Talk:Many-worlds interpretation

‹See TfM›

The Criticisms Section (Presently called "Common Objections and Misconceptions")

AIM32, you complain that the "Common objections and misconceptions" sections always gives the last word to the MWI camp. But I think this is because adherents are more motivated to refute criticisms than critics are to refine their criticisms of a theory they find incomprehensible, hence the last published word usually goes with the adherents. Michael C. Price ^talk 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The critics of MWI don't say it is incomprehensible, they say it is self-contradictory, incoherent, vacuous, etc. Also, the mainstream view of a subject isn't decided based on "who published last" - if it was, it would change each time another book or paper is published. So your defense of why the article always gives the last word to the "MWI camp" is not valid.

However, let's talk specifics, critique just one point in the section and let's hear your suggestions for improving it.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning: The title of the section is absurd. Do I really have to point this out? Calling the Criticism section by the name of "Common Objections and Misconceptions" is laughable. It should be called something like "Criticisms", or perhaps, to reflect the argumentative content, "Criticisms and Counter-Arguments". Then look at the very first item:

* MWI states that there is no special role nor need for precise definition of measurement in MWI, yet uses the word "measurement" repeatedly throughout its exposition.

*MWI response: "measurements" are treated as a subclass of interactions, which induce subject-object correlations in the combined wavefunction. There is nothing special about measurements (such as the ability to trigger a wave function collapse), that cannot be found in the unitary time development process.[2] This is why there is no precise definition of measurement in Everett's formulation, although some other formulations emphasise that measurements must be effectively irreversible or create classical information.

The problem here is that the objection has not been stated fully. The Schrodinger equation is time-symmetrical, whereas the concept of a measurement (or any kind of interaction) leading to a splitting into multiple outcomes into the future is explicitly NOT time-symmetrical. Take a look at the illustrated cat in the figure at the beginning of this article. It splits into the future. But how does unitary evolution of the wave function under a time symmetrical equation lead to a proliferating set of self-consistent worlds in one time direction but not the other? Note that this is NOT just the same old arrow-of-time problem, because a trajectory in classical phase space doesn't "split" in either time direction. The splitting or differentiating into multiple self-consistent worlds in the future is a unique feature of MWI, and it is unintelligible without an explanation of the temporal asymmetry. Of course, some MWI advocates actually agree with this objection, and they contend that MWI actually must entail the re-coalescing of worlds, anti-measurements, splicing as well as splitting, a constant total number of "worlds", etc., but this is controversial even within the MWI camp, and leads to an empirically falsifiable theory different from QM. One could also mention the arguments of John Bell against the role of measurement in MWI.

Look, I'm mindful of the fact that this Discussion page isn't the place to discuss the topic. My only point is that the "misconception and correction" format of the existing article is not at all representative of the mainstream view of the subject. The original (unsourced) criticisms in the article need to be stated more fully, explaining (for example) why the concept of "measurement" and the alleged associated "splitting" is problematic. Once the criticism has been stated fully, we will find that there is no coherent "MWI response", although we could mention the speculative ideas about new theories with anti-measurements, by which some MWI'ers hope to salvage their interpretation. Treating each of the criticisms this way, the section will eventually reflect the actual mainstream view of the subject.AIMW32 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

First, it used to be called Criticisms, and I was happy with that, but some folks felt it wasn't NPOV enough, so we have present PC title.

Onto the substantive part: yes, a trajectory in classical phase space doesn't "split" in either time direction. So what? We are talking about a quantum system here. And you are correct, that The splitting or differentiating into multiple self-consistent worlds in the future is a unique feature of MWI, and it is unintelligible without an explanation of the temporal asymmetry. The temporal asymmetry comes from the boundary conditions, i.e. the big bang / inflation left the universe with a low entropy density, which is the source of the arrow-of-time and why worlds predominately split into the future, and measurements and memories of measurements are possible. However this is a red herring w.r.t. to the "MWI measurement problem", which is why this is not mentioned.

