The Copenhagen Interpretation

[@zagyex]

the coppenhagen interpretation =/= many worlds interpretation

[@thatMimosaGrove]

One thing I've never understood about the Many Worlds Interpretation is this: Aren't the people who hold to this theory the same materialists who demand that every effect have a cause and every process a mechanism? What could possibly be the physical cause or mechanism by which a whole new universe splits off every few nanoseconds?

[@thatMimosaGrove]

+thatMimosaGrove Furthermore, aren't these supposed new universes created "in midstream," that is to say, fully formed, their existence NOT the result of billions of years of evolution? Wouldn't their past in essence be faked? If so, what would be so remarkable about our own universe having been created instantaneously at any point in its history?

[@thatMimosaGrove]

+thatMimosaGrove To put an even finer point on it, isn't this in essence what young earth creationists have always said-that the world was created very quickly and all the signs of having evolved over billions of years were just part of the design? It's the same as how Adam would have appeared, say, 25 years old despite having existed for only one second.

[@karimshebeika8010]

many material determinists have no problem bringing their worldview in line with quantum mechanics. It is like two seperate fields or scales. The sum of quantum "chances" results in the constant laws in our universe. Multiple universes would have the same origin. Like humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.

[@andrewwells6323]

The Copenhagen interpretation can describe everything using the same physics; you just need to add a Universal wavefunction (Which you can do in the CI!) if the wavefunction is real then the theory is non-local. According to the physicist Michael C. Price, The real problem is that it’s observer-dependent and due to the Kochen-Specker theorem the Universe doesn’t exist in the classical realist sense, not until you collapse the wavefunction. Who then observed the Big bang?

[@regalrender1934]

God, obviously. The answer is so simple, and yet scientists still always squirm whenever it's mentioned or posited. At this point in our understanding of QM, whether you believe the many worlds or the Copenhagen, God is real. Being an athiest at this point in our understanding of the Universe is folly of the highest order. This is coming from someone who was an athiest his whole life, raised by athiest parents.

[@MagklJellyBeanPastelLucidDream]

Great question

[@MewCat100]

Copenhagen is incomplete at best and most likely flat wrong. The "shut up and calculate" of QM has taken us about as far as we can go. It has been a remarkably useful method, but we need to better understand the underlying dynamics if we wish to make further progress.

[@the_mentaculus]

Where can I see this entire film? The link in the description is dead.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

I agree we need a theory that is relative to the nature of everyday life! Could the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons be forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual? In such a theory each photon oscillation only occurs once forming what we see and feel as the passage of time with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment forming an uncertain future ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π.

[@DrPG199]

@5:57 My own view is that for the present we're stuck with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Uh .. we don't have anything better .. uh .. it maybe that we would find some way that we'll feel comfortable with it. I'm not comfortable with it. Uh .. or it maybe that QM will change in some way. I mean that the theory, not just the interpretation but the theory itself will turn out to be a little different. Unfortunately it's very hard to imagine a theory which is close to QM .. We know that any new theory will have to be very similar to QM 'cause QM works so well so the corrections must be small. It's very hard to find a theory which is nearly QM but is not exactly QM. I have tried and I haven't succeeded in doing that.

[@davidwilkie9551]

To say that there is anything to be called reality requires the whole be defined as existing, probability one, which is apparently divisible to infinity. So within infinity the probability of division into exactly half is possible, which naturally results in a distribution of every combination of "even" separation by this distinction and the same applies for every other chosen factor to infinity. Therefore the property of combination and permutation in compound connection to the connecting probability of one whole has the fractal framework underlying all structure, which appears to be a holographic projection. Choosing two sits to project light or any other quantum objective onto a screen automatically chooses the "evenness" result of the image of the whole and its complimentary opposite or reflection. Ie the process of division, mirroring, interconnecting and compounding, is basic physics and chemistry. The Copenhagen Interpretation description is a necessary step to make sense of complexity.

[@mkminerals12343]

What a great.

