"Virtual retreat" hypothesis

piloteer

@Plaffelvohfen

You are using assumptions to justify your argument. Is the universe the only thing that exists? If this universe collapses in on itself, who's to say that it won't effect other possible universes, or other planes of existence? We are now just at the tip of the multiverse hypothesis. For as long as humanity has been trying to see further and further away, we've constantly come to the conclusion that we have seen the furthest reaches, and nothing beyond that exists, only to find that we were wrong, and the span of existence is profoundly larger, even infinitely larger than we initially thought.

It was once accepted as fact that the earth is all that exists, and the stars were basically a giant message board that delivered the messages of the people or things that created our earth. Then we found that that was untrue, and we live in a solar system and share that space with other planets, and we eventually found that the earth was not the center of our solar system, but the sun is. It was believed that our solar system was the entirety of existence, but then we discovered that our solar system is actually one of many solar systems that make up our galaxy. In fact, the amount of other solar systems was mind boggling. It seemed that our space was infinitely larger than we initially thought, and there are an almost infinite amount of other solar systems. Then, just as we were closing in on the farthest reaches of our galaxy, we found that the galaxy is not the furthest reaches of existence, but we are just in a galaxy that is in a cluster of galaxies. Now we realize that we can't even begin to attempt to see the furthest reaches of our galaxy, and most of the physicists have now caught onto the pattern. Maybe someday we will see the end of our galaxy. Do you actually believe that it will be the furthest reaches? I'm not convinced yet.               

If everything in our universe is made up of tiny things that are made up of tinier things, then Bells theorem is still true for humanity, because we are made up of the tiny things that are made up of the tinier things, and they effect us, and every other thing in existence. And when it comes to the massive things that exist in our universe, we as people look like the tinier things that make up our planet. We effect everything objectively. Free will exists.       

Sorry, I thought we were getting into the quantum aspects of free will. Was it not you who asserted, "Physicalism, philosophically precludes human purpose"? But if you want to get into the psychological aspects of free will, and how it is effects value, I'm down for that too. I got you covered on all fronts. 

Plaffelvohfen

@piloteer

You're still missing what I'm getting at... 

Can you give me an objective justification for Existence? 

piloteer

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes. Values. Whether they're individualized, or objective, they are real. If you think that we need an "end goal" to justify our existence, that's on you.          

Plaffelvohfen

@piloteer

Purpose implies intention, an end goal... If there is no end goal, there is no purpose... 

That said, I don't think it's a problem that Existence is without purpose... 

Vaulk

I'm not sure what hypothesis you're referring to when you began this debate and I certainly didn't find any reference to any in your original post.  Hypotheses are required to be based on evidence and while the standard for evidence in this case is "Limited", your own admission

MayCaesar said:

Fermi Paradox is the discrepancy between rough predictions of expected frequency of alien encounters, and us not having detected a single one. Simply put: where are the aliens?

serves as ultimate discredit for your claim of any hypotheses by acknowledging that there has been zero detection of Alien encounters.

This is why Science is so much fun, because it has set rules that cannot be tossed aside to prove anything...not that Scientists are much better when it comes to willy-nilly rule-breaking.

Dee

@piloteer

You say ....... The observation effect has never been reduced to zero. There is always a change in the outcome simply because of observation. The idea of passive observation is a fallacy. 

My reply .....

The technique for finding an electron is not really observation. It’s a technique for generating an observation. Likewise, when scientists are conducting experiments, sure, they set up some interactions between things. There is some contrivance to that, because the interaction doesn’t happen spontaneously, but the idea is to let the interactions happen as they naturally would, after some initial conditions have been set, and then receive whatever comes out of those interactions, and try to measure them as accurately as possible. That’s not changing reality. That’s trying to find out what’s going on in reality. 

You say ......Even when observing the data provided by an electronic observer, the outcome is still effected. The effect reverberates back in time. Because of the backward motion of the outcome through time, when we observe the data from an electronic observer, the outcome is still effected, and will become the outcome that happened in the past.  

My reply .....Read above .....

You say ..... The effect reverberates back in time. 

My reply .....What effect? Are you saying the past exists?