I hope that clears things up. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I have added the temporal asymmetry objection, with sourcing, to the article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

Will you be updating all the other interpretative QM articles also? Michael C. Price ^talk 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah so because other interpretative QM articles aren't objective, this one hasn't got to be objective either. (while this one is much more subjective 'in my opinion'). That makes a lot of sense. (this was irony) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, my implied question was about, why you are focussed on "cleaning up" the MWI article? Do you have a thing about MWI? No matter.

However I will repeat what I said to another poster - please be specific and critique a point from the "objections" section and we'll take it from there. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all I'm not the same person that you posted that quoted response to, secondly I mainly have a thing against supposedly objective sites, that aren't and suggest they are. I have posted a post with a poll, and criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And how are we meant to know who posted those comments when you can't even be bothered to sign them? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I can't see my poll that I posted with the results and a lot of extra information about it anymore.

I'm not implying you deleted it, but I don't see a good reason why this couldn't be on the discussion site. So I'm posting it again without the background information, and if someone wants to have more information about the poll he/she can contact me on

mwipoll1@hotmail.nl.

Participants

David spergel, Carlo Rovelli, David polizer, David Finkelstein, Richard Muller, M.J. Rees, George F Smoot the Third, Goldreich, James Daniel Bjorken, Richter Burton, John Preskill, Leon N. Cooper, Robert Wald, James Binney, Yakir Aharanov, Andy Fabian, Ulrich Becker, Jim Al-Khalili, Frank Close, Frank Wilczek, Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin, John Baez. Donald Lynden-Bell, Rafael D. Sorkin, Mark Sredniki, Warren Siegel

Choises

> a: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that differentiate during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth) > > b: I subscribe to the MWI that contains many parallel universes that split during every 'quantum event' (meaning that there are many perhaps an infinite number of copies of everyone that inhibits earth constantly being created) > > c: I don't subscribe to a or b, because I think they are both *(probably) false

 d I don't prefer either a or b  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) 

