Multiverse

The Spiderman movie tackles the evidence (or not) for a multiverse

Spread the love

If there isn’t a multiverse, our universe is unique:

Casey Luskin writes,

Recently a friend convinced me to go see the new Spider-Man movie, where I was surprised to see that the multiverse not only makes an appearance but plays a crucial role in the plot. Without giving away any spoilers, Benedict Cumberbatch’s character, Doctor Strange, declares, “The multiverse is a concept about which we know frighteningly little.” He’s right. And that’s part of the problem for materialists who cite the multiverse to explain.

Casey Luskin, “Spider-Man, the Multiverse, and Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 4, 2022)

Luskin list the conditions, then says

Apparently under the Newspeak of materialism, proposing an infinite ensemble of universes that we can’t observe is the “simplest” explanation. Some authorities feel otherwise — noting that the multiverse is not a “simple” explanation at all.

Ockham’s razor is a logical principle, often used by scientists, that holds that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. What is the simplest explanation: (1) that the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of a near-infinite number of unobservable universes spawned by an unknown mechanism of unexplained origin, or (2) that the special, life-friendly conditions of our cosmos are the result of intelligent design? Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (no friend of intelligent design) explains that the multiverse is too complex an assumption to survive Ockham’s razor.

Casey Luskin, “Spider-Man, the Multiverse, and Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 4, 2022)


The, multiverse wouldn’t even be considered if there was no need to wonder about our own universe’s unique fitness for life.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

26 Replies to “The Spiderman movie tackles the evidence (or not) for a multiverse

  1. 1
    EDTA says:

    Nitpick on Casey Luskin:
    >”Ockham’s razor is a logical principle, often used by scientists, that holds that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.”

    I wish people would be more particular about how they state it (especially here). (And TV/movies always get it wrong.) It only states that, all other things being equal, a hypothesis relying on fewer assumptions is to be preferred. Strictly speaking, it does not state that a simpler explanation is more probably correct. And by “all other things being equal”, is meant that that (at the very least) each competing hypothesis has to explain all of the data equally well. Nature alone is simpler than nature+God–except for the fact that nature by itself does not explain the origin of life, etc., as we point out here regularly.

  2. 2
    William J Murray says:

    The problem with this debate is that both sides are arguing from a disproved concept of what “a universe” is, and thus what any “multiverse” would theoretically entail. No worthwhile argument can proceed from a disproved premise, regardless of which side you’re on.

    In a very significant way, we’ve already scientifically proved that the multiverse exists and it is a common, essential, inescapable aspect of our lives every second of every day. This has been a fact ever since physicists disproved what they call “local reality.”

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    To state the obvious, the fact that the universe is now proven to be ‘non-local’, and that it is dependent on a non-local ‘beyond space and time’ cause for its continued existence, and is therefore not a self-sustaining system as atheistic naturalists had presupposed, is not to scientifically prove that a multiverse exists.

    It is to scientifically prove, as Christianity has held all along, that the universe is not a self-sustaining, and/or self existent, system.

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  4. 4
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    is not to scientifically prove that a multiverse exists.

    If this was a response to me, it’s a straw man.

    The common concept of “a universe” is one that is made up of objective, independently (of observer) real states physicists refer to as local realism, including a past that has been set in realism stone, so to speak. What we have found out is that what we refer to as “the universe” is actually a collection of potential states that do not (1) collapse for all individuals because of one individual’s observation; and (2) retain their potential whether in the past or future.

    This means that by the old concept of “a universe,” each of us not only live in at least slightly different actual universe from each other; we are continually moving through different actual universes, because “a particular universe” only occurs in the experience of an individual observer. Outside of that, there is only the potential for a variety of “actual,” “real-state” universes.

    In a recent experiment, observer A experienced a universe where quantum collapse had occurred, while observer B experienced a universe where that collapse had not occurred. The old concept of “a universe” requires that observer A and B experience the same facts about their shared, single universe. A and not-A, or collapsed and not-collapsed, cannot both exist as simultaneously true facts in the same universe, by any common or normal idea about what a “universe” is.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    I am well aware of the experimental realization of the Wigner’s friend thought experiment. IMHO, that result is a necessary consequence of the fact that we each have our own unique free will. Moreover, although the ‘collapse of the wave function’ is unique to each individual, that still does not negate the fact that the ‘macroscopic’ description of the universe remains the same for all observers.