You say ......By the way, leave us not forget that the Kochen-Specker theorem has been confirmed by experimentation that was done 13 years after the Wiezmann expirement, and a confirmed status in physics is a pretty tough barrier to break. 

My reply ......A confirmed status in physics would be what I stated above and the K S has nothing to do with what I’ve just stated and what’s accepted in physics

You say ......The KS theorem is no longer in the realm of hypothesis, it's been CONFIRMED. You know, that word that we hardly ever heard on mythbusters, but when we did we jumped up and danced, and invited all our friends over to drink beer and throw pallets into a bonfire. Ya, that thing.        

My reply .....But your misunderstanding of the observation effect is the problem here and nothing to do with what’s accepted by physicists and the KS theorem does not impact on what I’m saying 

  You say .....Just to point out that none of your arguments have covered the problem the many worlds interpretation has with the born rule

My reply .....But you never asked me to address any such problems , incidentally there are none only misunderstandings of such 

. You say ......Don't worry though, I'll give you time to try and power through the observation effect before we get to ALL the other stuff.      

My reply ......Sarcasm now where’s that coming from?  You will give me time “to try” how very decent of you.

Maybe first you need to understand as I’ve said before ....The technique for finding an electron is not really observation. It’s a technique for generating an observation.....Don’t take my word for it go check it out on a physics site maybe.

Maybe you could also offer some evidence for this statement as it makes no sense ..... The effect reverberates back in time. Because of the backward motion of the outcome through time, 

Also what has any of what you stated got to do with a human observer and his /her impact on reality?

I will leave you plenty of time to answer the above before I ask you questions regards all your “other stuff” 

Dee

@piloteer

You say ......If everything in our universe is made up of tiny things that are made up of tinier things, 

My reply .......Over which we have no control that means we are in a state of flux which means our  actions are a result of random events over which we have no control over them than does the suggestion they are determined by Natural Law 

You say ......then Bells theorem is still true for humanity, because we are made up of the tiny things that are made up of the tinier things, and they effect us, and every other thing in existence. And when it comes to the massive things that exist in our universe, we as people look like the tinier things that make up our planet. We effect everything objectively. 

My reply .....You love Bells Theorem but seem to make many assumptions in its usage 

You say .....Free will exists

My reply .....How can you demonstrate such to be the case?

Vaulk

Is it just me or does anyone else find Dee's method of creating a "You said" and "My reply" argument disturbing?  I mean like...on an OCD level it disturbs my soul that he/she doesn't use the quote option and just address each point sequentially...just me?

Dee

@Vaulk ;

You say ....

Is it just me or does anyone else find Dee's method of creating a "You said" and "My reply" argument disturbing?

My reply ....I’m taking the pertinent points of my opponents arguments and addressing them as they put them.

 I may actually use the quote option in the future , I’ve had a problem using such in the past because only some of my comments would  post and after further investigation it was a problem regarding my iPad

You say ......  I mean like...on an OCD level it disturbs my soul that he/she doesn't use the quote option and just address each point sequentially...just me?

My reply .....I take each argument and take the core issue where my opponent and I disagree and address it , that you find that disturbing , tough , but there you go 

Thank you for your clinical assessment Dr Freud and I wonder if it “disturbs your soul” that you judge others totally ignoring what your god has to say on the matter? 

piloteer

@Vaulk

You say.... Is it just me....

My reply.......Ummm ya. I guess it could only just be you because you're the one who posted that.

You say.......or does anyone else find.....

My reply.......does anyone else find what? That doesn't even make sense.

You say.....Dee's method of creating a.....    

My reply......OK, now you're just not making any sense. I mean, what does that even mean? I am no longer going to address your statement. 

It's effective. There's no denying that!    

piloteer

@Dee

I was demonstrating that even subjective values objectively effect every other thing in the universe. I wasn't using Bells theorem to demonstrate free will, but the non-locality and the Kochen-Specker theorems do compliment Bells theorem nicely. As far as demonstrating free will in a physical sense, that's what I've been trying to do by discrediting the many worlds theory.

I'm pretty sure we do have control of the tiny things that we're made of. My hand didn't decide to post this for me without my knowledge or approval.  

