0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is only an interpretation where you need many worlds to conserve causality (probabilistic universe). This is an ancient idea if you want my opinion. The pilot wave theory does not need it. But science-fiction is a best seller...
Not to pick a fight with Hawking, but isn't the existence of parallel universes an extra assumption above and beyond the math?
The math doesn't say anything about additional universes, just what the result of measurements is. In fact, the multi-universe interpretations of the math were developed to match the theory, so the fact that theory (or experiment) agrees with them isn't really evidence that they're correct, is it?
This is why, I thought, the Copenhagen interpretation was the most widely accepted, while the others introduce extra complexity.
sorry JP, i didn't read your post before posting myself. You shouldn't hide my post though. Just cut my link if it is in disagreement with the rules...?I have nothing against Hawking, in the contrary.
Quote from: JP on 24/09/2012 03:11:44Not to pick a fight with Hawking, but isn't the existence of parallel universes an extra assumption above and beyond the math?No, it's the other way around, you have to add an assumption to get rid of them, like pilot waves, wavefunction collapse.