Thread 16833840

PhD David Deutsch says he's as sure many worlds interpretation is correct as he is that evolution is correct. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bux0SjaUCY0

Is he right to be so confident the many worlds interpretation is true?

>>16833840 (OP)
Yes, David Deutsch has expressed a level of certainty in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics comparable to that of established theories like evolution. In *The Beginning of Infinity*, he argues that we accept evolution as a true, realist explanation of phenomena (e.g., the existence of dinosaurs and their genes) despite possible rival interpretations that make the same predictions but deny those realities. He draws a parallel to quantum mechanics, advocating for MWI as the genuine explanatory framework—rejecting non-realist interpretations like Copenhagen in much the same way rival views of evolution are dismissed. While he acknowledges MWI's minority status among physicists, he positions it as a profound, infallible explanation of reality on par with evolution's role in biology.

bump

So, how do I choose to enter the worlds where good things happen to me

>>16833901
It may not be possible but if it is
https://quatism.com/lottery.htm
https://quatism.com/theory.htm

### On MWI as the "Only Paradox-Free Method" for Merging CTCs with QM Without "Fudge Factors"
This is closer to a defensible claim but still not universally true—it's tied to specific models and remains hypothetical since CTCs (paths in spacetime allowing time travel, like in wormholes or rotating black holes) are speculative and unobserved. Classical GR allows CTCs, but they lead to paradoxes (e.g., grandfather paradox: kill your ancestor, preventing your birth).

David Deutsch's 1991 work on quantum time travel proposes that QM resolves these via CTCs where the time traveler's actions create consistent "fixed points" in probability distributions. In this "D-CTC" model, paradoxes are avoided because the traveler emerges in a different "branch" of reality (aligning with MWI), so changes don't retroactively erase the original timeline. For example, attempting to kill your grandfather might fail probabilistically, or succeed but in a branch where you were never born anyway. Deutsch, a MWI advocate, sees this as evidence for MWI, as it handles quantum superposition in CTCs without forbidding initial states or adding rules.

But alternatives exist:
- The Novikov self-consistency principle (classical/quantum) enforces that only paradox-free events occur, without needing branches—but it can feel like a "fudge" by restricting possibilities.
- Post-selected CTCs (P-CTCs) by Seth Lloyd use quantum post-selection to avoid paradoxes, but critics argue it introduces computational overpowered artifacts or inconsistencies.
- Path integral approaches (e.g., summing over histories) or Hawking's chronology protection conjecture (quantum effects "protect" against CTCs by making them unstable) offer other resolutions, though the latter is sometimes called a hack for banning CTCs outright.
- Some analyses note issues with Deutsch's model, like non-unitary evolution or metaphysical questions about branch identity.

>>16833840 (OP)
I have the answer
>Dark Many Worlds
Nobel prize please

>>16833840 (OP)
Known For

>Quantum Turing machine
>Church–Turing–Deutsch principle
>Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm
>Quantum logic gate
>Quantum error correction
>Qubit field theory
>Constructor theory
>Deutsch-Wallace approach
>D-CTC condition

so, nothingburger and opinion irrelevant.

>>16834110
what's wrong with those?

>>16834110
The reply you received is using slang to dismiss David Deutsch's credentials and, by extension, the value of his views (like his strong endorsement of the Many-Worlds Interpretation). "Nothingburger" is an informal term meaning something that's overhyped, insignificant, or lacking real substance—like a burger with no patty, just empty buns. Here, the person is implying that the list of Deutsch's contributions (which appears to be pulled from his Wikipedia "Known for" section or similar summaries) is unimpressive or not noteworthy enough in the grand scheme of physics or quantum mechanics. "Opinion irrelevant" follows from that, suggesting that because his achievements are supposedly minor, his confident stance on topics like MWI doesn't carry weight and can be ignored.