Dee

I was demonstrating that even subjective values objectively effect every other thing in the universe. I wasn't using Bells theorem to demonstrate free will, but the non-locality and the Kochen-Specker theorems do compliment Bells theorem nicely. As far as demonstrating free will in a physical sense, that's what I've been trying to do by discrediting the many worlds theory.

I'm pretty sure we do have control of the tiny things that we're made of. My hand didn't decide to post this for me without my knowledge or approval.  

How do you demonstrate that subjective values effect things objectively? You seem to think that our thoughts have some effect on reality they don’t.

Free will is no more compatible with the suggestion that are actions are a product of random events than it is with the suggestion that they are the result of determined ones.

Suppose due to some random event in my brain a neuron fires off my hand shoots out and hits you how am I to blame if it’s not within my control.

It’s back to my original point if we take quantum indeterminacy to be such everything in the Universe is part of that indeterminacy that includes us so how are we responsible for that which we have no control over?  

Dee

@piloteer

You as an intelligent person Piloteer can perfectly comprehend what I’m saying as I can you which is why we have had many enjoyable exchanges.

@Vaulk likes to give his opinions but hates being questioned as he mentioned in my first exchange with him that asking him questions was unfair and suggested if one wanted questions answered they should go to yahoo. I do accept the questions were tricky and the majority of believers flee when faced with such 

piloteer

@Dee

Values are things we hold dear. We have emotional ties to those things. Values are an emotion. Emotions are a mixture of chemical reactions and electric impulses. Emotions, including values have a material value, emotions are material. 

Bells theorem demonstrates that everything that exists, effects every other thing that exists in the universe. If something effects every other thing that can be considered a thing, it's effect is objective. Values objectively effect everything in the universe. 

piloteer

@Dee

The KS theorem deals specifically with the observation problem. 

From Wiki:

"The theorem proves that there is a contradiction between two basic assumptions of the hidden-variable theories intended to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics: that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum-mechanical observables have definite values at any given time, and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them. The contradiction is caused by the fact that quantum-mechanical observables need not be commutative. It turns out to be impossible to simultaneously embed all the commuting subalgebras of the algebra of these observables in one commutative algebra, assumed to represent the classical structure of the hidden-variables theory, if the Hilbert space dimension is at least three."

The first of the two contradictions that KS demonstrate is the idea that all hidden variables have definite values, which has been proven to be false. This means that the influence on the outcome by whatever method is used for observing is not a measurable influence. It was believed by many physicists that the influence of the observer could be measured, and a finite measurement of quantum mechanics could be accomplished. That has since been proven wrong, and the hidden variables will remain hidden.

The second of the two contradictions that KS demonstrates in hidden-variables theories (like the many worlds interpretation) is the idea that what the observer is observing does have values that are independent of the observer, which has also been proven to be false. It is now known that "what we expect as an outcome of an experiment depends on what we put into it." The observer cannot be made to be totally independent of the outcome.

Time does exist, and many physicists believe that the past, present and future are happening simultaneously. Among them were Richard Hawkins. What I mean when I say the effect reverberates into the past, is that in the double slit expirement, the influence of the observer on the outcome happened as soon as the observer chose whether to observe or not. But it does take time for the photons, or electrons to travel from the gun, and reach the board with the slits in it, and come through the slits where the observer is waiting. Whenever the observer chooses to observe, it effects how the electrons are projected on the screen behind the board. But, when the data from the gun is retrieved, it is found that how the electrons were projected on the screen (final destination), was also how they left the gun (initial trajectory). That means that when the electrons are observed in the present, it effects how the electrons were acting in the past. This means that the observer is influencing the past. 

Vaulk

@piloteer

Firstly, I'm afraid you missed a portion of the definition of Values, Values are not "Things" we hold dear, they're not items or objects.  It appears that you pulled that explanation from google and that's not even what google says.  What you should have posted from Google is that "Values are the things that you believe are important in the way you live and work".  Instead you've concluded that Values are just things.  What this means is that Value are your principles and fundamental beliefs in how you should behave.  

