Is this sound (argument against 'multiverse')

[Feil]

Is this sound:

A branching "multiverse", where every possible outcome is an individual universe represented by its own branch, like a path that forks and forks and forks and forks again, is quite possible. However, assuming continuity of consciousness, the path that our present consciousness has taken was, according to Quantum Theory, selected randomly among the possible paths; the path that our consciousness is going to take is also selected randomly among the possible paths. Since the difference, from the perspective of any observer, however well equipped between the multiverse hypothesis and the universe hypothesis, is nonexistent, it isn't worth thinking about. And, since there's an absence of evidence for it and it's mutually incompatible with an infinite number of other, utterly unsupported hypotheses (for instance, that every quantum event not only creates another universe where the other option on the quantum coinflip was selected, but also creates a strawberry cupcake in the exact center of that universe), the probability of it being true is 1/infinity = 0.

or am I full of crap?

[Rye]

I don't think infinity factors well into probability.

I also suspect that there are actually QM observations that imply multiple universes, but I'm not well versed (not a pun, honest) in the subject to know them.

Do you know why multiple universes were proposed in the first place? I personally don't, so I just go with what I know instead. I daren't attempt to refute it without a clear quote/definition of what it is in the first place, though.

Continuity of consciousness doesn't have any bearing on whether multiple universes are inferrable from QM evidence as far as I can see, though.

[Feil]

Yeah. This is pulled from a slightly-less-silly-than-average argument about predestination.

[Gullible Jones]

On the one hand, there is AFAIK no empirical evidence for the MWI being right, only mathematical proof that it works. Although I think I've seen some stuff on possible experiments - IIRC one factored into a Greg Egan story I read a couple years ago, though I don't recall how it worked, nor do I have any idea if it would realistically prove anything.

On the other hand, the argument in the OP looks pretty useless to me... But then I don't know shit about QM.

[Winston Blake]

A branching "multiverse", where every possible outcome is an individual universe represented by its own branch, like a path that forks and forks and forks and forks again, is quite possible. However, assuming continuity of consciousness, the path that our present consciousness has taken was, according to Quantum Theory, selected randomly among the possible paths; the path that our consciousness is going to take is also selected randomly among the possible paths.

As far as I know, quantum mechanics says nothing about consciousnesses taking paths. What you're talking about is the Star Trek version of the many worlds interpretation. Also, probabilistic != random. It's much, much more likely for all the particles in your body to stay basically where they are, rather than suddenly scatter across the universe.

Since the difference, from the perspective of any observer, however well equipped between the multiverse hypothesis and the universe hypothesis, is nonexistent, it isn't worth thinking about. And, since there's an absence of evidence for it and it's mutually incompatible with an infinite number of other, utterly unsupported hypotheses (for instance, that every quantum event not only creates another universe where the other option on the quantum coinflip was selected, but also creates a strawberry cupcake in the exact center of that universe), the probability of it being true is 1/infinity = 0.

What infinite number of hypotheses? Even if there were, why should they all be equally likely? 'Many worlds + cupcake' is a much worse hypothesis than just 'many worlds'. It's quite easy for the sum of an infinite series to be finite.

Also, there's no 'universe hypothesis' and 'multiverse hypothesis'. There's 'many worlds', and a bunch of others like Copenhagen and Bohm's. There's only a handful of mainstream interpretations, and there's no reason to assume they're all equally likely to be 'true'.

or am I full of crap?

Yes. I don't know much about quantum physics, but I know that what you wrote doesn't make any sense.

What are you supposed to be arguing for? Is it that calculating any future state of the universe from the current state is neatly refuted by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

[Superman]

Just say this: "Burdon of proof, bitch!"

[Feil]

Thanks. I've retracted the incorrect part of the argument where I made it, and concede it here.

Supes: good plan

[Feil]

EDIT:

This is the statement I was responding to:

"Is it not arguable that we still live in a deterministic universe, but one with multiple outcomes? Would our minds still not behave as dictated by the laws of physics* rather than as dictated by human will?"

*by which he appears to mean deterministic, probabilistic, predictable laws

[Rye]

I don't see anything wrong with that. "Human will" is a product of the physics of the human brain, as are all our preferences and available courses of action.

[Feil]

Er. Missing an important prefix there. Should be

deterministic, non-probabilistic laws.

Which heisenberg uncertainty handily debunks, as had been pointed out earlier in the same argument.

[Darth Wong]

Is this sound:

A branching "multiverse", where every possible outcome is an individual universe represented by its own branch, like a path that forks and forks and forks and forks again, is quite possible. However, assuming continuity of consciousness, the path that our present consciousness has taken was, according to Quantum Theory, selected randomly among the possible paths; the path that our consciousness is going to take is also selected randomly among the possible paths. Since the difference, from the perspective of any observer, however well equipped between the multiverse hypothesis and the universe hypothesis, is nonexistent, it isn't worth thinking about. And, since there's an absence of evidence for it and it's mutually incompatible with an infinite number of other, utterly unsupported hypotheses (for instance, that every quantum event not only creates another universe where the other option on the quantum coinflip was selected, but also creates a strawberry cupcake in the exact center of that universe), the probability of it being true is 1/infinity = 0.

or am I full of crap?

Why tie the argument to consciousness at all? Multiple universes are not necessitated by any observational data whatsoever, so there is no reason to believe that they exist. There's no need to invoke some bizarre metaphysical connection to human consciousness; a valid physics argument should hold regardless of whether humans exist at all.

The argument ends on the only point that is actually required. The part about consciousness seems utterly pointless. Multiple universes are a fine example of the difference between "the data requires this theory" and "the data permits this theory".