One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation · HackerPapers discussions

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation — mentioned by GoblinSlayer

Fri, 28 Feb 2025 17:54:10 GMT

Wikipdeia references https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624 and first thing I noticed in section IV the author incorrectly calculates copenhagen prediction (because probabilities are counterintuitive), but correctly everettian prediction (because marginal outcomes are obvious there) and claims this discrepancy disproves MWI, he conveniently forgets about empirical equivalence of interpretations, so that it's easier to make an error and get different predictions. Then makes incorrect claim about MWI. Any given observer will probably observe confirmation of Born rule due to the law of large numbers.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation — mentioned by n4r9

Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:44:25 GMT

Adrian Kent has a lengthy and detailed overview of MWIs pre-2009 which may interest you [0]. He discusses Wallace's formulation, contrasts it with other formulations and touches on branching indifference. He also has a more recent (and much more brief) article which refers to the Self-locating Uncertainty arguments [1]. I have previously come across Deutsch's formulation in terms of information flow [2], along with what seemed like a very strong criticism from Wallace and Christopher Timpson [3] that his model was not gauge-invariant. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0624.pdf [1]…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation — HN submission

Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:03:46 GMT

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of quantum mechanix

1 point; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation — mentioned by n4r9

Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:47:24 GMT

Philip Ball has previously written very similar articles on his objections to Many Worlds: https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-... Whilst I share his frustration with how readily it is being taken up and the dogmatic glamour surrounding it, I feel like he consistently misses the primary issues with it. Copy-pasting a previous comment trying to describe succinctly what I see as the central problem: > Although there are many versions of MWI, the general claim is that a single axiom (a unitarily evolving wavefunction) is sufficient to explain our observations of the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation — mentioned by n4r9

Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:36:00 GMT

Have you aware of Adrian Kent's critiques of (many of) these attempts? https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation — mentioned by n4r9

Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:58:36 GMT

Many-Worlds has flaws comparable to many other leading interpretations, which is why it's not a large majority view among quantum information and foundations researchers. Explaining why the observable universe is Born-rule typical is a major issue for Many-Worlds. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9703089.pdf is a good discussion of this issue, which I don't think has yet had a satisfactory rebuttal. A more up to date version is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624 It's silly to insist that every article about quantum phenomena should refer to any particular interpretation of the mathematics.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.