> The results > > C: 18 > D: 7 > A: 1 > b: 2 >

>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please if you insist on posting stuff that isn't useful (it can't cited since it is unpublished) then at least learn some basic rules such as SIGNING your comments. And read your talk page. Thank you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Willempramschot, please stop. How many times is that now, five? Soliciting people to email your single purpose hotmail account is not ok, it's crossed the line into WP:SPAM. The removals were explained above, in your “preferred” section. No one can post this to the article for you and it seems unlikely it would ever be published by an WP:RS. On http://www.physicsforums.com you said the participates were given the impression it was anonymous… I'm not sure if you copied that particular remark here, but presumably they're not endorsing this poll. You decided to promote it using their names, seemingly without their knowledge, and it's not clear you acquired permission to use comments from their email either.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 11:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to put some questions on your beautifull dreams about eternal life and your infinite twin brothers. You are really really good at quoting wikipedia and fallacy's. It's such a shame you don't understand what they mean, and don't have a clue about how to apply them with sense. This is deleted, because I probably insult you, but if that's the case then well you got insulted by the truth. And the fact that everyone's vote is anonynomous, and the quotes are to, seems enough to have no objections don't you think? Or is this really hard to grasp? Shall I find out if they endorse this poll? I could... (though my energy is a little bit wasted). Why the hell did they vote if they didn't. I send them an email and I didn't get any negative reactions. You are so obvious biased, that it hurts. I'm really serious, with all the good faith in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.226.113 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way I don't really care about getting it published, I care about the truth and so should you (and it was 3, wich I explained). I don't know if you're aware that wikipedia has influence on the opinion of people, and if you have any ethical standars what so ever. Or that you are just completely blinded by your heroes, or a idea that's not generally accepted by any scientific community what so ever (unless you call the subscribers to tegmark, and david deutsch's mail a scientific community). But please be honest to yourself. Look in the mirror, and think really hard. And ask yourself the question 'Did I do good'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.226.113 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm affraid I speak to a conscience and a rationality you just don't posses. So I will leave you to delete all the criticism and posts by me and others you so kindly call harassment. With the information that there is a certain person with a psychosis (not me, if you might want to interpret it that way) that tried to commit suicide because of sources like this, that give dishonest information. And with a song that captures your attributions on this site perfectly [1], sleep tight (which I'm sure you will)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.212.48 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the brake of being banned here, so let's just make it happen. This is a site that is not Wikipedia worthy (or it is, but that would be really sad). It is a propaganda page, for an idea which has very very very few people who subscribe to it, and very very active people who defend it. It's unethical, it's dangerous, it's false. I think the most active person on this site wants to live forever (judging on the 'we can live forever' marketing he does besides this). All the evidence we currently have is against this, and be glad (if I would imagine the doctor would say to me that I would only live another 30 years I would be sad, If he said I would live forever I would completely freak out). This can be seen as a personal attack, but then again it also can't because it's against your ideas, and not to you personally. It just seem you base your identity on this bull so you can still interpret it that way. There are plenty enough good arguments that you are aware off that the reception page is one-sided, and thus misleading. I won't use the word 'lying' now, but what you do is just the hypocritical version of the word. The arguments given by two users here against al criticism usually consists of a pile of fallacies and ironically they delete all the criticism on the basis of those very same fallacy's. It's a little bit said in my opinion, but that I leave to you dear reader. For the time being this is on the talk page. But I'm sure according to Price you will split in to a copy and so 'you' can still enjoy this comment. (koekoe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You habitually use the word "lying"… what "version of the word" is that, confession? As perfectly well know, your amateur polls are right were you left them. Thank you for the ample demonstration, once again you've personally attacked those two users with impunity (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Many-single purpose accounts of quantum mechanics).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really use the word lying a lot I think, but I don't mean the version of the word 'confession' (?!) I will illustrate the version of the word I mean by the use of an example: A boy saw a cake in the fridge, he ate 3/4 of the cake, and threw the rest away. Then his mother sees a fridge without the cake, see says to the Boy: The cake is gone... Did you eat the whole cake? The boy says: No I swear I didn't. We all know the boy is telling the truth in a literary sense. But we also know the boy actually consciously leaves out crucial information, making it seem he didn't have anything to do with the dissapearing of the cake. Thus clearly suggestion a false reality. I will leave the rest of the anology up to you. That's why I thought the song of the arctic monkeys was pretty apropriate. But delete it if you want (sorry if this sounds 'blasé').--Willempramschot (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way I don't know what impunity means (I'm dutch. I tried to look it up but I still don't know what it means in this context). And I surely didn't know that the ones I 'attacked' had impunitý.--Willempramschot (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Willempramschot, glad to see you're signing your posts - that does make the conversation much easier. (Impunity is a funny word - in this context it means attacking without fear or regard of the consequences.) As for MWI being "dishonest", I think you're reading too much into it. It is just a scientific theory for which there is evidence (good evidence in my opinion and some others, bad evidence in the views of others), and if the evidence points that way we just have to accept that that's the way the universe operates. If people don't like the consequences, well that is another matter. (People didn't like Darwinism, but that had no bearing on its scientific credibility and eventual acceptance.)-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Michael Price, No you're suggesting again that people don't like it because of the consequenses. That's an assumption you make, but I regard the scientists I contacted higher then that. You can always site a well established theory, and then say first it wasn't well established, but look at it now. The fact is people got arguments against it, based on inconsistie and lack of observational evidence. You cannot really compare that to the objections people had against Darwinism. And the fact is (I think I did enough research to conclude this). Currently the mwi isn't well established in any sense (to put it stronger, most 'relevant' scientists are against it). And this is what the reception page should reflect. If in the first moments of Darwinism, people had made a book with the reception wich reflected a good reception of the theory (while it wasn't so), it also would be false. Then again Darwinism has much more evidence for it, then MWI has. In fact, right now real evidence (in my humble opinion) is actually pretty much absent, and I suspect even more scientists disliking MWI then in the early days of Darwinism. This while since Darwinism sciense has progressed a lot in it's methods.--Willempramschot (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

