Why is Many Worlds Theory Right? | Chiara Marletto, Gerard 't Hooft, Christopher Timpson

We think that lightning strikes, and waves crash, even if there is no one to see them. Yet according to quantum physics, the observer is critical to reality. Heisenberg even argued that, in contemporary physics, ‘objective reality has evaporated’. Is a world independent of the observer an illusion? Or did Heisenberg and quantum physics get it wrong?

Nobel Prize winning physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft, constructor theorist Chiara Marletto and Oxford quantum philosopher Christopher Timpson debate our role in reality.

#science #debate #nobelprize

The IAI offers a host of different platforms where you can watch and debate the big issues that matter:

Subscribe for more videos and debates!

[fredriksvard]

Whats with the snarky interrupting moderator

[DomBurgess]

When she said 'Yes' - did another universe branch off where she says 'no'?

[zxq]

It isn't a model of "worlds", but a declaration that the geometry of the universe exists in such a way we can only observe a single slice (or "branch") of it at once. They are all there, but which one this shade of "I" might see is dictated by probability -- because I do not exist independent of the universe. That's the whole point: that we aren't magicians, but part of the system being observed or experienced itself.

The point is that the *shape* of the universe is itself probability. Probability is a form of geometry, and entanglement defines the shape.

The number of people who willfully misunderstand this either to deride or to ride (each to their own emotionally desired ends) this theory absolutely astounds me.

[vauchomarx]

The main misconception about the MWI is that it predicts the wave function to somehow _create_ new universes. Rather than "many worlds", it should rather be called "many branches".
The seeming metaphysical implication of infinite actual timelines playing out seems less absurd if you stick to strict reductionism: The whole classical world (or any number of classical worlds) just emerges from the wave function which is there anyway, so our "world" where we make observations is just an epiphenomenon.

[EWischan]

Physicists being okay with superpositions, but drawing a line at many worlds seems odd. The focus on worlds rather than what is happening with the wave function also seems odd.

[stuntmonkey]

So to sum up: imagine our universe branching off into many different worlds, only it's not really different worlds and it's not really branching.

[wulphstein]

I'm not sure how an atheist scientist could say that quantum mechanics needs an observer when there were no observers for the first ten billion years of the universe.

[TeodorAngelov]

The Many Worlds interpretation just removes the assumption that quantum collapse actually happens(i.e. all versions of the probability are equally real), which is unfalsifiable anyway. By Occam's razor the interpretation is not ludicrous at all.

[darkdevil]

As a Theoretical Physicist this is a lot of hand waving and deduction but no experimental proof that any of this stuff is true or not.

[aidenwinter]

Does anyone else notice that Chiara’s hairstyle’s very similar to Newton’s? 😂

[audiodead]

I am sympathetic to the many worlds interpretation of QM. But I just find Chiara's explanations/justifications a bit weak, flippant and trivial.

[Madayano]

The Many World Interpretation does not contribute anything to physics. It is more of a religious belief that emerges from the measurement problem.

[myothersoul]

Is Many Worlds a theory or an interpretation of a theory?

[shouviksircar]

Is 't Hooft, indicating a 'hidden variables' interpretation?

[wulphstein]

DEBUNKED! The wave function of the hydrogen atom says that electric charge is smeared out over the shell. It doesn't say anything about other universes.

[ΔημήτριςΠαναγιωτίδης]

Bring the guru David Deutsch to speak about it...

[JOHNN.]

If time splits and makes new outcomes does that also apply to all living things on earth or just Humans ?

[AppleVsGravity]

So just have faith? Lol
Pretty much like religion. There's no testing the MWT.

[cymoonrbacpro]

*Modern-day mythology*
The materialist desperation to explain the universe produces absurdities! This stops being physics and becomes pure imagination without no physical Reasoning, just wishful thinking, handwaving without evidence, just imagination. Modern day mythology using scientific terms.

[허유선-ym]

I think many worlds interpretation is right. Easily explained, it's like that: In eon of eon of eon, our universe is nothing. We are everything compared to nothing. One of numerous particles in our universe is one universe. Energy is the expression of difference. It is one expression of the numerous worlds. It's something. It's everything compared to nothing. We are in infinitesimal unfolding universes. Many worlds interpretation is right.