Secondly, values are certainly not emotions.  Values are ideological and metaphysical entities that have no existence within the physical world, if they were material then there would be an established metric that could be used to accurately measure the values of all people.  Example: Sam and Jane might have a combined Values score of 47.238% of a total 100% in Values.  This can't ever be the case because there is no metric for Values.

Lastly, Values do not exist within the universe, on the physical plane or within the natural world.  Again, they're metaphysical along with all other thoughts and ideas.  The fact that we can observe the activities of nerve cells within the brain does not mean that we're observing thoughts.  If it did, then we could pinpoint the exact location of where each thought originates.  Example: Scientists could observe the brain and point out any nerve cell activity and tell you what thought that activity represents.  This isn't possible though because Scientists cannot identify thoughts in the Brain nor can they say with any degree of certainty that what they're looking at are thoughts at all.  For the meantime, thoughts and ideas are in the realm of the supernatural.

I'd also like to point out that Bell's Theorem draws the distinction between Classic Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.  Bell's theorem states that any physical theory that incorporates local realism cannot reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanical theory.  For those of you disinterested in reading the article, local realism is regarding physical particles and has nothing to do with values.  I'm honestly not sure how you came up with a theory regarding Quantum Physics being used to prove that something that exists above the natural world somehow affects everything else in the world...physically.

Dee

 @piloteer

You’re totally ignoring what I said regarding observation and an observer........

The technique for finding an electron is not really observation. It’s a technique for generating an observation. Likewise, when scientists are conducting experiments, sure, they set up some interactions between things. There is some contrivance to that, because the interaction doesn’t happen spontaneously, but the idea is to let the interactions happen as they naturally would, after some initial conditions have been set, and then receive whatever comes out of those interactions, and try to measure them as accurately as possible. That’s not changing reality. That’s trying to find out what’s going on in reality. 

Read on ......

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurementand "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarilypresent or solve any problems over and above the issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims.

I’m afraid you’re going down the Deepak Chopra route which is  new age nonsense of which Chopra is amongst one of the biggest B...sh.tters going  

piloteer

@Dee

I'm not sure who this Deepak person even is to be honest. I'm also not sure where the second paragraph of you post is referenced from, but are you not noticing that it is describing what I'm saying, that the observer will always have an effect on the outcome: "The quantum mechanical observer is also intrinsically tied to the issue of the observer effect". I think that what you're trying to argue is that the devices used to make the measurements cannot be considered the observer, and only the conscious observer can, but that is precisely what KS has disproved. The findings of the KS theorem state that idea that the "values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them", which is argued by hidden variables theories is incorrect. The devices used for measurement are intrinsically tied to the outcome and the observer. The devices become the observer as soon as the data is observed by a conscious observer. KS has proven that.

I get the feeling you might be misrepresenting my argument. Plaffelhoven claimed that free will is physically impossible. I'm just demonstrating that non-locality (which includes the Bell theorem, and the Kochen Specker theorem) proves free will happens on a physical plane, and has stood the test of vigorous scrutiny since it's inception.  If you'd like to direct your attention to other realms of free will, I will happily follow, but the claim that free will is physically impossible is an unfounded claim from top to bottom.   

piloteer

@Vaulk


Good point, but I will have to assert that your argument is a matter of miscategorization, and values are indeed emotionally based. When we think of examples of what most people value, like dependability, reliability, honesty, loyalty (note, those are things alot of people associate with values, but they can vary from person to person. For instance, I would consider genuineness to be of higher value to me, even if that genuineness makes someone disloyal to me. If someone is honest to me, and can tell me they are unable to be dependable, or reliable, or loyal, or even honest,  I would value them because they're genuine.), it is not those traits that we value. Those are just words we use to describe traits. It is the people or things that accomplish those traits that we actually value. We do value things, and we do feel our value toward the people or things that have those traits.  We value the people or things, not the traits.        