MWI is the most popular interpration of QM among the quantum phycisists (I do have a source later)Kartasto (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok i'm waiting for it. It would be really hard to convince me of that I must say, since I conducted a poll which says that isn't the case. Unless you have a very narrow description of 'quantum phycisist' (that only applies to quantum computing, but then again I don't know of a poll that gives a majority of those people supporting MWI in a majority either. There is a poll of tegmark including people that finished a workshop that doesn't give a majority for mwi (but for the copenhagen interpretation). If you count 'shut up and calculate' it was third. I personally think this is an interpretation itself that just says 'we don't know yet' but you can have your own opinion on that. Also this poll has people voting more then once. And has 8 people voting for mwi. Even Tegmark (who strangely uses it besides this remark) says it's highly unscientific. To use this poll as an evidence for a good reception of mwi, let alone a majority would be a a little bit strange to say the least. Then there is a informal poll that tegmark cites with people at a quantum computation meeting. That doesn't have a majority for mwi. And strangely doesn't even have a single option for mwi. Consistent histories/many-worlds, or Copenhagen interpretation/many-worlds are the options given with many-worlds in it. Since they are both making very different clames then MWI, I think the poll in itself is useless. And even if you take the poll seriously you cannot conclude that mwi has the majority view. As if that isn't enough, it is held at a conference of a very controversial topic in quantum interpretation itself. Then there is the David Raub poll that's published in 1995, that's so at odds with every poll that's being held about MWI that it is really hard to take seriously. In fact it is so clearly at odds with my poll (which I know is honest, and is entirely open about everything, so can easily be refuted if it wasn't honest), that I have every reason to believe it's false. And so I do.

I suggest that we will wait with making a reception page that suggests a positive reception till the time is there and it is actually in accordance with the facts. If the time will ever be there. This still isn't the case (unless your source for some mysterious reason can object to all the evidence I have gathered). To make the anology with evolution theory (I will go along with this because of Michael Price's post), this had a considerable better (to put it mildly) reception after 55 years, then MWI.--145.18.244.40 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--145.18.244.40 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Willempramschot (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It was Esko Valtaoja who told in his book that there was an inquiry in Scotland among the quantum phycisists regarding the interpratation. "I dont know" was the top answer. MWI was second Kartasto (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Which of his books was that? I can see that we'll need a precise ref here to satisfy the malcontents. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'm not really convinced sorry(and you might see yourself why) I want to quote something about the evolution theory (to make you see that the anologyh with mwi, if it makes sense at all, is only in disfafor of mwi). The well-known theory that was extremely against common knowledge, cleary rejecting creation: source: http://darwin200istanbul.org/resources/topost/Brooke.pdf

Within fifteen years of Darwin’s publication, the success of his theory was greater than his critics thought possible. This is an important marker because it means that after about fifteen years the theory was so well respected among fellow scientists that it could not be ignored by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Retread

Look, I think we can all agree that MWI is not unanimously accepted by physicists, right? So, ignoring how aesthetically appalling the section is, it makes no sense that the Criticism section be written as if the debate is between "people who just don't get it", and the "enlightened defenders of MWI".

The section should be rewritten by someone who has a good understanding of both views to represent each topic separately, with the arguments and current consensus on each point, and specifically naming various physicists or interpretations behind the arguments instead of relying on unfalsifiable weasel words.

