[GoblinSlayer]

>Second, the math doesn't tell you whether or not the discarded parts of the wave function describe something real or not.

The math tells that there are no privileged parts of wave function.

>So anyone who tells you that the MWI is the only possible scientifically tenable interpretation of QM is lying.

Didn't you admit yourself that if MWI works it's a big deal and will kick the chair from under other interpretations?

[lisper]

> The math tells that there are no privileged parts of wave function.

That's true. But my senses tell me that there is a privileged part of the wave function, namely, the branch that I'm in.

The way I think about it nowadays is that QM is like a Necker cube. You can look at it in two different ways. You can take the God's-eye view and look at the entire wave function, or you can take the mortal's eye view and look at only a proper subset of the wave function (which is necessary in order to recover classical reality). But you can't do both at the same time. For my day-to-day life, I have no choice but to take the mortal's-eye view because I am a mortal. All of the things that matter to me depend on classical reality, and so depend on my suspension of disbelief and acting as if my branch of the multiverse is privileged, even if I can intellectually jump out of the system momentarily and recognize that the mortal's eye view is necessarily incomplete.

> Didn't you admit yourself that if MWI works it's a big deal and will kick the chair from under other interpretations?

That depends on what you mean by "works". If someone can derive the Born rule from the Schrodinger equation that will be a big deal, a slam-dunk Nobel prize. But no one has done it, and I'm pretty sure it can't be done. I'm pretty sure that the Born rule is an emergent property of our branch of the multiverse. I believe the same is true of the Second Law and even three-dimensional space. You can slice-and-dice the wave function to give you physical spaces with any number of dimensions, but three is the magic number that gives you atoms and stars and planets with stable orbits [1] and so on. So I'm pretty sure the Born rule can only be explained by the anthropic principle. There's probably a Nobel prize waiting for the person who turns that intuition into a theorem.

---

[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50142/gravity-in...

[GoblinSlayer]

>But my senses tell me that there is a privileged part of the wave function, namely, the branch that I'm in.

You could also sense that your location is privileged, because the observable universe is neatly centered at it, but science will prioritize Copernican principle over your senses.

>But you can't do both at the same time.

This doesn't match what you do. Tracing extracts mortal's-eye view from God's-eye view, so in God's-eye view you have both.

>depend on my suspension of disbelief and acting as if my branch of the multiverse is privileged

If your branch exists, it's sufficient for your day to day life, there's not much else to disbelieve. There's no need for it to be privileged. Do you worry that Earth isn't more privileged than Mars?

>But no one has done it, and I'm pretty sure it can't be done.

But quantum physics doesn't allow it. It's quantitative science where all observed phenomena are computable. If they aren't computable, then quantum physics doesn't predict them and thus diverges from observation. And Schrödinger equation is how predictions are made, collapse and measurement only act on what already exists before them and don't create anything new. So if Born rule is an observed phenomenon, it must be computable from Schrödinger equation. Also if Born rule holds with certainty, then it's a pure state, and observation won't do anything to it, so Born rule can't be created by observation.

>There's probably a Nobel prize waiting for the person who turns that intuition into a theorem.

This was argued by Max Tegmark https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9702052 I thought it's a famous diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacetime_dimensionality....

[lisper]

> You could also sense that your location is privileged, because the observable universe is neatly centered at it

Yes, that's right. This is not an easy problem to solve. This is why it took thousands of years for mankind to realize that the earth is not at the center of the universe. The difference between that and the MWI is that there is actual evidence against geocentrism. There is no evidence against my-branch-centrism. Not only that, but the theory itself predicts that there cannot possibly be any such evidence. So the MWI is self-defeating. The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.

> in God's-eye view you have both

Nope. The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view. This is the reason that the measurement problem is a thing in the first place.

> if Born rule is an observed phenomenon, it must be computable from Schrödinger equation

Only if the SE is a complete description of reality, and it manifestly is not.

(If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe go hang out with the flat-earthers and lunar landing denialists. You may find kindred spirits there.)

> This was argued by Max Tegmark

Yes, the 3-D space part. That is old news. It's the Born Rule that (AFAIK) no one has yet derived.

[GoblinSlayer]

I think there's evidence for MWI and it's of the same character as evidence against geocentrism, you just question it, because evidence isn't airtight and geocentric prejudice is compelling because you reject Copernican principle and don't believe in relativity. But evidence against geocentrism isn't airtight either and can be questioned, and geocentrism can be hypothesized and is internally consistent, so why not, especially if you reject Copernican principle.

One branch interpretations are based on geocentric prejudice that the observer's state isn't changed much by observation (because observer doesn't feel change), and when the observer's state doesn't change much, we get geocentrism. But mathematics of quantum physics shows otherwise: the observer's state suffers decoherence and splits into macroscopic superposition, which is a big change and thus debunks assumption of unchanged observer's state. When observer's state changes significantly, observation becomes subject to relativity effect just like in case of spinning Earth.

>The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.

And what it means when there's no such evidence?

>The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view.

But then tracing must be fundamentally unable to extract mortal's-eye view from god's-eye view. What you say doesn't match what you do.

>If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you.

I argue that Born rule is an observed phenomenon, and all observed phenomena are purely quantitative physical processes computable from Schrödinger equation, Born rule is the same, otherwise quantum physics wouldn't predict observation of Born rule.

Formally you might need measurement, but the trick is to convert the given problem into a problem of certainty, then measurement is trivial, and prediction is completely calculated from Schrödinger equation. Coincidentally Born rule is such a certain fact, so it doesn't matter if you measure it or not, measurement doesn't do much to certain facts, it's sufficient if you only calculate this certain fact and leave it as is without measuring it.

[lisper]

> observer doesn't feel change

It's not just that the observer doesn't feel change, it is that no experiment can demonstrate this change, not even in principle.

> tracing must be fundamentally unable to extract mortal's-eye view from god's-eye view

Why? Because that is manifestly not the case.

> Born rule is the same

Again, you are manifestly wrong. If someone had figured out how to derive the BR from the SE it would be Big News [1].

---

[1] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/the-scientific-method-pa...