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Sorry for taking your thread hostage. I do find your virtual retreat hypothesis interesting. I just read an article that said that since 2007, there has been two instances of repeated wave pulses that were received on earth. It's difficult to argue that that's an absolute indication of alien societies, but it's actually just as difficult to argue against it, because repeating wave pulses do not occur naturally. Some physicists believe it's mathematically impossible for alien life to not exist.  Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out on his tv show that it's illogical to assume that aliens would use radio waves to communicate, and we may not have any technology to receive their messages with their preferred choice of communication. But he also pointed out that it is also illogical to assume that aliens wouldn't use radio waves because the universe is naturally riddled with radio waves, it would be foolish not to harness a naturally occurring phenomenon to send your messages. Of course, for that argument to work, we would have to assume that alien life forms can actually detect radio waves, and that there aren't other forms of wave functions that we cannot detect. Or even other forms of communication that don't even rely on wave functions at all. Maybe we and the aliens are totally unaware of each other because we can never communicate. We can't even communicate with other species on earth yet, how could we expect to be able to communicate with aliens?      

Dee

@piloteer

You're still not getting it ......The technique for finding an electron is not really observation. It’s a technique for generating an observation

jesusisGod777

I'm going to dash this debate to pieces.

Planetary tempretures

Mercury	- 275 °F  (- 170°C)	+ 840 °F  (+ 449°C)
Venus	+ 870 °F  (+ 465°C)	+ 870 °F  (+ 465°C)
Earth	- 129 °F  (- 89°C)	+ 136 °F  (+ 58°C)
Moon	- 280 °F  (- 173°C)	+ 260 °F  (+ 127°C)
Mars	- 195 °F  (- 125°C)	+ 70 °F  (+ 20°C)
Considering, the planetary surface temperatures decreases with increasing distance from the sun or because of a planets core there is no life on any other planet or planets. Surface tempretures and planet core tempretures effect the geological conditions of a planet. Venus is an exception because its dense atmosphere acts as a greenhouse and heats the surface to above the melting point of lead, about 880 degrees Fahrenheit (471 degrees Celsius). Considering that everywhere else in all Galaxy's and solar systems there is no sun that produces or generates enough heat to effect the surface tempreture of planets surrounding it's orbit there is not other life in the universe, therefore you hypothesis is fallacy. Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

Additionally considering that the age of everything in the universe is the same, we have developed technologies to a standard of time and knowledge that would be equivalent to anything else that would exist but does not as a result of the logical conclusion.

Jesus is Lord.

WinstonC

@piloteer Thanks for the support, especially since you've disagreed so strongly with me on other topics.

"Although, the problems with a virtual "endless bliss" app can be overcome easily. A program can be made  to purposely impair our short term memory"

It's not caused by memory of the sensation, the brain itself changes (see "neural adaptation" (1)).

"If that were to happen, every time we used the virtual reality app, it would seem like it was the first time we ever used it no matter how many times we used it."

I like the idea, though our brain would still be acclimatized to the neurochemical releases it causes, which in turn are what cause our enjoyment.

"Plus, some people think that by the year 2050, it's conceivable that the entire make up of our brains can be uploaded to the cloud."

We're getting onto another topic but in my estimation by doing this we would merely be making a machine copy of ourselves. If you make a complete copy of your personality and upload it to the Internet you are still inside your own body. Perhaps it's possible to transfer our consciousness somehow, but that would mean our consciousness would be more like a disembodied soul, which would mean you also could become a ghost.

Sources:
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation

piloteer

@WinstonC

You make a good point about the synthetic short term memory aspect of the bliss app. Drugs do alter the chemistry in our brains, and short term memory wouldn't stop the bliss app from altering our brains. I do think uploading our consciousness to the cloud would be an interesting experiment. It will answer how much of "ourselves" are actually our brains. Maybe the objective psychologists will be proven wrong, and what make us "us" will be proven to be more than just our brains. It's now believed that some of our consciousness is in our stomachs also. Maybe it will be demonstrated that our consciousness is throughout our entire bodies, or maybe it will be shown that some of what makes us "us" actually exists outside of us. Also, the problems of the chemical changes that occur with drug use, or in this case the endless bliss app, can be solved. Our brain chemistry can be controlled because our brains would be digital. We could be made to keep the same brain chemistry we had when we first used the bliss app. Hopefully I will be around to witness all of this. It will be the death of existentialism.     