Also, especially for the section on falsifiability, someone should actually put up information on what the proposed methods of testing MWI are, rather than just statements that "it totally is, bromigo."192.249.47.177 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

MWI *is* a mainstream interpretation

I agree with Michael C Price ([2]) that MWI has currency with serious physicists, making his revert somewhat puzzling. It is by no means the dominant view, though, making contrast with Copenhagen appropriate. There were several changes in my edit earlier, and I would like to see the simple obvious ones restored; please detail your objections below.

1. first line - changed a link to avoid a redirect. Might as well take a load off the servers when updating anyway.
2. hyphenate many-worlds at end of first paragraph for the sake of consistency.
3. remove bold from relative state at the beginning of the second paragraph. The term was already introduced at the end of the first paragraph.
4. "apostrophe 70s" is ugly. As a matter of style, "1970s" is preferable.
5. "Prior to" indicates that MWI is the only view with serious proponents, which is incorrect. My phrasing neatly and concisely introduces Copenhagen, compensating somewhat for the lack of discrimination in the table to the right of the table of contents. The old phrasing with two mostly redundant sentences really is atrocious.
6. "reality" is out of place here as non-standard phrasing. Prefer "history", "time", or "the universe".
7. "so called multiverse" - so called is unnecessary in this context.
8. First sentence of the fourth paragraph (In many-worlds, the subjective ...) is fifty one (51) words long and long sentences tend to inhibit reading comprehension in the general public for whom we theoretically are writing this encyclopedia article and whom we strive to serve.
9. Why is event linked to spacetime?
10. "There is a number of spherical cows" is grammatically incorrect unless number is the collective noun for a group of universes.
11. "and everything that could possibly have happened ..." is more atrocious phrasing. Each universe in MWI is only slightly different from the "neighboring" universes, but I agree that my wording could be improved upon to emphasize that these changes accumulate. The second sentence of the first paragraph seems to cover the point adequately, though.
12. "The decoherence approach ... as a class overall" is again grammatically incorrect. We could use "decoherence approaches, taken as a class" or "MWI is a decoherence approach" or something like that. Thinking about it, it would be nice to give a sentence about decoherence.
13. Multiverse was capitalized in the middle of a sentence. It was already linked in the third paragraph
14. final sentence - Copenhagen interpretation was already linked, and the two links to Interpretations of quantum mechanics were likewise redundant.

Please indicate points of disagreement, as some of these are quite obvious and could have been allowed to stand or incrementally improved instead of resorting to wholesale reversion. Thank you, FiveColourMap (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, some of the changes you made are still implemented (e.g. 1. and 4.)- it was not a total revert (please note this WMC, who called my edit summary dishonest). 9. was probably a mistake - I thought you had linked event. I do not see why 11. is "atrocious phrasing".

My main concerns are with

1. the "Prior to..." removal - "prior too" indicates that MWI was the first credible theory to introduce the notion of parallel universe/worlds/timeslines. Just comparing it with the CI here does not seem enough, since that implies that there are other interpretations of QM or other theories of physics that also proposed branching realities, and I am not aware of any. Classical physics is a non-branching theory, as are all the other interpretations of QM (with possible exception of many-minds).
2. the removal of the mainstream / decoherence class statement. I suspect we are getting our wires crossed over this. But my intent in restoring this is because MWI is widely viewed as bizarre, hence it needs to be stressed that, despite its bizarreness, it is an interpretation that is taken seriously by many leading physicists.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your first edit was a total revert, though I see now that there was some activity while I was writing this explanation.