    In your claim that non-locality scientifically proves the existence of a multiverse, (in the sense as the term ‘multiverse’ is commonly used to mean an infinitude of universes that are totally disconnected from this universe), you are, obviously, extrapolating far beyond what the evidence will allow.

  6. 6
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    Moreover, although the ‘collapse of the wave function’ is unique to each individual, that still does not negate the fact that the ‘macroscopic’ description of the universe remains the same for all observers.

    That’s an unprovable assertion because (1) we do not know what the term “all observers” represents, and (2) quantum effects have been observed in macro systems, and there is no known or even theoretical border between micro and macro wrt quantum collapse effects.

    In your claim that non-locality scientifically proves the existence of a multiverse, (in the sense as the term ‘multiverse’ is commonly used to mean an infinitude of universes that are totally disconnected from this universe), you are, obviously, extrapolating far beyond what the evidence will allow.

    What do you mean by “this universe?” I’m not “extrapolating;” I’m pointing out that in the common idea of “a universe,” local realism, universality of actual facts in experience between observers, and a past set in stone are necessary commodities.

    If you adhere to those necessary commodities as defining “a universe,” then we are experiencing a multiverse, because you need a separate universe for every potential factual state – past, present and future – that every particular individual actualizes in their experience.as a fact via observation at any given moment.

    Without those things, you’re not talking about any ordinary concept of “a universe,” even in the “macro” sense since there is no theory of a quantum boundary between micro and macro. All we can be talking about in terms of “a universe” is a large set of experiences that correspond between known observers who are reporting their experiences.

    In that scenario, what is it that would “separate” one large set of “shared” experiences from a different such set? One where history was different, cities were different, etc.? There is no “local reality” that keeps them separate; the only thing that can separate potentials, is consciousness.

    This is why the key to experiencing alternate realities, or alternate universes, lies in manipulating mind/consciousness.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM holds that the fact that the macroscopic descriptions of the universe holds for all observers is an ‘unprovable assertion’, and “there is no known or even theoretical border between micro and macro wrt quantum collapse effects.”

    Perhaps WJM has heard of Einstein’s General Relativity? If the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity do not hold for all observerers, and if they do not represent a ‘border between micro and macro wrt quantum collapse effects’, then nothing ever will. Despite decades of sustained effort by the most brilliant minds in theoretical physics and mathematics, as well as experimental physics, no ‘unification’ between (micro) quantum mechanics and (macro) general relativity has been forthcoming.

    Thus, since you cannot support your first assertion, then the rest of your argument for ‘unique universes’, (and/or ‘multiverses’), for each observer collapses in on itself.

    Moreover WJM, why are you trying to use evidence and logic? You have already admitted that no amount of evidence or logic will ever pry you away from your preferred worldview.

    “So no, no logic or evidence can pry me from this, and I’m perfectly willing to admit it.”
    – WJM
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50-christmases-later/#comment-743504

  8. 8
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    WJM holds that the fact that the macroscopic descriptions of the universe holds for all observers is an ‘unprovable assertion’,

    It is unprovable, because we don’t have any way of knowing the full range of existent observers, much less sampling them.

    Perhaps WJM has heard of Einstein’s General Relativity? If the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity do not hold for all observers, and if they do not represent a ‘border between micro and macro wrt quantum collapse effects’, then nothing ever will.

    They do not represent such a border; at least no physicist I am aware of claims that any such border has been observed or even theorized.

    Despite decades of sustained effort by the most brilliant minds in theoretical physics and mathematics, as well as experimental physics, no ‘unification’ between (micro) quantum mechanics and (macro) general relativity has been forthcoming.

    They have a unification theory – a real TOE – at Quantum Gravity Research. I suggest that the reason such attempts have failed in the past is because their paradigm about what the “macro” world is, and what general relativity represents, is incorrect. IOW, they certainly haven’t been trying to solve that problem under the premise of MRT.

  9. 9
    William J Murray says:

    Moreover WJM, why are you trying to use evidence and logic? You have already admitted that no amount of evidence or logic will ever pry you away from your preferred worldview.

