Can this even be called a theory in the proper sense of the word? I have a hard tme wth this, especially the notion that anyone believes it whereas I have yet to see a single shred of fact or evidence backing it up. Is there ANYTHING to this "theory"?
It only becomes a theory if you think you can get some measurable consequences out of it, which doesn't seem to be the case.
In any event, nobody really takes many-worlds seriously any more, much as nobody really takes the idea that Schrodinger's Cat is really in a macroscopic superposition of states seriously any more. (And for similar reasons: The wavefunction collapses into some definite state as soon as it makes any possibly discernible macroscopic difference. In the case of the cat, the detector counts as an observer so the atom never gets to be in a superposition of states in the first place.)
Quote from: tnu on December 02, 2014, 12:48:13 PM
Can this even be called a theory in the proper sense of the word? I have a hard tme wth this, especially the notion that anyone believes it whereas I have yet to see a single shred of fact or evidence backing it up. Is there ANYTHING to this "theory"?
Here's an excellent argument for it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q8/many_worlds_one_best_guess/
There's also a follow-up: http://lesswrong.com/lw/qz/living_in_many_worlds/
Quote from: evensgrey on December 02, 2014, 02:16:12 PMIn any event, nobody really takes many-worlds seriously any more,
Bullshit. In fact, none other than Sean Carroll has said that it's "probably correct." http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/
well, the ancients believed in a parallel world called "3abqar", inhabited by invisible beings made of pure energy.
might have been on to something :P