The Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is now commonly accepted among physicists. As far as I understand it...

The Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is now commonly accepted among physicists. As far as I understand it, that means that every possible universe exists and their distribution is fixed.

If I decide to take in and take care of a stray cat, there will be another universe in which I don’t. If I decide not to take in the cat, there will be another universe in which I do. No matter what I do, there will always be a stray miserable cat and a happy cat with a roof over its head. What I do doesn’t change the amount of “suffering” that exists, because its distribution is fixed. The only thing that can be determined by my actions is what I perceive in this universe.

Doesn’t this destroy any sensible notion of altruism beyond selfish incentives?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes
iflscience.com/space/the-cold-spot-as-evidence-of-the-multiverse-not-so-fast/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

"Is now commonly accepted".

Which physicists do you talk to? The ones that make blogs on popsci websites?

It is a bizar hypothesis and the fact that the idea exists and that it is a possibility, is fascinating itself but 'commonly accepted' is not how i'd describe it.

I'm sorry, I forgot to actually reply on the content:

The amount of suffering does change with exactly the size of suffering that you perform. Relatively speaking, it would matter unsignificantly indeed. Please note that the distribution is not fixed. I understand the intuition that you have for distributions, but distributions follow macropatterns, whereas killing a cat is a macropattern at most.

Same goes for killing humans by the way. Murders in Chicago follow the same numbers every year, so that killing people in Chicago is morally justified.

In any case, I'd never base my moral and ethical decisions on how others do. I'm responsible for my own actions only, irregardless of what distribution they follow.

It is not commonly accepted. Also occams razor.

>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right

if this isn't religion, nothing is

But is that relevant? What if only you existed and the rest was a simulation? Would that change how you live? Or does it make you feel good to know you do good?

I don’t see why the distribution isn’t fixed. It’s not that each individual universe rolls the dice; when the dice are rolled, the distribution of universes IS the probability distribution. Each possible outcome that occurs has exactly one universe associated with it. In that sense, the quantum multiverse is a block universe. When you roll the dice, the outcome appears random to you, because "you" are a random observer in one of the universes.

Occam's razor does not provide a clear answer in this case. Why would it be simpler to have to assume wave function collapse as opposed to infinite universes?

No, it’s not relevant, but some people claim to want to decrease suffering or something like that and other people commend them for it. I know that it can be considered rude to insist that you can’t be altruistic, or that it’s outright dangerous to the social fabric of society to argue such a thing, but I just want to have an honest dialog about what’s true.

Thing is if you assume this theory to be true, there is an infinite amount of possibilities, so "suffering" is infinite because every bad thing that is possible will happen, so nothing really matters if this theory is true. So don't think about it and do what you want. Stupid people are often happier, ignorance is bliss.
If you still worry about infinite suffering and meaning, indulge in the fact that happiness you caused will be infinite due infinite possibilities

I agree with you. It doesn’t really bother me, but I wonder whether other people have thought of these implications and whether people object to the MWI because they are scared of accepting such implications.

>The Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is now commonly accepted among physicists
shiiiiiig

>Trying to justify starting another Beta Uprising

"commonly accepted" means nothing.

>that means that every possible universe exists

No it doesn't.

If you don't take your cat, there will be two miserable cats. Also it's not a given that miserable cat exists: only possible states exist, impossible states don't exist. In any case there will also be niggers starving in Africa and killing each other for suspected vampirism. How do you cope with that?

Occam's razor rules in favor of many-worlds interpretation, because collapse follows from Schrodinger equation, and postulated collapse is not needed and contradictory. Well, it's not really Occam's razor, because contradiction must be removed unconditionally.

>fringe theory
>commonly accepted
user one could argue QM itself isnt commonly accepted because it boils down to wizard tier non sense

I take it you're not a physicist?
QM is only not accepted in the sense that we're still looking for a theory of quantum gravitation.

Make no mistake, QM is a generalization of classical mechanics backed by experiment, not a fringe offshoot of it.

Yes, only possible states exist. But the distribution of universes is equal to the probability distribution, isn’t it? So if there is no possibility of a miserable cat, there is only one universe, namely the one with a happy cat and vice versa. If both are possible there will be two universes: one with each possibility. Me “choosing” to take the cat in or not does nothing to change that distribution, it merely determines which of the possible universes I’m in. In fact, you could say that none of your choices have any effect on reality, only on what you perceive.

If you speak about quantity, you can compute that quantity: find a sum of miserable cat over all states and sum of happy cat, if you're more likely to take the cat, the quantity of happy cat will be bigger.

QM is a very good theory, but there are problems with it's interpretation that we will probably never figure out, unless better theory emerges. Many physicists are not satisfied with copenhagen interpretation (myself not included) and this is the reason these debates exist.