1. I do not see this implication. How would you feel about: Many-worlds views time not as a as a single unfolding history but as a many-branched tree wherein every possible quantum outcome is realized. to replace the first two sentences of the third paragraph? Copenhagen is kind of the "gold standard" here, so I think it should be mentioned. Just linking to Interpretations may be enough, though.
2. Probably. I see it as basically redundant after my other changes; to quote Strunk'n'White: omit needless words. The old version also twice links to interpretations of quantum mechanics; we already appropriately link to that article in the first sentence, so the links are redundant (not to mention not very well labeled). "Mainstream" is not really a good word here, as quantum mechanics is itself a somewhat arcane topic. Besides, it is all intuitively a bit bizarre for us poor humans whose intuition is mainly informed by an apparently classical world. What if we merge the whole fifth paragraph into the second, leaving the introduction to end with the lay explanation? FiveColourMap (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Changing "reality" for "time" looks good to me - but can't "possible quantum outcome" be reduced to "possibility"? And I still think there should be some indication that MWI was the first physical theory ever (classical or quantum) to incorporate the branching idea. (We shouldn't assume that the reader knows that classical physics was always non-branching.)
2. Merging the 2nd and 5th paragraphs looks like a good move.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say "inter" instead of "intra"?

In the Weak coupling section, shouldn't it say inter instead of intra? Intra-world means within a world, while inter-world means between different worlds, no? --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Branching vs Diverging

In recent years there has arisen a debate as to whether the 'worlds' branch or diverge. Ever since Everett introduced the term "branching" and DeWitt followed up with "splitting", almost all the litterature on Everettian QM has used the same terminology. However in the formalism of QM, there is noting that indicates that worlds branch, a more coherent view is that all worlds exist and are qualitatively identical up to a certain point and there they diverge.

As the notion of uncertainty has been under attack in the branching view, quite a few proponents of EQM have abandoned it, for instance Steven Weinberg and some others have adopted new views, for instance David Deutsch has proposed "fungible" worlds. Alastair Wilson and Simon Saunders has advocated for the divergent view in the last 4 years in a series of papers. 2 of Wilson's papers here: http://alastairwilson.org/files/opieqmweb.pdf and http://alastairwilson.org/files/moieqmweb.pdf Simon Saunders has a chapter dedicated to this in the 2010 oxford volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumental (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

- I take the branching vs divergence issue to be an important one, and would welcome an addition to the MWI entry mentioning it. Is the appropriate metaphor for MWI 'parallel worlds' or 'splitting worlds'? It has to be one or the other! Modalizer (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hawking tacitly accepts MWI as the straight forward interpretation of QM. When asked if the universe is deterministic, he replied, "There are many parallel worlds. In one of those world's Hitler may have won WWII. But since we don't know our future, for all practical purposes we live our lives as if universe were not deterministic." Without interpretation, theories in physics are meaningless symbols. Wheeler and Penrose claimed they rejected the MWI because it carries too much metaphysical baggage. Since when did carrying too much metaphysical baggage become a valid objection to a scientific theory. That is the very same objection raised by the Roman Catholic Church to discredit Galileo's claim that the sun is the center of our solar system. Does the MWI of QM really carry more metaphysical baggage than SR, GR, and the Coppenhagen version of QM? How do you measure just how much metaphysical baggage a physics theory carries before you deem it not valid because it carries too much metaphysical baggage? The article fails to mention that the MWI justifies the anthropic principle, and eliminates the need for the silly concept of complimentarity. Another advantage is it gives a realist view of the universe between measurements. Finally, the Capornican principle favors the MWI. The worlds we can't observe directly are the same as the inside of black hole, or seconds after the Big Bang. Since we will never be able to see the inside of a black hole, or go back in time to Big Bang, we can say whatever physics says about the inside of black holes or the Big Bang is not falsifiable. The distant past, the other side of an event horizon is off limits just like other worlds in Hugh Everett's MWI. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.210.8 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

MWI doesn't have anything to do with the anthropic principle

In the double-slit experiment when the electrons exist in superposition the electrons all follow the same laws and constants. The double-slit experiment doesn't tell us that the electrons would follow different laws of physics under different constants. Instead if you only assume MWI (and don't assume other multiverses) all possible time-lines under the same constants and laws of physics would occur.

Only other multiverse theories would allow constants to change (like the chaotic inflation).

It's just a common misunderstanding in non-science circles. --96.255.71.254 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)