Thought Provoker: It should now be obvious it is you who is engaging in the rationalization and justification you accused me of.

I have suggested that you were confused, certainly about my position.

Thought Provoker: You brought up MWI's integratation with Special Relativity as a distinguishing feature. Now you are acting like it was nothing more than a basic requirement of all serious interpretations.

Each interpretation has its own problems and its own advantages.

Thought Provoker: Followed closely with a denial of any preferred interpretation.

Here are a few days worth of comments on my preference.

Zachriel: Many Worlds is one of several interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. They each have advantages and each lead to various avenues of inquiry, but there is today no way to empirically distinguish between them.

Zachriel: There is an apparent conundrum. One of the three doesn't fit. Or there are multi-worlds. Or something else. No one knows"”yet.

Zachriel: But you want to claim that your choice is better somehow. And perhaps you are right, but I haven't seen any data that would justify that position.

Thought Provoker: I am confused by your acceptance of a single, universal wave function and your apparent deference to the MWI.

Zachriel: I don't defer. But it's consistent. It may also entail multiverses, and that may solve other problems in super-symmetry. No one knows"”yet. You might want to review quantum interpretations at Wikipedia.

Zachriel: There is an apparent contradiction in physics with several more-or-less equally valid quantum interpretations. However, the conundrum has led to some striking observations.

Bradford: I'm reminded of the advice given to me by a professor of mathematics who would caution that a model, even if useful, was not necessarily an indicator of the reality of what was modeled.

Zachriel: Quite so! And many physicists reject all such interpretations and say only the observations matter. Others continue to explore the problem looking for some underlying symmetry. As I mentioned, the conundrum has led to some striking observations.

My preference is that you don't overstate your case.

Thought Provoker: However, all is forgiven because you provided a very interesting link describing the Afshar experiment.

I'm glad for that. Note that Afshar may invalidate both Many Worlds and Copenhagen"”because they can't currently be distinguished empirically.

Thought Provoker: Hmmm"¦ a quantum interpretation that presumes wavefunctions fixed in Minkowskian spacetime "traveling" both forward and backward in time.

Yes, but we should be cautious. Many 'decisive' experiments have turned out to have multiple interpretations leaving "Quantum Magic" unfazed.

You wrote…

Any interpretation that can't be integrated with Special Relativity, (e.g. Bohmian Dynamics) is necessarly incomplete.

It should now be obvious it is you who is engaging in the rationalization and justification you accused me of. You brought up MWI's integratation with Special Relativity as a distinguishing feature. Now you are acting like it was nothing more than a basic requirement of all serious interpretations.

Followed closely with a denial of any preferred interpretation.

Your claim that "various interpretations are more-or-less equivalent" is a very weak argument and a cop out. However, all is forgiven because you provided a very interesting link describing the Afshar experiment.

The Afshar experiment is an optical experiment,…
Afshar claims that his experiment invalidates the complementarity principle and has far-reaching implications for the understanding of quantum mechanics, challenging the Copenhagen interpretation. According to John G. Cramer, Afshar's results support Cramer's own transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and challenges the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

You can bet I will be looking into this experiment more but first, I wanted to understand more about this transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics…

The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) is an unusual interpretation of quantum mechanics that describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. … According to TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, the "offer wave", and when this wave reaches the detectors, each one replies with an advanced wave, the "confirmation wave", that travels backwards in time, back to the source. The phases of offer and confirmation waves are correlated in such a way that these waves interfere positively to form a wave of the full amplitude in the space-time region between emitting and detection events, and they interfere negatively and cancel out elsewhere in space-time (i.e., before the emitting point and after the absorption point).

Hmmm… a quantum interpretation that presumes wavefunctions fixed in Minkowskian spacetime "traveling" both forward and backward in time.

Like I said, terms are that important to me, it is the ideas. This idea is that same as the foundation of the Orch OR model I have been trying to explain.

