Why is Everettian quantum theory 'not in the consensus'?

At the research workshop on the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at the Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Tel-Aviv University, 18-24 October 2022, Prof Lev Vaidman asked: “Why is the many-worlds interpretation not in the consensus?” This was my answer.

[AntonKimS]

Must have read both of your books many dozens of times. They helped me rebuild my brain from the ground up. Hope you will post videos often.

[adtyachaudhary]

Welcome Sir on YouTube, happy to have you here!

[bertpineapple]

You have an amazing legacy. Read it all. Much love.

[trucid]

I remember trying to discuss the randomness in quantum mechanics with people who deemed themselves as experts in quantum mechanics, and one thing that stood out is their holier than thou attitude when it came to accepting randomness. They accepted it a priori and viewed themselves as enlightened for doing so, saying how the human brain is not used to thinking in probabilities. The implication being that they were my--our--intellectual superiors due to their ability to accept that the universe is fundamentally random.

[craigw.stropkay]

Can someone clarify the point he makes about changing the idea if “now” by weeks by walking up and down the street? I am familiar with the idea of non simultaneity but I’m not following his point here.

[eddsheene]

Perhaps the problem is mainly psychological, rather than a matter of ideas competing against each other: our consciousness, our Cartesian ego still feel so sacred, so fundamental, that we are still very much attached to the fuzzy belief in an omniscient mind, or our own senses/observations. Religious or not, scientifically well versed or not, this psychological clinging still applies to the majority of people. So an idea like 'we see the andromeda's image from a long time ago' won't hit close or feel as jarring since it doesn't directly undermine what we consider so sacred, whereas having a multiple version of Me™ seems doing so.

Any endeavor to argue for Everettian theory will essentially involve fighting against this anthropocentric sacred foundation, but maybe in the scientific field, this sort of meta discussion is not explicit enough.

[giorgosg]

We are very lucky to have great physicists like David Deutsch be on youtube

[robertsouth]

It's an intuitive application of something resembling a scientific method. It goes like this: "Resist the urge to jump to conclusions. If something seems obvious, make sure to carefully consider all the alternatives before leaning into it too heavily."

[cueva_mc]

You should have an interview with Lex Friedman

[Klaymen_]

Always eager to hear David's thoughts on the discerning of reality.

[GarryBurgess]

Wow, was just reading one of your books, and here you are talking on YouTube. I'm so happy to find this channel.

[TheMemesofDestruction]

2:27 - I kinda like the, “Many Dinosaurs Theory.” ^.^

[mrjaysahli]

I 📚 listened to your last two books on Audible and they were amazing. Please keep publishing more!

[gpsx]

I think there are two big reasons, both of which you alluded too. First is misunderstanding, which is partially caused by the name "many worlds". I think this applies more to the general population level rather than people who understand physics. When I hear people sneer at many worlds, they think it imposes crazy new rules for quantum mechanics rather than wave function collapse being the crazy new rule. The second reason, which I think is more relavent to people who really know physics, is because they can't imagine themselves and their awareness being in multiple states. This however is fine for electrons and cats in boxes. Wave function collapse allows people to think of themselves as an external observer to the system, rather forcing us to be a part of the system. This is important because I think possibly a majority of people still believe in a physical world and a distinct spiritual world and that we are a part of both of these. I think it is this view the prevents people from believing in the "many world's interpretation" or as you call it, quantum mechanics.

[El_Diablo_]

Did David lose the password to his other Youtube channel?

[CometComment]

"The question can computers think is too meaningless a question to deserve discussion" Chomsky quoting & agreeing with Turing.

[dimitrispapadimitriou]

The rejection of Many Worlds is not merely a matter of psychological resistance, in my opinion.
There are, at least, two major issues: The compatibility with the Born rule ( this well known and frequently debated issue) and the interpretation of the splitting of the semi-classical worlds.
The second issue is even more enigmatic, for it is totally unknown if this "splitting" is global or is it local. No physical mechanism or mathematical description ( non Hausdorff?) that reconciles the MWI with the observed reality..
The Schrödinger equation does not give any indication about this; it only suggests that the world is a huge messy superposition.
So, contrary to the claims, there is additional structure needed, besides the wavefunction/ Hilbert space, to explain what we observe. The "simplicity" of this interpretation is only superficial and this is not surprising:
MW is the original QM (minus the measurement postulate with the Born rule ), so it is not an "improvement" of the standard Copenhagen interpretation.
This is what happens with all interpretations: they just exchange issues, one for another..

[mattmustapick]

Wouldn’t a zero-worlds theory with one mind be a simpler way to fit the data? Why do we need “reality” at all? Can we just suppose that quantum mechanics predicts mental experiences, which are fundamental?

[debyton]

Where the popularized description of the multiverse is wrong, is in its proposal of the simultaneous existence of an untold number of universes. Instead, it should describe what is called a metaverse (forget Zuck) which describes a Hilbert space with the potential to instantiate any possible state, and number, of universes. Including none at all. {LIVE Science; Forums, History and Culture; Culture History & Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}

[Juttutin]

Everything else fails back to some ground (minimum energy) state. The problem for me with many-worlds is that it seems to require some Infinite exponentially increasing energy.