the MWI camp. But I think this is because adherents are more motivated to refute criticisms than critics are to refine their criticisms of a theory they find incomprehensible, hence the last published word usually goes with the adherents. However, let's talk specifics, critique just one point in the section and let's hear your suggestions for improving it.-- cheers, Michael C. Price 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AIMW32, in all this time, you have yet to improve the article or the encyclopedia in any way, unless you have a different edit history you'd like to share. You prefer to publish your POV here on the talk page, which you've clearly used as a WP:SOAPBOX. Needless to say, no one else has felt a need to post references here on the talk page, but actually, the lack of detail, selection bias and other problems with your sourcing is what's documented above.

By all means, please do engage in discussion rather than repeating yourself ad nauseum. However, talking about yourself in the third person, and thus indirectly accusing me of harassment, demonstrates who's harassing whom. Making those false accusations was a violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA.

Yes, I put a WP:CHAT warning on your page yesterday, and rather than taking that advice on board, you've done the opposite. There is no “and so on”, your fabrications are paper thin, as usual, and no I don't imagine you find it helpful when I point that out. There is nothing preventing you from editing, but in lieu of that, you post increasingly deceptive screeds.—Machine Elf  19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Criticisms Section (Presently called "Common Objections and Misconceptions")

AIM32, you complain that the "Common objections and misconceptions" sections always gives the last word to the MWI camp. But I think this is because adherents are more motivated to refute criticisms than critics are to refine their criticisms of a theory they find incomprehensible, hence the last published word usually goes with the adherents. Michael C. Price 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The critics of MWI don't say it is incomprehensible, they say it is self-contradictory, incoherent, vacuous, etc. Also, the mainstream view of a subject isn't decided based on "who published last" - if it was, it would change each time another book or paper is published. So your defense of why the article always gives the last word to the "MWI camp" is not valid.

However, let's talk specifics, critique just one point in the section and let's hear your suggestions for improving it.-- cheers, Michael C. Price 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning: The title of the section is absurd. Do I really have to point this out? Calling the Criticism section by the name of "Common Objections and Misconceptions" is laughable. It should be called something like "Criticisms", or perhaps, to reflect the argumentative content, "Criticisms and Counter-Arguments". Then look at the very first item:

* MWI states that there is no special role nor need for precise definition of measurement in MWI, yet uses the word "measurement" repeatedly throughout its exposition.

*MWI response: "measurements" are treated as a subclass of interactions, which induce subject-object correlations in the combined wavefunction. There is nothing special about measurements (such as the ability to trigger a wave function collapse), that cannot be found in the unitary time development process. This is why there is no precise definition of measurement in Everett's formulation, although some other formulations emphasise that measurements must be effectively irreversible or create classical information.

The problem here is that the objection has not been stated fully. The Schrodinger equation is time-symmetrical, whereas the concept of a measurement (or any kind of interaction) leading to a splitting into multiple outcomes into the future is explicitly NOT time-symmetrical. Take a look at the illustrated cat in the figure at the beginning of this article. It splits into the future. But how does unitary evolution of the wave function under a time symmetrical equation lead to a proliferating set of self-consistent worlds in one time direction but not the other? Note that this is NOT just the same old arrow-of-time problem, because a trajectory in classical phase space doesn't "split" in either time direction. The splitting or differentiating into multiple self-consistent worlds in the future is a unique feature of MWI, and it is unintelligible without an explanation of the temporal asymmetry. Of course, some MWI advocates actually agree with this objection, and they contend that MWI actually must entail the re-coalescing of worlds, anti-measurements, splicing as well as splitting, a constant total number of "worlds", etc., but this is controversial even within the MWI camp, and leads to an empirically falsifiable theory different from QM. One could also mention the arguments of John Bell against the role of measurement in MWI.