    I don’t understand the connection between the question and the statement. I use logic and evidence to make an argument. I believe what I believe because I enjoy those beliefs. Those are two separate things.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    “It is unprovable, because we don’t have any way of knowing the full range of existent observers, much less sampling them.”

    So you believe that General Relativity does not hold for all observers because you haven’t sampled all observers?, By the same standard you should reject the results for the Wigner’s friend thought experiment since all observers have not been sampled.

    “They do not represent such a border; at least no physicist I am aware of claims that any such border has been observed or even theorized.”

    Are you really trying to claim that no physicist has heard of the ‘theoretical divide’ between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

    “They have a unification theory – a real TOE – at Quantum Gravity Research.”

    You do realize that all quantum gravity models, etc.., have failed empirical verification do you not?

    Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/

    “I suggest that the reason such attempts have failed in the past is because their paradigm about what the “macro” world is, and what general relativity represents, is incorrect. IOW, they certainly haven’t been trying to solve that problem under the premise of MRT.”

    We’ll, Okie Dokie then. Perhaps you can propose some empirical test to clear this entire issue between QM and Gravity up?, and validate your theory in the process? Perhaps win a Nobel?

    As it is, I happen to have my own ‘theory’ for unification that I am kind of fond of.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-the-conversation-how-could-the-big-bang-arise-from-nothing/#comment-744378

    as to: “So no, no logic or evidence can pry me from this, and I’m perfectly willing to admit it.”
    – WJM,, you state, “I use logic and evidence to make an argument. I believe what I believe because I enjoy those beliefs. Those are two separate things.”

    So you use evidence and logic and expect us to take your arguments seriously, but you refuse to ever let evidence and logic pry you from your own ’emotionally based’ worldview? and you see no problem with this? And exactly why should your emotions take precedence over what logic and evidence says is true? And why in blue blazes should anyone believe that you are arguing in good faith, and not for mere rhetoric?

  11. 11
    William J Murray says:

    So you believe that General Relativity does not hold for all observers because you haven’t sampled all observers?, By the same standard you should reject the results for the Wigner’s friend thought experiment since all observers have not been sampled.

    This line of our discussion began when you said:

    Moreover, although the ‘collapse of the wave function’ is unique to each individual, that still does not negate the fact that the ‘macroscopic’ description of the universe remains the same for all observers.

    So, there is the rule of quantum probability and collapse, and then there is the specific state/location of the thing in question (usually a photon or electron) that occurs in the experience of an observer. Similarly, there is the rule of general relativity, but if the perceived macro world is also the result of consciousness collapsing potential into experiential actualities, general relativity can still be the rule that governs experience of macro space-time relationships, but individual observers may experience different specifics in terms of qualitative characteristics within that framework – which is exactly what occurred in the “friend” experiments.

    IOW, what theoreticians have not been doing until very recently is organizing General Relativity as a set of rules governing how collapsed potential is translated into a comprehensible sentient experience which – as I said before – requires comprehensible order and consistency, among other things. There are an infinite number of descriptively different potential universes available under the same rules of general relativity.

  12. 12
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    Are you really trying to claim that no physicist has heard of the ‘theoretical divide’ between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

    No, I said that as far as I know, there is no such theory.

    You do realize that all quantum gravity models, etc.., have failed empirical verification do you not?

    Has theirs?

    So you use evidence and logic and expect us to take your arguments seriously,

    As I’ve said before, I have no such expectation.

    but you refuse to ever let evidence and logic pry you from your own ’emotionally based’ worldview?

    I don’t let evidence or logic pry me from my enjoyable beliefs, but I will use them to find and implement more enjoyable beliefs.

    and you see no problem with this?

    Nope. Arguments and evidence stand on their own merits; my personal beliefs and how I come to them are irrelevant to that.

    And exactly why should your emotions take precedence over what logic and evidence says is true?

    I don’t see that there is a “should” involved. I’ve just decided to live as enjoyable a life as I can; an intrinsic part of that is developing and holding enjoyable personal beliefs.

    And why in blue blazes should anyone believe that you are arguing in good faith, and not for mere rhetoric?

    Whether or not I am arguing “In good faith” is irrelevant to the merits of any argument I present. Any evidence I cite is either common or that which I provide or have provided links to. I’m not sure how “rhetoric” would even come into play in an argument that can be assessed on merit with linked or common evidence if evidence is a part of the argument.

    If, by “good faith,” you mean that I will concede to the better argument and evidence, you know this is true. I’ve conceded to an argument you made and evidence you presented. The fact that my personal beliefs are immune to logic and evidence, IMO, means that I am more capable than most others of conceding to any superior argument because my personal beliefs don’t depend on my winning any argument. I don’t need my arguments to win; that’s why I don’t come here to win arguments or to try to convince others. I argue because I enjoy it, and because occasionally I find a perspective or idea that I can use to enhance my enjoyment of my life.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, what you are lacking is a theoretical/mathematical and/or empirical bridge between QM and Gravity to validate what you are imagining to be true.

    Frankly, I don’t hold out any hope whatsoever that the ‘bridge’ you are looking for, (and that a lot of other people are looking for), will ever be forthcoming.

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ,,, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE
    synopsis:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-the-conversation-how-could-the-big-bang-arise-from-nothing/#comment-744378

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    “Whether or not I am arguing “In good faith” is irrelevant to the merits of any argument I present. ”

    It has everything to do with the arguments you present and the bias with which you present them. Just look at Seversky’s arguments! 🙂

  15. 15
    William J Murray says:

    It has everything to do with the arguments you present and the bias with which you present them. Just look at Seversky’s arguments!

    What about them? They either succeed on merits or they do not. What difference does any other consideration make? Am I or Seversky asking you to take some aspect of our argument on faith or on the basis of our credibility? Nope. The logic is either sound or it is not; the evidence (if any is presented) is either valid/acceptable or it is not.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever WJM, I find it to very disingenuous on your part for you to argue that your logical/evidential arguments have merit, yet that no amount of logic/evidence will ever pry you from your ’emotional’ worldview.

    The last word is all yours. I am done.

  17. 17
    ram says:

    BA77: Perhaps WJM has heard of Einstein’s General Relativity? If the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity do not hold for all observers, and if they do not represent a ‘border between micro and macro wrt quantum collapse effects’, then nothing ever will. Despite decades of sustained effort by the most brilliant minds in theoretical physics and mathematics, as well as experimental physics, no ‘unification’ between (micro) quantum mechanics and (macro) general relativity has been forthcoming.

    While physicists have been unable to unify GR and QM, most physicists do think that GR is the theory that will have to be ultimately abandoned or radically modified to be a quantum gravity theory. Sabine Hossenfelder explains why in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY

    I’ll take it further, since Sabine denies freewill and the primary nature of consciousness (she is a superdeterminist), and I don’t (and you don’t either, I believe.) GR is incompatible with consciousness/freewill as transcendent. If one is not willing to accept that their own consciousness is an merely effect of spacetime, then one cannot accept GR as a true description of our universe because Einstein’s universe is a fixed four dimensional spacetime that freewill cannot change. OTOH, while QM equations do not prove the transcendent nature consciousness and freewill, they certainly are compatible with it. Moreover, the predictions of QM equations are at least an order of magnitude more precise in their predictive power.

    Sidebar: decades ago I wrote an email to Stephen Hawking that if spacetime is fixed, how is it that individual consciousness is only at one point in spacetime, i.e, why is it “flowing” through the spacetime the way it does. One of his assistants answered that he didn’t have any idea why. [shrug].

    As for recent developments in quantum gravity, here is an interesting read despite the ridiculous title.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/

    –Ram

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Ram, people have trying to find a work around for General Relativity for decades, all to no avail. In fact, the dichotomy between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics has grown larger during those intervening decades, not lessened. i.e. There is no sign of General Relativity breaking down.

    “When this paper was published, (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose paper which indicated that the universe must have had a beginning), we could only prove General Relativity’s reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal.”
    – Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics – quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following video debate
    – Hugh Ross vs Lewis Wolpert – Is there evidence for a Cosmic Creator – 2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMrDO0_WvQ

    Moreover, due to the nature of the two very different ‘qualities of eternity’ being dealt with between Special Relativity, (which is renormalizable with Quantum Mechanics), and General Relativity, (which is not renormalizable with Quantum Mechanics), I hold that only God can, and did, bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, via the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – synopsis
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-the-conversation-how-could-the-big-bang-arise-from-nothing/#comment-744378

    Verse:

    Luke 16:26
    ‘And along with all these things, there stands a great abyss between us and you, so that those who would pass from here to you are not able, neither is whoever is there able to pass over to us.’

  19. 19
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    Whatever WJM, I find it to very disingenuous on your part for you to argue that your logical/evidential arguments have merit, yet that no amount of logic/evidence will ever pry you from your ’emotional’ worldview.

    Well, it would be deceptive of me if I lied about it or misrepresented that situation, but I have been very open about it.

  20. 20
    ram says:

    BA77,

    GR has already “broken down.” It doesn’t explain what’s going on with the empirically reproducible double slit experiment.

    You seem to be ignoring the empirically demonstrated points that Sabine makes and the one I made. Did you watch her video?

    I hold that only God can, and did, bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, via the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

    An irrelevant religious statement of faith with regards to the situation physicists face. Whatever the nature of our universe is, any such conjecture about the resurrection of Jesus is irrelevant to how the universe works all day long, every day unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Maybe fairies are making it work. Who’s to say?

    The microscopic and macroscopic are humming along just fine. Physicists don’t know how it works completely, and are working toward understanding how to resolve the gravity problem. Given the empirical evidence, gravity is more the problem, not QM for reasons previously stated.

    The double slit experiment can be reproduced all day long. Have you submitted any papers to physicist journals about how your conjecture about Christ’s resurrection solves the gravity problem? Is it empirically testable? Let’s me know what they say.

    As for personal empirical experience, how does your consciousness “flow” through Einstein’s static spacetime? If you assume you have free-will that transcends the universe, then Einstein’s model cannot be true yet QM can be. If you can’t see that, there’s nothing I can do to help you.

    –Ram

  21. 21
    zweston says:

    WJM, if you were able to just reason without bias or commitment (maybe an impossible ask?), how would you rate the probability for Christianity being true?

  22. 22
    William J Murray says:

    Zweston asks:

    WJM, if you were able to just reason without bias or commitment (maybe an impossible ask?), how would you rate the probability for Christianity being true?

    I assume you mean the particular version of Christianity being argued by a few people here. That’s a difficult ask, in any direct sense, so let me put it this way: I think there’s a 99% chance that everyone here, including myself, is wrong about some fairly significant aspects of their beliefs.

    There are some things about Christianity I think there’s a 90-99% chance of them being right about; such as, the existence of Jesus, Jesus performing some version of the miracles that are attributed to him, and I think BA77 has made a 99% reliable case for the amazing qualities of the Shroud of Turin. I think that, more generally speaking, there’s a 99% chance that there are both enjoyable and unenjoyable destinations in what we call the afterlife. Personally, I think there’s about a 99% chance that Christians are going to experience the kind of afterlife they believe in, but that is admittedly, largely through the bias of my own personal beliefs.

  23. 23
    William J Murray says:

    Zweston,

    Upon reflection, I will add this: I think there’s a 99% chance that one aspect of what some Christians believe is wrong: hell as a place of eternal, hopeless torment. I don’t see how that makes sense logically; it’s not supported by the evidence; and furthermore, by KF’s “standard” of sound conscience and things all sane people know are wrong, that’s as wrong as torturing children.

  24. 24
    ram says:

    Poll: what do you hope to gain by your participation on this site?

    Thanks

    –Ram

  25. 25
    Joe Schooner says:

    that the special, life-friendly conditions of our cosmos are the result of intelligent design?

    Further nit-picking, but how can anyone claim that the cosmos is life friendly. The only thing known for sure is that there is life on earth. Given that there are billions of stars in each of the billions of galaxies, and we have not detected life outside of earth, the only conclusion that is warranted is that conditions on earth are friendly to life.

  26. 26
    nicoley says:

    Winger’s friend hasn’t really been done. It has been done with photons as observers, but the question was at what point the collapse happens. Is it at the machine/screen or the human when he see’s the results? If you look at delayed choice experiments, either the results know what you are going to do after they’ve already hit the screen (free will conundrum), or the collapse only happens at our observation.
    Multi-verse theories were created by a physicist in a desperate attempt to hold onto materialistic atheism. Believe it if it helps you sleep at night, but it’s not true, and wouldn’t solve the measurement problem anyways.

Leave a Reply