Again, thank you very much for pointing out an experiment that may provide even more support for the Penrose-Hameroff model.

nullasalus: Why is retaining determinism considered an 'advantage'?

Ask Einstein.

God does not play dice with the universe.

Determinism roughly means that things are the way they are because of what they once were, and the way they will be later is because of the way things are now. Scientists tend to like to explain why things are the way they are, and what they will be later. Scientists have a long history of this. Bad habit I suppose.

There are deterministic quantum interpretations, e.g. Bohmian Mechanics (de Broglie-Bohm Theory), but Bohmian Mechanics has not been shown to be consistent with Special Relativity.

Thought Provoker: It isn't the ultimate supremacy of Penrose's model that I am arguing, it is the weakness of MWI's appeal (at least to me).

Your metaphysical predilections may or may not be relevant. Perhaps they will lead to a further understanding of the phenomena, perhaps not.

Thought Provoker: But then you follow it up with what should be MWI's best-foot-forward which turns out to be its consistency with Special Relativity?!?!?!?

Any interpretation that can't be integrated with Special Relativity, (e.g. Bohmian Dynamics) is necessarly incomplete.

Thought Provoker: It looks like this comparison is pitting Special Relativity against General Relativity. This may have been obvious to you, but it wasn't to me. If this is the case, you are right, I was presuming the superiority of General Relativity.

Ptting one against the other? Superiority?! I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thought Provoker: General Relativity may be false like all other scientific theories, but if you believe Special Relativity is "more-or-less equivalent", I suggest we take a plane ride.

I have no idea where you got this distortion of my views.

Thought Provoker: Sorry, but I wasn't confusing the terms "realism" and "realistic".

Sure you were. You responded to a direct statement concerning quantum realism. The context was quite clear. I have no idea why you are persisting with this irrelevant tangent.

Thought Provoker: Let's presume your reference to Special Relativity was just an appeal to the historical relevance of thinking of reality as Many Worlds. In Special Relativity, each observer is in his/her own world.

Special Relativity has nothing to do with Many Worlds. Each observer shares the same observations as every other observer, with translation"”just as in Newtonian Mechanics.

Thought Provoker: BTW, if you are tempted to argue General Relativity is incomplete …

I have no idea where you are getting all this from my statements. Please try not to presuppose my arguments.

Thought Provoker: If you are counting on me to eventually get tired of arguing the God premise, it is a good bet. You are lucky Salvador Cordova isn't around. He has a lot of scientific "evidence" for the Deluge. Face it, you won't be able to handwave away the God premise based on it being metaphysical once you allow MWI the presume science extends past space and time.

That some people can endless espouse non-scientific views has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. You can certainly suppose gods all you want, but for the assertion to have scientific merit, it has to lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. The claim of a global Deluge is certainly something that can be investigated.

Thought Provoker: How is MWI testable?

As of this time, there is no definitive test* that can distinguish between the various intepretations of quantum theory. Nor am I claiming that Many Worlds is a preferred interpretation. In fact, I have stated that I don't think any of the current interpretations are without problems and that new data may be required. However, the exploration of these issues has led to some very intriguing observations.

Proposed tests of Many Worlds usually involve understanding the exact nature of space and time at very small scales, or careful analysis of quantum decoherence.

Proposal for an experimental test of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

Observational Consequences of Many-Worlds Quantum Theory

In other words, it is not a strictly metaphysical concept, but may have empirical implications, including potential falsification.

* Some scientists think that both Copenhagen and Many Worlds have been falsifed by the Afshar Experiment. If the test and interpretation are validated, it lends support to the Transactional interpretation and would represent an important advance in Quantum Theory. But the fact that not everyone yet agrees is an indication of the difficulty of understanding these results.

nullasalus, I gotta ask: have you ever heard sung as a musical round that extremely amusing ditty that goes:

Not once! It's weird, of all the handles I've used, nullasalus seems to get the most attention like that than any other. That's what I get for a fancy latin name.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est

Nulla nulla nulla nulla nulla nulla nulla sal-us est
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est…..

and so on in aeternitatem?

I'm not making that up. If you haven't heard it, trust me—it's a scream.

However, to answer your question, I don't believe either of us is suggesting a God-based Quantum interpretation is a serious contender.

That wasn't what I was getting at. I was simply saying that a 'God-based Quantum Interpretation' isn't a serious contender even among theists. From Stephen M. Barr to William Lane Craig to John Polkinghorne to Frank Tipler, the furthest most theists are willing to go with QM is to argue that materialism (and perhaps determinism) suffers some setbacks in a world with QM - and even there, rejecting any particular interpretation of QM isn't necessary to maintain theism. No one is saying 'Well, in the twin slit experiment, the Holy Spirit is smacking the particles around to make a wave pattern just to keep us on our toes'.

So if you're saying that the appeal to MWI is on par with an appeal to that rascally Holy Spirit, fair enough. But that's not what we theists are saying is happening, or at least I have yet to bump into one who does. And I go out of my way to find various philosophical/(a)theological interpretations of such things.

Either way, back I go to just listening.

You wrote…

Not to interrupt your interesting exchange

No problem. It is nice to know people are listening.

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that 'theists' toss out a quick 'God did it' as a serious contender with regards to QM or consciousness. Theists can comfortably accept Orch-OR, MWI, or otherwise - though MWI tends to be unpopular, mostly (IMO) because it's an atheist favorite for explaining away certain things.

Actually, I would be tempted to try to make a case for a God-driven Quantum Interpretation if the need arises. You can do a lot with an omnicient being that transcendends space and time yet can effect our universe.

Zachriel and I are manuevering for the compare and contrast activities. Zachriel is trying to avoid recognising a God-based quantum interpretation, even if to say is it much weaker than MWI and OR. I am making the point that a God-based quantum interpretation is weak for a lot of the same reasons MWI is weak.

However, to answer your question, I don't believe either of us is suggesting a God-based Quantum interpretation is a serious contender.

That aside - a neophyte question. Why is retaining determinism considered an 'advantage'?

It is not a neophyte question. It has the potentional of being the next key point in this thread.

I am glad you asked the question. I am interested in hearing Zachriel's answer.

But the "science" of Theism is consistent with itself too. Do you consider the god-controls-all an equivalent quantum interpretation of EPR-like effects?

Not to interrupt your interesting exchange, but I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that 'theists' toss out a quick 'God did it' as a serious contender with regards to QM or consciousness. Theists can comfortably accept Orch-OR, MWI, or otherwise - though MWI tends to be unpopular, mostly (IMO) because it's an atheist favorite for explaining away certain things.

That aside - a neophyte question. Why is retaining determinism considered an 'advantage'?

You wrote…

Penrose is a very imaginative scientist, and he is trying to establish an empirical basis for his claims. That's what he is supposed to do. What I object to is your seeming refusal to consider that he may be wrong.

Remember how in another thread I recently wrote "ALL CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE WRONG" Even Penrose, himself, says he is unsure of his Orch OR model. Which makes sense since he isn't a biologist. However, Penrose is much more confident of the basic Objective Reduction model and his E=Ä¥/t calculations.

It isn't the ultimate supremacy of Penrose's model that I am arguing, it is the weakness of MWI's appeal (at least to me). I don't think you understand just how weak I found your statement… "The various interpretations are more-or-less equivalent, but each have advantages." to be. But then you follow it up with what should be MWI's best-foot-forward which turns out to be its consistency with Special Relativity?!?!?!?

It looks like this comparison is pitting Special Relativity against General Relativity. This may have been obvious to you, but it wasn't to me. If this is the case, you are right, I was presuming the superiority of General Relativity.

General Relativity may be false like all other scientific theories, but if you believe Special Relativity is "more-or-less equivalent", I suggest we take a plane ride. You and your clock head West around the world and I, with my clock, will head East (see Hafele and Keating).

From earlier…
When I said "Special relativity isn't realistic" I meant "Special relativity isn't realistic""¦

And then I quoted from Wikipedia which included…
"After Einstein derived special relativity formally from the counterintuitive proposition that the speed of light is the same to all observers, the need was felt for a more satisfactory formulation. Minkowski, building on mathematical approaches to non-euclidean geometry…
leading to the more complete version of relativity (i.e. GENERAL Relativity).

As you were directly responding to my statement concerning quantum realism, you should simply withdraw your statement rather than try to justify it.

I was? I should?

Sorry, but I wasn't confusing the terms "realism" and "realistic".

Allow me to offer you an out. Let's say I confused things by not using the "appropriate" terms. I should have said "unsatisfactory formulation" instead of "realistic".

Furthermore, let's suggest that I misunderstood your appeal to Special Relativity and that you were fully aware it was incomplete and was insufficient to explain the results of the 1971 Hafele and Keating experiment.

Let's presume your reference to Special Relativity was just an appeal to the historical relevance of thinking of reality as Many Worlds. In Special Relativity, each observer is in his/her own world.

This makes for a fine metaphysical concept. It might even be consistent with itself. However, when a simple plane ride shows it to be inconsistent with real-world observations I would say it isn't realistic satisfactorily formulated.

BTW, if you are tempted to argue General Relativity is incomplete (needs Special Relativity). Please don't. That is semantics. General Relativity is about gravity shaping Minkowski space-time. The twins paradox is resolved simply as a geometry problem in a reality where the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line. For politeness, I will try to use "appropriate" terms, but understand that I don't consider arguing terms to equate to arguing ideas.

…the Deluge as normally construed has no scientific basis. You again lost the thread.

If you are counting on me to eventually get tired of arguing the God premise, it is a good bet. You are lucky Salvador Cordova isn't around. He has a lot of scientific "evidence" for the Deluge. Face it, you won't be able to handwave away the God premise based on it being metaphysical once you allow MWI the presume science extends past space and time.

Despite your claim, Many Worlds is in principle a testable hypothesis, retains determinism, integrates easily with Special Relativity, and offers an explanation of quantum gravity. But with all such tests so far of Quantum Paradigms, the results have been ambiguous or outside of current technical capacity.

You are making assertions. I am asking for comparisons.

Penrose's OR is testable by verifying E=Ä¥/t using various masses.
How is MWI testable?

Penrose's Orch OR retains determinism in a fashion of an unknowable Mandelbrot Set. You haven't explained how MWI "retains determinism" to our listening audience

Orch OR "integrates easily with Special Relativity" based on Minkowski geometry. I suggest MWI does more than integrate with Special Relativity, it is based on an inaccurate perception of it.

Penrose's OR presumes quantum gravity for it's E=Ä¥/t calculation You haven't explained how MWI "offers an explanation of quantum gravity."

Here is the compare and contrast summary as I see it"¦

Orch OR plus side
"“Consistent with itself
"“Combines cosmological (General Relativity) and quantum realities
"“Provides useful formulation for decoherence (E=Ä¥/t)
"“Makes quantifiable and testable predictions
"“Successful experiments based on OR/Orch OR predictions
"“Includes "realism" (objective reality between observations).

Orch OR minus side
"“Questionable determinism (lacks materialistic presumptions)
"“Potential loss of Free Will

MWI plus side
"“Consistent with itself
"“Provides determinism (supports materialistic presumptions)
"“Doesn't effect questions of Free Will

MWI minus side
"“Dependent on multiple and "special" universes (not unified)
"“Requires extending beyond space and time (metaphysical?)
"“Provides nothing quantifiable about decoherence
"“No "realism" (no objective reality between observations).
"“Provides few or no testable predictions

Hopefully this comparison shows why I don't feel the various interpretations are more-or-less equivalent. Yes, they are both consistent with themselves. But the "science" of Theism is consistent with itself too. Do you consider the god-controls-all an equivalent quantum interpretation of EPR-like effects?