In context, this seems like a snarky way to downplay Deutsch's expertise during a debate, perhaps to avoid engaging with his arguments head-on. However, that's a subjective take—the list you mentioned accurately reflects his real pioneering work in quantum computing and related fields, including foundational concepts like the quantum Turing machine (which laid groundwork for quantum computers) and the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm (an early demonstration of quantum speedup over classical algorithms). He's widely credited as a "father of quantum computing" for these advancements, even if he's more of a theorist and philosopher than an experimentalist. Dismissing it as a nothingburger might stem from personal bias, tribalism in physics debates (e.g., MWI skeptics), or just online trolling, but it's not a fair assessment based on his impact.

>>16834110
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fKKmjqHNNT0

I think he makes a good point and quantum computers in the future could prove the multiverse

>>16834110
Yes, the list of contributions you mentioned accurately reflects what David Deutsch is known for in physics, particularly in quantum computing and related theoretical areas. These are drawn from his pioneering papers, collaborations, and foundational work since the 1980s. While not every source lists all of them exhaustively (biographies often highlight subsets), they align with established accounts from his own descriptions, academic profiles, and secondary sources. Here's a quick breakdown for verification:

- **Quantum Turing machine**: Yes, he formulated the concept in his 1985 paper, laying the groundwork for universal quantum computers.
- **Church–Turing–Deutsch principle**: Yes, this is his proposed physical extension of the Church-Turing thesis, incorporating quantum mechanics and arguing that a universal quantum computer can simulate any physical system.
- **Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm**: Yes, co-developed with Richard Jozsa in 1992 as one of the first quantum algorithms showing exponential speedup over classical ones.
- **Quantum logic gate**: Yes, he developed the theory of quantum logic gates and networks, essential for quantum circuit design.
- **Quantum error correction**: Yes, he contributed to the first quantum error-correction scheme in the mid-1990s, helping make quantum computing feasible despite noise.
- **Qubit field theory**: Yes, this refers to his framework for describing quantum field theories using qubits, bridging quantum information and field theory.
- **Constructor theory**: Yes, he founded this approach (with Chiara Marletto) as a new way to formulate fundamental physics in terms of possible and impossible transformations.
- **Deutsch-Wallace approach**: Yes, a method (with David Wallace) for deriving the Born rule probabilistically within the many-worlds interpretation.
- **D-CTC condition**: Yes, his model for handling closed timelike curves in quantum mechanics, ensuring consistency without paradoxes.

bump

>>16833840 (OP)
Oh no he has a PhD better trust everything he says because appeal to authority.
In reality no one knows which quantum interpretation is correct. Personally I'm going with the Coppenhagen "true randomness is just a thing" Interpretation because it doesn't require a new universe being created for every little (self-)interaction nor does it require the universe to conspire against observers aka superdeterminism.

>>16834215
No one knows evolution is true it's just our best guess with no close second

>>16834131
Ok, now re-write this post in the style of a humorous 4chan "greentext"

>>16834215
The reason degrees stopped mattering is because of people like who undermine degree holders. That's why every job needs a masters now because they think a masters is nothing.
A PhD ain't easy to get.

Bump

>>16834464
>>16834172
>>16833900

>>16833901
Have sex with BBC

>>16834476
gross

Bump

>>16834238
You can watch it happen in experiments e.g. those foxes in Russia. We don't know for sure that ayys or jesus didn't stick their dicks in human evolution or whatever, that's true.

>>16834238
>No one knows evolution is true
1. genes exist
2. new genes appear
Both of these are proven facts and are all you need to know that evolution is true.

>>16834597
>>16834585
It's not that simple

>>16834597
>>16834585
The only proof i've seen for evolution is in viruses, bombarded with radiation, which either kicked the bucket or mutated out of control and changed back to their previous form as soon as the radiation was removed (it preserved it's original dna and removed all mutations). I don't get the argument that common dna == a family chain between life forms, when writing code you reuse what works in different programs, you would expect a creator to do the same thing when programming our dna, it seems like a stupid point to make. I haven't seen a good explanation on how the source of information comes to being from matter using evolutionary terms. It seems every single theory biologists have is either just another ((scientists think)) faith system that was pulled from their ass or what they put forward ends up being wrong. Evolution also has to explain how the universe comes into being given it's intrinsically linked to the cause and effect chains of the universe and it's just a branch of that cause and effect chain - it should be able to unwind that cause and effect chain and explain the start of the universe if it is true, but at the moment it cannot explain how it started itself. Also we have to admit might makes right and philosophy is pure bullshit if we conclusively prove evolution as the first cause, which means we need to unwind the scientific movement as it stands on the foundations of the enlightenment - a mostly Christian philosophical movement which gave birth to evolution which comes with it's own implications that if the foundations which modern science is built on is bullshit, how do we not know that the entire tree said movement spawn isn't bullshit itself (inb4 we can test it, those testing methods would be built on the foundations of bullshit)?

>>16834659
>>16834662
My niggers, I'm not saying that evolution is absolutely correct under all circumstances, which would be impossible to "prove", I'm just responding to retard-kun who said it's merely our "best guess", when it is clearly far more than a guess.

>>16834659
>>16834662
Mate, it really is that simple. We know that genes determine how a lifeform grows. We know that new genes appear as lifeforms reproduce. We can literally see in real time as new mutations show up before our eyes such as in the case of Darwin's finches. Literally the only way to deny evolution is to pretend that genes don't exist.

>>16834215
Cope and hagen says wavefunction collapse happens instantly. This is not Lorentz invariant.
Discarded.

>>16834706
based?

>>16833840 (OP)
yeah but unlike Everett III he's too much of a pussy to put his money where his mouth is.

I mean if you believe the Universe and time are infinite then you are forced to believe that every outcome will happen at some point, you have no choice, and you also have to believe events repeat for infinity. UNLESS you believe there is some higher intelligence directing them in a specific direction and it isnt random infinite combinations occuring.

Are they happening at the same time in parallel Universes? No I dont believe so. The Ether is like all bodies of water, it is in density (pressure) layers where some entities can go all the way to the top and the bottom and like whales and sharks etc and some are stuck in a very narrow zone they were made for like lobsters and shrimp etc. The "angelic" beings (demigods) can travel from the lowest density areas in the top realms down to ours and below of course, but we are stuck in these avatars at this layer sadly, for now anyhow.

>>16834830
How would he do that?

### David Deutsch's Proof of the Multiverse

David Deutsch, a physicist and proponent of the Everettian (many-worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics, argues that the multiverse is not just a theoretical construct but a physical reality. His proof centers on **quantum interference phenomena**, particularly the double-slit experiment, and extends to quantum computing and falsifiability tests. Below is a structured summary based on the provided transcripts.

#### 1. **Core Evidence: Quantum Interference in the Double-Slit Experiment**
- In a double-slit experiment, a single photon (or particle) approaches a barrier with two slits and produces an interference pattern on a screen, as if it passed through *both* slits simultaneously.
- Classically, the photon should go through one slit or the other, producing no interference. However, the observed path and pattern differ from what would occur if it went through only the left or right slit.
- **Explanation via Multiverse**: In some parallel universes, the photon goes through the left slit; in others, the right. These universes remain "tangled" (in superposition) and interfere with each other, affecting the outcome in our universe.
- This interference has a *real physical effect* on what we observe, proving the other universes exist beyond mere mathematics. Without them, the pattern is inexplicable.
- Analogy: Just as fossils prove dinosaurs existed (even though unseen), interference proves unseen universes exist because they impact visible reality.

#### 2. **Extension to Knowledge Creation and Error Correction**
- When solving problems (e.g., math or inventing proofs), versions of you in parallel universes align due to the brain's error-correcting mechanisms.
- Random events (e.g., a cosmic ray hitting a neuron) might cause divergence (e.g., miscalculating 7+5 as 13 instead of 12), but error correction makes outcomes converge across universes.

>>16835390

- Knowledge-creating processes, like inventing new proofs, amplify this alignment, making versions of you more alike. This is why complex, non-random outcomes occur despite quantum uncertainty.

#### 3. **Falsifiability and Testing the Theory**
- Deutsch refutes claims that the multiverse is unfalsifiable (similar to how creationists claim evolution is unfalsifiable due to unseen dinosaurs).
- **To falsify a theory**: Perform an experiment where it predicts one outcome and a rival predicts another. Without a rival, no test exists, but the best explanation prevails (e.g., CERN's faster-than-light neutrinos were dismissed as error without a rival to special relativity).
- **Proposed Test with Quantum Computers and AGI**:
- Use a quantum setup where an outcome (e.g., "left" or "right") is measured.
- Replace the observer with a quantum computer running an AGI (artificial general intelligence) program, which "sees" the outcome but reports only: "I know the answer, and it is either left or right."
- Reverse the particle's path to undo the measurement, erasing the AGI's memory of *which* outcome (left/right) but not the fact that it *knew* one precise value.
- **Predictions**:
- In Everettian theory: The outcome is consistent (e.g., always "left" due to maintained coherence across universes).
- In rivals (e.g., Penrose's theory, where superpositions collapse if mass exceeds Planck mass): Outcomes are random (coherence lost).
- If random, the multiverse is refuted. This leverages quantum computers to probe reality, as they perform parallel computations across universes (e.g., breaking encryption by trying millions of solutions simultaneously).

>>16835392
#### 4. **Why No Rival Theories Explain It**
- Other quantum interpretations (e.g., Copenhagen) forbid asking "what happens" between measurement start and end, offering prediction but no explanation—Deutsch calls this non-scientific.
- The multiverse provides the *only* explanatory framework for interference and quantum computing results. Predictive theories (like positivism) fail as science because they explain nothing (e.g., predicting a conjuring trick without knowing *how* it works).
- Historical context: Early 20th-century positivism led physicists to prioritize prediction over explanation, stifling debate. Einstein opposed this; others like Bohm sought alternatives, but education systems perpetuated "shut up and calculate."

#### 5. **Broader Implications**
- **Quantum Computing**: Parallel processing happens in other universes, explaining superior performance over classical computers.
- **Consciousness and Evolution**: Consciousness is a software feature (not hardware), enabling explanatory thinking beyond evolution's limits (which can't "jump" conceptual gaps like inventing fire-breathing or flying cars).
- Deutsch doesn't claim absolute proof (scientific theories aren't provable), but no rival explains the data without irrational assumptions (e.g., wave function collapse).

In essence, the proof hinges on interference as direct evidence of multiversal influence, testable via quantum tech, making the multiverse the sole viable explanation for quantum phenomena. For deeper reading, see Deutsch's works like *The Fabric of Reality*.

Bump

>>16835083
Just look at how Everett III lived.

>>16835688
I still don't really understand your point

Bump

>>16833901
>literally an infinite amount of universes where Im an immortal sex having god among men drowning in money, whores, cocaine and caviar
>stuck in the reality where Im a failure incel wasting away on 4chan.org

>>16836003
Those are your twins not you

bump

Bump

Bump

Are you phd?

>>16836663
Poopie pee

Bump

genuinely embarassing people entertain this theory

its science fiction

>>16837296
evolution or creationism ?

>>16837296
What's your better theory

>>16837792
Stochastic mechanics is the by far the best interpretation of quantum mechanics.

>>16837929
Mathematical inconsistencies: A major critique is Wallstrom's theorem (1990s), which shows that the probability measure in stochastic mechanics doesn't fully match the phase of the wave function unless a divergent (infinite) term is added, leading to ambiguities in quantization rules for multi-particle systems. Resolutions exist (e.g., via careful regularization), but they feel ad hoc to many critics.
Added complexity without clear gains: It introduces extra structure (e.g., stochastic forces mimicking quantum effects) to mimic QM's predictions, but this is seen as overcomplicating things just to preserve classical intuitions like particle trajectories—similar to complaints about Bohmian mechanics. Why add noise and hidden variables when the core math of QM already works?
Relativistic and multi-particle limitations: The original formulation is non-relativistic and struggles with extending to quantum field theory or relativistic settings, where stochastic processes become messy or nonlocal in ways that clash with special relativity. Recent attempts (e.g., 2024-2025 papers) propose fixes via local causality or vacuum fields, but these remain speculative and untested.