Look, I'm mindful of the fact that this Discussion page isn't the place to discuss the topic. My only point is that the "misconception and correction" format of the existing article is not at all representative of the mainstream view of the subject. The original (unsourced) criticisms in the article need to be stated more fully, explaining (for example) why the concept of "measurement" and the alleged associated "splitting" is problematic. Once the criticism has been stated fully, we will find that there is no coherent "MWI response", although we could mention the speculative ideas about new theories with anti-measurements, by which some MWI'ers hope to salvage their interpretation. Treating each of the criticisms this way, the section will eventually reflect the actual mainstream view of the subject.AIMW32 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

First, it used to be called Criticisms, and I was happy with that, but some folks felt it wasn't NPOV enough, so we have present PC title.

Onto the substantive part: yes, a trajectory in classical phase space doesn't "split" in either time direction. So what? We are talking about a quantum system here. And you are correct, that The splitting or differentiating into multiple self-consistent worlds in the future is a unique feature of MWI, and it is unintelligible without an explanation of the temporal asymmetry. The temporal asymmetry comes from the boundary conditions, i.e. the big bang / inflation left the universe with a low entropy density, which is the source of the arrow-of-time and why worlds predominately split into the future, and measurements and memories of measurements are possible. However this is a red herring w.r.t. to the "MWI measurement problem", which is why this is not mentioned.

I hope that clears things up. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I have added the temporal asymmetry objection, with sourcing, to the article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 06:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

Will you be updating all the other interpretative QM articles also? Michael C. Price 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah so because other interpretative QM articles aren't objective, this one hasn't got to be objective either. (while this one is much more subjective 'in my opinion'). That makes a lot of sense. (this was irony) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, my implied question was about, why you are focussed on "cleaning up" the MWI article? Do you have a thing about MWI? No matter.

However I will repeat what I said to another poster - please be specific and critique a point from the "objections" section and we'll take it from there. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 20:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all I'm not the same person that you posted that quoted response to, secondly I mainly have a thing against supposedly objective sites, that aren't and suggest they are. I have posted a post with a poll, and criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And how are we meant to know who posted those comments when you can't even be bothered to sign them? -- cheers, Michael C. Price 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I can't see my poll that I posted with the results and a lot of extra information about it anymore.

I'm not implying you deleted it, but I don't see a good reason why this couldn't be on the discussion site. So I'm posting it again without the background information, and if someone wants to have more information about the poll he/she can contact me on

Participants

David spergel, Carlo Rovelli, David polizer, David Finkelstein, Richard Muller, M.J. Rees, George F Smoot the Third, Goldreich, James Daniel Bjorken, Richter Burton, John Preskill, Leon N. Cooper, Robert Wald, James Binney, Yakir Aharanov, Andy Fabian, Ulrich Becker, Jim Al-Khalili, Frank Close, Frank Wilczek, Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin, John Baez. Donald Lynden-Bell, Rafael D. Sorkin, Mark Sredniki, Warren Siegel

Choises

> a: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that differentiate during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth) > > b: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that split during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth constantly being created) > > c: I don't subscribe to a or b, because I think they are both *(probably) false

 d I don't prefer either a or b  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

> The results > > C: 18 > D: 7 > A: 1 > b: 2 >

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please if you insist on posting stuff that isn't useful (it can't cited since it is unpublished) then at least learn some basic rules such as SIGNING your comments. And read your talk page. Thank you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 08:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Willempramschot, please stop. How many times is that now, five? Soliciting people to email your single purpose hotmail account is not ok, it's crossed the line into WP:SPAM. The removals were explained above, in your “preferred” section. No one can post this to the article for you and it seems unlikely it would ever be published by an WP:RS. On http://www.physicsforums.com you said the participates were given the impression it was anonymous… I'm not sure if you copied that particular remark here, but presumably they're not endorsing this poll. You decided to promote it using their names, seemingly without their knowledge, and it's not clear you acquired permission to use comments from their email either.—Machine Elf  11:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to put some questions on your beautifal dreams about eternal life and your infinite twin brothers. You are really really good at quoting wikipedia and fallacy's. It's such a shame you don't understand what they mean, and don't have a clue about how to apply them. This is deleted, because I probably insult you, but if that's the case then well you got insulted by the truth.

• B-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance