Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YHWH_Christ

Guest
MWI basically states that the wavefunction of quantum mechanics exists but that it doesn’t collapse leading to an infinite amount of branching timelines/universes, the laws of physics of course stay the same in all systems. This is considered a materialist interpretation of quantum mechanics and it is one of the more popular interpretations of QM among researchers. It explains how a relativistic universe and a quantum one can exist at the same time. It does solve a lot of the paradoxes in QM too such as Schrodinger’s Cat. How do we reconcile this with our beliefs?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
It seems that this interpretation must lead to an infinte series of branching threads, wherein Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead, as am I and everyone else.
 
Well yes they don’t call it a Hilbert Space for nothing.
 
It’s a nice theory, but is there any empirical evidence? How are we supposed to test that?
 
Assuming Conservation of Mass and Energy applies in this situation this is not possible unless there are already an infinite number of universes that are exactly the same.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
How do we reconcile this with our beliefs?
Click to expand...
The same way we reconcile any science. God is the creator of all that exists, and the author of all truth. He created all things and sustains all things in accord with his holy and perfect will.

At times we may correctly understand the nature of the universe, but not understand how it fits into God’s plan. At other times we may incorrectly understand the nature of the universe, leading to an apparent but false contradiction with faith.
CCC 159 Faith and science : “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
One difficulty with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it does not seem to be consistent with our understanding of the human person. In some branches I would be saved. In others I would be damned. In different branches I would have different children. In some branches I would not have been born.

It’s hard to see how a person in these circumstances can have a relationship with God, how God can provide for that person’s material and spiritual needs, and how there can be eternal love between any person and God.

Therefore I cannot reconcile the Many Worlds Interpretation with my faith.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
One difficulty with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it does not seem to be consistent with our understanding of the human person. In some branches I would be saved. In others I would be damned. In different branches I would have different children. In some branches I would not have been born.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you assuming that the person in each of these various branches is “You”?

Why do you refer to them as “I”? Wouldn’t there still be only one “I”?
 
Last edited:
Okay, let’s say it is I and an infinite number of clones, each of whom shares some span of time with me.

Then any particular branch is not a person as I understand personhood. Nor do all branches together make up a person. Something exists, but not a person.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
Then any particular branch is not a person as I understand personhood.
Click to expand...
Why would you say that? What makes your position any more valid than their position? Couldn’t they just as reasonably maintain that you’re the one that lacks personhood?

But more to the point…why should either of you assume that the other one lacks personhood?
 
Last edited:
Let’s look at this carefully. Let’s say that there are an infinite number of worlds exactly like this one and that at every point where something can go multiple ways they split with an infinite amount of them going one way and an infinite amount of them going another. Technically most of these splits will be caused by different behaviors of subatomic particles, but we’ll focus on the splits where someone makes a decision.

Now lets examine a hypothetical baseline universe in which you are presented with the option of stealing or not stealing $10. Sinning or not sinning. Free will requires that you be capable of making this decision either way, so it seems reasonable that an infinite amount of the 'you’s would choose one way and an infinite amount would choose another way. It’s not reasonable at all. If you truly have the ability to choose freely then it should be a viable if unlikely outcome that every single one of the 'you’s will choose not to sin. That would mean one branch is never created, though. For the split to happen properly some of the 'you’s must choose to sin. Either not all paths are made or your choices are constrained by the actions of the other 'you’s.

It actually doesn’t matter if the other 'you’s are you, or if they are just completely identical to you in every way. As long as each one has complete free will, it must be at least possible that all of them choose the same path.
 
Last edited:
lelinator said:
Why would you say that? What makes your position any more valid than their position? Couldn’t they just as reasonably maintain that you’re the one that lacks personhood?

But more to the point…why should either of you assume that the other one lacks personhood?
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstood me. Here’s what I wrote:
Beryllos said:
Then any particular branch is not a person as I understand personhood.
Click to expand...
In that scenario, no branch or sequence of branches meets my definition of person, including myself.
 
I’m sorry I dont have time to read this argument. However I wanted to throw a thought in. In quantum mechanics the observer has influence on the outcome. So to me this hints at why faith is so Important. We can influence “reality” to a certain extent. So as we bring our faith and God into the mix we elevate the entire picture, bring it to a higher level of resonance. Just random thoughts from someone with a BS (emphasis on bs placed …😁).
 
Inquiry said:
Free will requires that you be capable of making this decision either way, so it seems reasonable that an infinite amount of the 'you’s would choose one way and an infinite amount would choose another way.
Click to expand...
Is the bold portion true?

Let’s reconsider the concept of free will. Is my choice as to whether or not to steal that $10 actually random? Because if it isn’t random, then there may not be any realities at all, in which I actually do steal that $10.

If it was a matter of random chance, then yes, every possible outcome should occur. But if it’s not a matter of random chance, rather it’s a free will choice. One in which my will preempts random chance, then my will should play a key role in determining what is and isn’t possible. And which realities can and can’t exist. The determining factor concerning what is and isn’t possible…may be my free will.

For insignificant things, the outcome may be random. But for things in which I freely choose one thing over another thing, the outcome may not be random at all, and thus no branching of reality actually occurs for circumstances in which I make a free will choice.
 
Last edited:
That was my point. The sinning can happen (because of free will). Anything that can happen, will (because of MW). So the split where some of ‘you’ sin must happen.

Yet it must be possible that none of ‘you’ sin (because of free will), and if so the split never happens.

The split must happen and the split doesn’t happen contradict each other.
 
Is QM … an Actuality/Noumena such as 'The Universe, Life, Absolute/Qualities?

or rather, more akin to a descriptive language / argument ?

_
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
Is QM … an Actuality/Noumena such as 'The Universe, Life, Absolute/Qualities?

or rather, more akin to a descriptive language / argument ?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how you interpret it. You could say QM is simply a model of things we really observe in nature or you could say QM is an accurate description of nature within itself, but some QM stuff is theoretical. But hey it was a theoretical physicist who created special relativity and general relativity which have been proven through scientific observation.
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
I guess it depends on how you interpret it. You could say QM is simply a model of things we really observe in nature or you could say QM is an accurate description of nature within itself, but some QM stuff is theoretical. But hey it was a theoretical physicist who created special relativity and general relativity which have been proven through scientific observation.
Click to expand...
OK. … QM is not unto itself… “nature” .

Relativity, Quantum,

“Theory of Everything” // Grand Unified Theory

Unified Field Theory

MeanWhile, this Dying Universe shall one day be no more…

_
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top