We don’t often see science writers breaking with the crowd and engaging in common sense reflection. The multiverse is too Hot, too Cool, too Whatever for that. But now:

But how, some ask, can we accept as truly scientific a proposition that can never be demonstrated to be true? Many Worlders reply that the truth of their interpretation is there for all to see in the Schrödinger equation itself; the onus is instead on other interpretations of the theory, which are forced to add something to the equation to explain how it “breaks” to give a unique outcome.

In other words, while some object that the Many Worlds Interpretation is poor science because it is too profligate with universes, Many Worlders say that it is in fact the most parsimonious interpretation in terms of assumptions. The truth is that neither of these positions is a strong argument.

A more serious objection to Many Worlds Interpretation is that it doesn’t explain how probabilities enter into quantum mechanics via Born’s rule for extracting an expected outcome from a wavefunction. How can we say that there is a 50% probability of outcome A (which we can verify experimentally) if the truth is that all outcomes always happen (in some world or other) with 100% probability? Some Many Worlders say that these probabilities should be understood instead as the “weighting” of the branches in a quantum split – what Nolan calls the “intensity”. But that doesn’t in itself mean much. If outcomes A and B have probabilities of 75 and 25%, say, this doesn’t make the universe in which B happens any less real, absolute or robust than that for A.

Philip Ball, “The many worlds fantasy” atIAI.TV

Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon offers, “Very briefly, Philip Ball, a truly outstanding science journalist, argues that Everett’s Many World’s Interpretation (MWI) of QM is trying to solve a QM paradox that has been better solved by the decoherence interpretation (DI). I tend to agree. But the test of a theory is its predictions and MWI makes no predictions, whereas DI has made several successful predictions and has experimentalists working on several new angles. So in addition to prediction, one might say that MWI can’t be falsified, whereas DI can be falsified—which makes MWI an inferior theory to boot.”

Likely so. But the multiverse isn’t really about evidence or falsifiability. The theory is held in defiance of the demand for evidence and believed in such a way as to make falsifiability sound unCool. As Ball perceptively notes, “Even though most physicists dismiss or even deride it, it is often eagerly embraced by physics popularizers and their audiences.” Perhaps it is best described as a lifestyle choice.

Well, while I agree with with Philip Ball and Rob Sheldon that MWI is absurd, I disagree with them that decoherence interpretation (DI) is the better solution.

As the following video clearly explains around the 4:00 minute mark, DI does not, indeed can not, explain quantum wave collapse,

And as Steven Weinberg explained to Sabine Hossenfelder, “strictly speaking, within quantum mechanics itself there is no decoherence.”

And as Steven Weinberg further explained in the following article, “(Decoherence) begs the question. If the deterministic Schrödinger equation governs the changes through time not only of the spin but also of the measuring apparatus and the physicist using it, then the results of measurement should not in principle be unpredictable. So we still have to ask, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,,’

Weinberg, after dismissing decoherence as a plausible explanation for wave collapse, stated that, “Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways. For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.”

Weinberg rightly rejects the ‘realist approach’ to quantum mechanics because of sheer absurdity of the ‘many worlds interpretation’ (MWI), but, on the other hand, it is interesting to note the main reason why he rejects the ‘instrumentalist approach’ to quantum mechanics:

Yet, although Weinberg rejected the Instrumentalist approach since humans are brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level, and as I explained yesterday, Quantum Mechanics itself could care less how Weinberg and other atheists prefer too world to behave.

And as I further pointed out yesterday, this has some fairly profound, even stunning, implications for us personally in that the closing of the free will loophole allows the (very) plausible reconciliation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘theory of everything’ by God, via the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

What I did not touch on yesterday is the collapse of the quantum wave itself. (which is the central mystery that needs to be explained) (Of note: MWI simply denies that quantum wave collapse even occurs, and that denial is what leads to its inherent absurdity of postulating infinite parallel universes).

The quantum wave, prior to its collapse to a ‘particle’ state, is mathematically defined as existing in an infinite dimensional state that takes and infinite amount of information to describe properly.

Thus, in order to give an adequate causal explanation to explain the collapse of a infinite dimensional-infinite information state to a finite particle state, we are forced to appeal to sufficient cause that has the capacity within itself to collapse a infinite dimensional-infinite information state to a finite particle state.

In other words, in order to give an adequate causal account of quantum wave collapse we are forced to appeal to the Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, Mind of God.

But after a photon wave is split for routes A and B, then you can just make the routes A and B converge again at point X, and then the position will be definite again at point X, without measurement of anything. Showing that measurement is not required to make a photon have a particulate position.

I support the object + vacuum theory, instead of the object + measurement theory.

Anyway, can’t you make it work technically, that you can have an alarm go off when someone is intently looking at your high security building? As like the hairs raised on the back of the neck, when someone is looking at you from behind?

A device that if someone is looking at the building, then the device will not show an interference pattern, because of the”photons” being observed.

Equations don’t give rise to realities, let alone an infinity of realities. We already have equations that predict things that we subsequently cannot find to be real.