[@davidmike9389]

I'm sorry Prof. DeWitt, but if you have zero evidence that planets exist in distant galaxies then you can't legitimately claim they do. That's an odd way to defend "Many Worlds". (@7:14)

[@vejito11]

+david mike He is not saying it's right, he is saying not to discard it because you think it's complex. You sound like a religious zealot who is stupid, immoral and asinine. Given the thousands of planets we have discovered in our own galaxy, it would be bordering on mental retardation to not conclude that another place in the universe with the same stuff, governed by the same laws, and subject to the same evolution, would not have similar structures form. Stupid, stupid you are.

[@mikefuller6959]

I failed GCE Physics from school with an F.

[@Russocass]

what are the odds that no other planets exist in any other galaxy apart from ours? it's naive of your part to assume there aren't other planets

[@mikefuller6959]

There certainly have been planets found elsewhere in our home galaxy, the Milky-Way! So why not in other galaxies?! Why should our galaxy be unique?!

[@giaourtlou]

That's right. The difference is that planets could in principle be observed, and planets (generally) have been observed, whereas the many worlds are in principle undetectable, and an alternative universe has never been observed (and never will). Nonsense. It's better to admit we have no clue how the wavefunction collapses non-locally, than to introduce fairies that comfort us. Also, I wish they could comment on the Bohmean interpretation.

[@TheDJJP500]

Good question. If in the begining of the universe quantum events ocurred, then why is the universe " real "?. What caused the collapse the probabilities?

[@erwinmanzano7596]

The theory of many world interpretation is a product of intuitive thinking of Hugh Everett. We have to analyze that what he proposed is a theory that is most plausible (if not precise) to explain the collapse of the wave function. He did not propose a law or principle which is as empirical as the scientific methodology. When we want to embrace the postulates of these brilliant thinkers, we should be philosophical and neither be pseudoskeptics nor destructive critics.

[@CurbsideJimmy]

Here is the problem as I see it. The role of observer cannot be defined. If consciousness cannot be explained and an observer is conscious, then the observer cannot be explained either. Since we don't know what consciousness is, we have no way to state absolutely that an electron is not conscious. If one electron is conscious, possibly a group of electrons would share a collective consciousness. The different outcomes an undefined observer witnesses might be di librate deception. I would suggest, experimenting with different types of observers to try and find a case where the results seen are different from what scientists see.

[@TuriyanGold]

If god is all-knowing, how can he think?

[@samuelmorkbednarzkepler]

Turiyan Gold If god is all knowing. How can he not think?

[@LyonizosdEuclide]

+Turiyan Gold if your mind is capable of thinking what do you think who have thought your mind ? (ah)

[@mkminerals12343]

+Samuel Mork Bednarz hahaha good

[@brandex2011]

+Samuel Mork Bednarz "If god is all knowing.How can he not think?" I believe that Turiyan Gold is saying that omniscience implies a final and therefore static condition whereas thought is fluid and progressive. Omniscience would mean that by the standard definition of "god", a deity is no more than an elemental result of natural events. Its maximum potential has been achieved and no more work is possible. Your question depends on a physical duality. If your "god" thinks, then it is not fully developed, and is therefore not omniscient.

[@davidagustin5627]

+Turiyan Gold "In scientia divina nullus est discursus"... Reason involves a discourse, but God has everything immediately present. So, God would be "preter-rational" instead of rational.

[@stuartlee8519]

It can't be the same laws for the observer because it's the observation that takes it from wave form..

[@anllpp]

Perhaps the knowing collapsed into the mind/universe and became omniscient

[@PaulMarostica]

For a completely different, simple logical understanding of the results of particle 2 slit experiments, you can try my video: "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica". To find my videos, search: matter theory marostica.

[@servenet299]

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, someday, someday, someday, someday......... 90 years from the formulation of QM and all they have is the above. Probabalism and wave-function collapse upon observation is THE LIMIT - Bohr was right...because he was both SENSIBLE and...HONEST.

[@SabreenSyeed]

Weinberg says "the philosophical implications of QM are unsatisfactory ". I say because that is the end of atheistic science and a manifest win for theism. Muhahaha

[@Lufeguz]

Bohmian Mechanics...