While it's a very solid physical theory, I would not go so far as to say that we should consider it inert.

pilot waver detected

How did you miss
>myself not included
?

Pilot-wave has no meaning and it's been shown that were we to correct QM to suit pilot-wave, it would render all but the most simplest problems practically incomputable.

>but there are problems with it's interpretation that we will probably never figure out
If you don't try, you won't.
>unless better theory emerges
MWI and removal of postulated collapse make that theory.

too bad they don't have 3 or 4 tits really

>there is an infinite amount of possibilities, so "suffering" is infinite because every bad thing that is possible will happen
That's wrong, just because an infinite amount of things happen does not mean that everything happens. Just like you can have an infinite number of balls, while none of them is red.

Not really, MWI neither adds predictive power or explains any existing phenomena better than existing interpretation.

>spot the rick and morty fan
I'm gonna be psychoanalytic here and suggest that you've done an unconsiderate thing and are trying to justify it by using lazy philosophy.

In answer to your question - no, it doesn't. It's true that there is no altruism without selfish incentives, but it's not because of your gay multiverse theory, which only implies that your action doesn't matter on the level of every universe and not much else.

MWI is crackpot bollocks, Copenhagen is the only interpretation anyone who understands at least undergrad (highschool really) math takes seriously, if you want "muh multiple universes" your only hope is strings with anthro principle but you're never going to understand strings if you're gullible enough to fall for MWI. Begone popsci-reading kanker.

Is that the occam's razor that states: 'What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more.'?

Unless it's clear that the many worlds interpretation is inadequate to explain our experiences of being in the universe - in which case it's wrong rather than clumsy - then I don't see how the many worlds interpretation involves more assumptions than the Copenhagen interpretation.

>The Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is now commonly accepted among physicists

No, is that way.

Yeah, every possible universe exists. But the number of possible universes is incredibly smaller than brainlets like you realize. Causality and determinism means that there is no choice, no fork in the road. There are no branches, just one long trunk. The ONLY way that these other universes could be different from ours is if different sperm hit the egg when two things fucked, creating a different individual that will take different actions.

You tell me how does copenhagen involve more assumptions than assuming that there are infinite fucking universes. You can't go more full retard than that occam's razor wise.

Again, the statement of occam's razor:

'What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more.'

It's clearly assuming less to take quantum theory as a good description of nature *if possible* rather than quantum theory + extra stuff about being able to treat the experimenter and act of measurement classically [!].

What you call 'infinite fucking universes' is just the deterministic evolution of wave functions/functionals on a single 4d spacetime manifold.

It's actually the simplest explanation, something that is lost on many due to the way it's explained in popularizations. There is only ever one universe - one universal wavefunction - in this interpretation. It's just that the universe has a branching structure.

yes if you have 0% probability but for many worlds theory as long as there is a possibility no matter how small, it will have infinite times, after all infinite multiplied by any number other tha 0 is infinite/ negative infinite

idk but I wanted to share this OC

>implying altruism is something differenti than selfish incentives

Well, Leibnitz talked about us living in the best of all possible worlds. Maybe that is not the case but its certainly something to strive for.

>fewer
well god it is then

>As far as I understand it, that means that every possible universe exists and their distribution is fixed.

>The Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is now commonly accepted among physicists.

[citation needed]

Also what is it with brainlets and this constant fixation of “decisions” and quantum physics? Decisions are completely fucking irrelevant here, what splits the worlds would be simply what we perceive to be the collapse of wave functions, happening at an unimaginable rate all the time. There is no guarantee that there is an alternative world in which you would have made a different decision, unless this decision was somehow based on a quantum event, which is unlikely.

And at the end of the day, it doesn’t make any sense to try and make arguments about free will on the basis of quantum physics, as free will as a concept only exists at the very much macroscopic level of behaviour, not at the level of atoms

>Multiverse: Have astronomers found evidence of parallel universes?

theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes

If we're posting popsci articles as evidence then here you go

iflscience.com/space/the-cold-spot-as-evidence-of-the-multiverse-not-so-fast/

Would it be polygamy to date them?

>the cat
wouldnt there be one where you kill he cat, one where you pee on it, one where you give it a million bucks for eat... or is this some kind of "enless possibilities universes" I am talking about?
DOn't know much about Many Worlds, but it seems like it only knows "white and black"...eitehr you do something.. or don't...but what about the other things that couldve habbeningd?

It’s got nothing to do with human decisions, only with wave functiona collapsing to different eigenstates (possible outcomes). Since a lot of things are possible at a quantum level, just very unlikely, if the MWI was real all kinds of things could happen, e.g. a bowl falling through a table it stands on. Mostly it would be very small changes though

yeah this is what I meant by wizard tier; everyone knows its bullshit

Multiverse=/=Many Worlds.

honestly fuck cats adopt a dog