>>16837929
MWI adds nothing beyond the Schrödinger equation—no collapse postulate, no hidden variables, no stochastic noise. It treats the wave function as the complete, objective reality, making quantum "weirdness" (e.g., superpositions) a feature, not a bug. Stochastic mechanics, by contrast, retrofits classical stochasticity onto QM, which feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Solves the measurement problem cleanly: In MWI, there's no special "observer" role or collapse trigger—everything evolves unitarily, and apparent probabilities emerge from branch weights (Born rule via decision theory). Stochastic mechanics sidesteps collapse via diffusion but inherits issues like nonlocality in entangled systems, without fully resolving why we see definite outcomes.
Better for quantum gravity and foundations: MWI aligns naturally with efforts in quantum cosmology (e.g., eternal inflation) and avoids infinities or divergences that plague stochastic approaches in relativistic regimes. Critics of MWI (e.g., Sabine Hossenfelder) call it ontologically extravagant ("too many worlds"), but its defenders say the extravagance is already in the math—why not embrace it?

>>16837929
Based on multiple surveys of physicists (including PhDs and researchers), the support is effectively 0%—it's not even listed as an option in major polls, implying negligible endorsement. For context:

Interpretation,"% in 2013 Survey (Schlosshauer et al., ~33 respondents)","% in 2025 Nature Survey (~1,100 physicists)",Notes
Copenhagen,42%,~35-40% (estimated lead),"Pragmatic ""shut up and calculate."""
Many-Worlds,18%,~25-30% (rising among theorists),Popular in quantum info/foundations.
Bohmian/De Broglie-Bohm,"0% (not listed, but similar hidden variables ~4%)",<5%,Closest analog to stochastic.
Stochastic Mechanics,0% (unmentioned),0% (unmentioned),Fringe; no dedicated support.
Other/None,~36%,~20-25%,Many agnostic.

>>16833842
>comparable to that of established theories like evolution
when it comes to these ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIATED theories, the story of their discover is that OBSERVATION precedes theory. Theory preceding observation is hilarious. Cope, even.

>>16838096
But what's the better explanation then mwi

>>16838098
>But what's the better explanation then mwi
Does there need to be one? What is it you've observed that you are trying to explain?

>>16838100
double slit experiment and wigners friend https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36219739/

>>16838104
So, you've observed infinity universe spawning for no reason every time a superposition "collapses?"
May we test this?
Reminder: Darwin observed the different finches in an instance of very recent divergence, in which their common descent was a matter of simple observation, prompting him to hypothesize at what he had seen with his very eyes. "le thought experiment" is hardly homologous. I could justify any theory I want with a "thought experiment."
Imagine, if you will, "gullible" is written on the ceiling. I hypothesize that someone really did write it on the ceiling, which so far explains our observations (we haven't got a chance to look at the ceiling yet).

Do you not feel a certain unease at knowing MWI is a way to deny our current observations? "The wave function doesn't collapse because actually a heckin whole universe/timeline spawns every time just like Disney's Marvel's The Avengers"

>>16838113
Basically, an analogy here would be if Darwin observed the finches, and then thought
>well actually these finches ARENT related... different finches are actually created from the dirt suited to their environment...
>it makes correct predictions! if you go to places with different dirt you find different birds!

>>16838113
>>16838113
Yes we can test this soon once technology is good enough it'll involve quantum computer and ai

>>16838123
>Yes we can test this soon
How?