piloteer

 @Dee

I will accept that the observer may not be changing reality simply by observing it. I will accept that the observer effect is often misinterpreted that way. But it has been shown that to view quantum mechanics, they must be altered for a conscious observation to take place, and all hidden variables will remain hidden. It's basically that we need light to view quantum mechanics to see them, but those things do act differently in light. It's also true that we will not ever be able to get an accurate measurement of quantum mechanics based on the classical interpretation. It will only be a contextual measurement, and those contextual measurements can never be rooted in any form of a quantum foundation, it will always be dependent on the method used for measurement, and every different form of measurement will result in a different outcome. The KS theorem has proven that that's not a matter of unreliable devices or manner of measurement, it's a matter of the function of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics can never be objectively deciphered. We can only hope to gain some perspective on quantum mechanics. "The outcome of an experiment is dependent on what we put into it", in other words, "there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement". The Kochen Specker theorem shows that noncontextual theorems (like many worlds) are incompatible with quantum mechanics.  

The biggest hurdle the many words interpretation cannot overcome is not actually the observer effect, but the born rule. The measurement of probability has been demonstrated to be an accurate measurement. The many worlds interpretation can not account for the accuracy of this rule. If the measurement of the probability of decay of an atom has been shown to increase  over time, then the many worlds interpretation will have to account for the born rule (which it cannot), or it will have to demonstrate how the born rule can be observed in this world, because according to the many worlds interpretation, no world, including this one, should be able to observe the accuracy of the born rule. If all possible physical outcomes are possible like the many worlds interpretation says, then the possibility of the decay of an atom cannot increase with time. It will always remain at 50%, or 50/50. The born rule demonstrates why that is inaccurate. The probability of the decay of an atom isn't the most flagrant example of probability. There are other probabilities that are billions of times less likely to occur, but the many worlds interpretation still has to assert that they are equally as probable, and we shouldn't be able to observe the unlikihood of those probabilities. But we can!!!! The idea of a super conductor causing a black hole to open up and swallow the earth is so remote on the probability scale, it's thought of being as so close to impossible that can be defined by the measurement of probability. The many worlds interpretation would have to say that the likelihood of that is 50% whenever a superconductor is functional, but we're still here. It's been pointed out the just above earths atmosphere, particles are moving at very fast speeds, and are constantly colliding, and it's been that way on earth for as long as the earth has existed. That's exactly what a superconductor does, but no black holes that were large enough to swallow the earth have ever been reported. The many worlds interpretation says that probability will always be 50%. Perhaps it could happen, but it didn't do it in time for me to press the post button, so ha!!!!  


         

jesusisGod777

@piloteer

Straight up .

The stomach expieriences nerve impulses as a result of the nervous system.

The nervous system is composed of several major parts: The central nervous system composed of the brain and spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system made up of myelinated sensory and motor neurons leaving the centralnervous system.

Therefore the stomach has no consciousness of it's own. It simply is EFFECTED by the brain and any signal from the stomach is interested by the self-conscious central nervous system.

You people talk about things you aren't even educated on.

Total bullcrap.

Jesus is Lord.

piloteer

@jesusisGod777

It's so nice to see DI is letting you debate with all of us, so you can feel like you're a debater too. Awww, good for you! 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-fallible-mind/201701/the-pit-in-your-stomach-is-actually-your-second-brain

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-18779997

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-feelings-the-second-brain-in-our-gastrointestinal-systems-excerpt/

The stomach has more neurons than the spinal chord!

Dee

@piloteer

The Kochen Specker theorem shows that noncontextual theorems (like many worlds) are incompatible with quantum mechanics.  
The biggest hurdle the many words interpretation cannot overcome is not actually the observer effect, but the born rule. 

Actually several ingenious ways have been put forward to overcome these so called hurdles , here is one of many .........

https://xseek-qm.net/Quantum_Probability_e.htm

piloteer

@Dee

First off, that link doesn't show the "several ingenious ways" the many worlds interpretation can overcome the born rule. It just shows one specific attempt to derive the born rule from the MWI. It also explicitly states how all other attempts to overcome the born rule have failed. We can clearly see in paragraph two that it says "Many researchers have tried to derive the Born rule (also called Born’s rule, Born's law, or probability interpretation) from many-worlds interpretation (MWI). However, nobody succeeded. Thus, the derivation of Born rule had become an important issue for MWI."

