So, the idea that everytime there is a quantum event, which is happening continuously everywhere in the universe, a new world is created for every possibility of that event, seems reasonable. — Rich

The refusal to countenance this as a real possibility just demonstrates the problems human beings have with scale. Due to our arrogance as perceived 'masters of the universe' we relate everything to our own size/perspective and so things going too far either way seem ridiculous. If someone said there were probably 10 alternate universes people would easily believe it, but say there are trillions and trillions and trillions...etc and they can't comprehend it.

But if you consider the sheer numbers of atoms in a small piece of coal, or the space between the nucleus of the atom and the electrons, of the size of the universe etc things outside our tiny scale seem far less ridiculous.

In response to previous assertions that the reality of multiple universe is 'craziness' is it any more crazy than any of the other interpretations?! — Mike Adams

Considerably more. The whole purpose of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, was to try and depict the strangeness inherent in quantum mechanics with a life-size example. It was verging on satire; it is saying, 'if you take the mathematics of so-called 'superposition' literally, it means that...' - and then uses the infamous example of the live-dead cat to make the point. In some ways, 'Schrodinger's Cat' was an expression of exasperation, as much as anything.

(Physics joke: 'Erwin! What did you do to the cat? It looks half dead!' ~ Mrs Schrodinger.)

But, the Copenhagen 'interpretation' is another thing altogether. It's not a scientific theory at all, it is simply a way of characterising the kinds of things that Bohr, Heisenberg and to some extent Pauli would say could or could not be said on the basis of quantum physics.

Regarding Everett: here's an interesting if little-commented fact - Everett actually had the privilege of meeting with Bohr, several times, in 1959. But Bohr never showed the least sign of accepting the 'relative state formulation' and at this stage, Everett was already out of theoretical physics, on his way to becoming one of the mathematicians behind America's ICBM program.

This is all related in a Scientific American article called 'The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett', which notes the origin of the 'theory' as follows:

Everett’s scientific journey began one night in 1954, he recounted two decades later, “after a slosh or two of sherry.” [Incidentally the story notes that Everett became an alcoholic, a fact which contributed to his early death.] He and his Princeton classmate Charles Misner and a visitor named Aage Petersen ....were thinking up “ridiculous things about the implications of quantum mechanics.” During this session Everett had the basic idea behind the many-worlds theory, and in the weeks that followed he began developing it into a dissertation.

***

The refusal to countenance this as a real possibility just demonstrates the problems human beings have with scale. — Mike Adams

It's not scale that the problem, it is the inherent outlandishness of the implications of there really being many parallel universes. The literal implication of this idea is that every possible variation of everything that happens, really does happen. So this very dialogue - the one you and I are participating in - is taking place in an infinite number of identical worlds, and also an infinite number of worlds that are different in only one degree, up to an infinite number of degrees of difference.

Here is the handy diagram that Wikipedia generously includes in the article on Many Worlds to explain this:



although in this case, there's only two outcomes. But, I suppose depicting an infinite number of outcomes would be problematical, in a two-dimensional graphic.

But if you consider the sheer numbers of atoms in a small piece of coal, or the space between the nucleus of the atom and the electrons, of the size of the universe etc things outside our tiny scale seem far less ridiculous. — Mike Adams

I am totally OK with flights of fantasy in science and philosophy, but if we are to start taking seriously a quantum theory interpretation that calls for a continuous formation of infinity upon infinity of newly made worlds without any evidence or any hope of ever having any evidence, just for the sake of having a determinist theory to hang some hope on, then we should also begin to take seriously the infinity of God, that provides equal determinism and equal hope. Fair is fair.

On the other hand over can instead choose to explore Bohm's interpretation which is causal, non-deterministic, and which is the only one that not only predicts non-locality (already observed) as well as provides explains away all the weirdness in a very straightforward manner, e.g the delayed choice experiment, non-local spooky action, etc.).

The big problem with Bohm's interpretation is that it allows for choice, something that the materialists-determinists just cannot accept because it is contrary to their faith, and faith is exactly all they have to hold onto - other than the fantasy of infinity upon infinity of new worlds springing out of no where continuously. Science indeed has become goal oriented just like the teachings of the Church.

I should really point out that I don't necessarily believe in determinism, I am just yet to hear an acceptable scientific explanation of how we can account for genuine agent control in an indetermistic universe.

I would be grateful is you could elaborate on how Bohms interpretation is 'causal and non-deterministic', because at first sight the coupling of the two appears oxymoronic.

I should really point out that I don't necessarily believe in determinism, I am just yet to hear an acceptable scientific explanation of how we can account for genuine agent control in an indetermistic universe. — Mike Adams

The agent is precisely what you experience every day in you life. Call it what you will, consciousness, your mind, the Elan vital, or that which is choosing. The label matters not. You are the agent that is making choices. That which is peering out through your eyes.

What I was wanted to point out that the only reason the super-fantastical Exponentially-Forever Growing- Infinity-Worlds (scientists are being very modest when they refer to it as Many-World) is taken seriously at all is because determinists need it in light of quantum theory and they are desperate. But no matter what, in this world, everything remains probabilistic.

Bohm's quantum mechanics interpretation is very straightforward. It is causal because everything is real, there is no collapse. The quantum potential which guides the "election" (the election can be considered a wave perturbation) is defined by form not distance so it acts in all directions and all distances equally (non-local action). Any change in the quantum potential will immediately affect the election (this explains the Delayed Choice experiment). The equation itself is equivalent to the Schrodinger equation with different ontological implications. Here is a video which explains how it might all work. It's not precise because the narrator doesn't really understand Bohm, but it is good enough as a starting point.

This guy is saying the pilot wave theory is deterministic...

It's not scale that the problem, it is the inherent outlandishness of the implications of there really being many parallel universes. — Wayfarer

It could be argued that it's is our humansize-skewed scale perspective that makes the notion seem outlandish, where as in reality (given what we know about quantum mechanics) we should really be open to any theories which make sense mathematically.

Incidentally, I'm using the word 'scale' in a very wide sense, not simply to denote size but the parameters of humancentric experience.

That's what I meant when I said he isn't fully conversant. He he just repeating what he read elsewhere. Bohm' himself write it is causal but non-deterministic. It has to be so since the quantum potential, the initial conditions, is defined as a real probabilistic wave. The probabilistic aspect, Bohm said, could be consciousness.