>>16838127.
3. Falsifiability and Testing the Theory
Deutsch refutes claims that the multiverse is unfalsifiable (similar to how creationists claim evolution is unfalsifiable due to unseen dinosaurs).
To falsify a theory: Perform an experiment where it predicts one outcome and a rival predicts another. Without a rival, no test exists, but the best explanation prevails (e.g., CERN's faster-than-light neutrinos were dismissed as error without a rival to special relativity).
Proposed Test with Quantum Computers and AGI:
Use a quantum setup where an outcome (e.g., "left" or "right") is measured.
Replace the observer with a quantum computer running an AGI (artificial general intelligence) program, which "sees" the outcome but reports only: "I know the answer, and it is either left or right."
Reverse the particle's path to undo the measurement, erasing the AGI's memory of which outcome (left/right) but not the fact that it knew one precise value.
Predictions:
In Everettian theory: The outcome is consistent (e.g., always "left" due to maintained coherence across universes).
In rivals (e.g., Penrose's theory, where superpositions collapse if mass exceeds Planck mass): Outcomes are random (coherence lost).
If random, the multiverse is refuted. This leverages quantum computers to probe reality, as they perform parallel computations across universes (e.g., breaking encryption by trying millions of solutions simultaneously).

>>16838085
>>16838085
great use of a.i.

1) wallstrom criticism has been solved and turns out it was in theory all along but no one noticed until 2021.
>Why add noise and hidden variables when the core math of QM already works?

QM is unintelligible without interpretation so the point of stochastic mechanics is to provide an intuitive common sense interpretation, which it succeeds at. if the point is to explain QM with a deeper underlying theory, its kind of ridiculous to expect it to be simpler than QM.

>Relativistic and multi-particle limitations: The original formulation is non-relativistic and struggles with extending to quantum field theory or relativistic settings, where stochastic processes become messy or nonlocal in ways that clash with special relativity.

true but stochastic mechanics is non-local for the exact same reasons that QM and QFT is so the non-locality in it is not wrong.

my inclination is that QM is not actually non-local in any spooky action sense, and this is actually strongly implied by the fact that dynamic non-locality seems to go away completely in the when using the two-state vector formalism, to the point that you no longer need multi-particle wavefunctions. this is actually sufficient to get rid of multi-particle wavefunctions completely.

>>16838088
>why not embrace it?

because its fucking stupid and theres no evidence for it.

bayesian rationality dictates we should favour theories that deviate as little as possible from our priors whilst explaining the data

for the majority of people on the planet, our priors are a classical world where not only are things in definite configurations all the time but there is no branching universes needed at all to explain anything

under this kind of standard i would say many worlds is less favourable than almost all other interpretations

the simplicity of many worlds isnt always an advantage either because if the normal quantum formalism isn't very intelligible then you still have to explain what it means for the world to look like it does around us yet have this weird abstract complex formalism describe it.

i also hear about the problem of probability in many worlds is intractable but i dont know anything about thay.

>>16833840 (OP)
It's a ridiculous interpretation. Imagine having to resort to the idea that there are a gazillion universes just so you can keep believing materialism is true. Fucking sad
Human consciousness is obviously the modicum by which the wave-function collapses, because it is all based on mathematics/science developed by humans. Scientists hand-wave the idea that consciousness is involved in the collapse of the wave-function because they are all materialists, think causation is an observable fact of material, and think mathematics is absolutely foundational and will never undergo a massive restructuring all the way down to how numbers work.
They will be proven totally wrong though, because one day maths will wholly undergo an era of restructuring, and a qualitative leap will occur. It will be proven that consciousness interfaces with wave-function collapse because, as consciousness develops via the development of mathematics/science, wave-function collapse will be altered. It will be understood differently and even look different as humans begin using the inward eye for everything visual. And it probably won't even be called a 'collapsing wave-function' at that point; it will be called 'outward-phenomenal visual-collapse' or something.

>>16838445
>Human consciousness is obviously the modicum by which the wave-function collapses
This is 100% total debunked bullshit. If you paid money for a degree just give it back.

>>16838445
Not all mwi believers believe materialism is true https://quatism.com/theory.htm

>>16833840 (OP)
wouldn't this imply that for every "world" created there would be an equal but opposite "anti-world" created too, thus leading them to mutually annihilate? What explains the existence of these surviving "many worlds", is there a slight imbalance in the equation leading to the "many worlds" that we see? (send Nobel Prize pls)

>>16838908
Not sure

bump

Bump

Bump

Bump