Those "ingenious" alternatives are extra ad hoc postulates that diminish the effects and purpose of the many worlds interpretation. Also, those alternatives aren't accepted by physicists. Those alternatives are seen as built in sections of the theory for the purpose of explaining how it might work with the born rule, but it does nothing in the way of discrediting the born rule. The stated purpose of the many worlds interpretation, and all quantum theories is to explain the function of quantum mechanics as simply as possible, without the use of ad hoc postulates to overcome inconsistencies. Adding extra equations to explain how certain aspects of the theory could overcome a proven contradiction only serves to water down the effects of the theory itself. There are no accepted alternatives that infuse the born rule with the MWI. There are no experiments that can demonstrate how it might work, and there have been no attempts to discredit the born rule.     

The theory of non-locality is accepted by the vast majority of physicists. It's been demonstrated by many different experiments, and does not use ad hoc postulates to overcome inconsistencies. In fact, it really doesn't have any inconsistencies with verifiable quantum mechanics. The MWI is an alternative to non-locality, and it's not verified by vigorous experimentation like non-locality is. The MWI interpretation is the last hold out for classical quantum mechanics, and the walls are caving in on it. 

     
https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624

Dee

@piloteer

I disagree , how do you conclude the findings of the paper are not valid and what experiments have been done to demonstrate its “faults?

Here is another of the several I mentioned and as I stated there are several more .....

Sean Carroll has written a paper explaining how it is possible to derive the Born Rule in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I'm not sure that it's the final word on the subject, but it does grapple with the big question of how it makes sense to use probabilities to describe a universe that evolves deterministically. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-probability-in-quantum-mechanics-is-given-by-the-wave-function-squared/ Reactions: Demystifier

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-born-rule-in-many-worlds.763139/

piloteer

@Dee

I personally am not any kind of an authority when it comes to validating papers on quantum mechanics, so it is not I who the authors of those propositions should appeal to. Asking me what evidence I have to discredit those propositions is like asking you what evidence you have to prove they are accurate. I already posted a link to an article written by Adrian Kent where he dissects all the proposals for fusing the born rule with the MWI. That article is widely accepted, and there is a full version of it in the link if you'd like to peruse through it. The fact remains that the physicists community do not accept the ad hoc postulates to the many worlds theory that attempt to overcome inconsistencies it has with the born rule. It should have been able to account for that oversight from the beginning and been able to fit in with all known functions of quantum mechanics, but it now looks like it's unlikely that the many worlds interpretation will be accepted as it is written.    

Dee

@piloteer

I personally am not any kind of an authority when it comes to validating papers on quantum mechanics, so it is not I who the authors of those propositions should appeal to. Asking me what evidence I have to discredit those propositions is like asking you what evidence you have to prove they are accurate.

I don’t know how accurate or not they are , nor does anyone else so your appeals to authority carry no weight whatsoever

piloteer

@Dee

The accuracy of non-locality has been demonstrated by experiments countless times. It needs no use of ad hoc postulates, and is widely accepted by physicists. It seems free will exists in the physical realm, unlike Plaffelvohfen claimed.    

Dee

@piloteeer ;

Yet here is what I stated regarding the problem so your continued appeals to authority are irrelevant unless of course you can correct Carroll’s paper and point out the flaws that others cannot ........

Here is another of the several I mentioned and as I stated there are several more .....

Sean Carroll has written a paper explaining how it is possible to derive the Born Rule in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I'm not sure that it's the final word on the subject, but it does grapple with the big question of how it makes sense to use probabilities to describe a universe that evolves deterministically. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-probability-in-quantum-mechanics-is-given-by-the-wave-function-squared/ Reactions: Demystifier

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-born-rule-in-many-worlds.763139/

Regards free will I’ve also addressed this in the past yet you seem to take others arguments and re- word them and ask me to explain them , I would prefer to hear what @Plaffelvohen actually said over what you claim he said so I can reply although what it has to do with my position is beyond me