In the interest of not leaving you hanging, I think it’s time to finish up the poem from last Saturday. Wednesday we’re back to talking about opinion, which I’m pretty excited for it. Given Wednesday’s post was so long, here it is without further ado.
But there are some objections which could give us pause,
some who maintain that the theory has flaws.
A staunch group of people with a constant fixation
who wish for a more concrete confirmation
of these other universes which we have not found,
though infinite in number, there’s just one around.
The question they’re posing is “How to we know?
How can we find out when these new worlds grow?
When is the moment in which they spring forth,
the one discrete instant of universe’s birth?
How are we expected in this to believe
if there is no evidence of claims to receive?
If these things exist so fundamentally apart,
how can we know that they simply start?
Where is the evidence that things work this way,
the fact of the matter their existence displays?”
In short if such things are noninterfering,
how can we know that they are appearing?
The answer to this insistent oration
is that of inference to best explanation.
We cannot see air but can feel its sensation
and in that way are there multiversal indications.
Of all the alternatives we’ve considered you’ll see,
that the multiverse is simply the way it must be.
Or would you rather just posit collapse,
and indulge in the consistent logical lapse
that superposition in its way provides
or rather believe that the world just divides?
For surely we don’t believe it’s the case
that particles are nowhere and in every place.
There must be some fact to the matter, it’s true,
or just what can our linear dynamics do?
What can quantum mechanics say about the world
when in each measurement infinite outcomes unfurl?
No, with many worlds comes far less complication,
for every particle has but one fixed location.
Our linear dynamics are seen as complete,
no hidden variables, each quanta discrete.
With respect to relativity we can see our way through,
and it resolves the issue of nonlocality too,
by fixing each thing in its place in this world,
even particles which through our cyclotrons whirl.
Superposition exists for a time that’s for sure,
but there’s an idea on which we can rest secure,
that each time we measure a new world’s created,
leaving all of our major league issues negated.
There is another issue, just a niggling one,
if every outcome occurs what do odds become?
How do we justify our beliefs about chance
when adopting this particular many worlds stance?
We can’t say we’re uncertain, it’s a fact that we know,
we no longer have doubts about how things will go.
Surely this would be grounds for rejecting the theory,
the consequences of which we’re just a bit leery,
for how much of our lives rest on risking it all
and dreading the day life throws a curve ball.
Now we’d dread no longer, that much is true,
but can someone describe just what we would do?
How do we live in the world this entails,
when everything happens and everything fails?
For each quantum occurrence a new world is born,
but which one do we live in? That’s where we’re torn.
If we’re to cope with probability’s elimination,
tell us then how we should have expectations.
This is a quandary, of that there’s no doubt,
if the theory is true, then what’s this about?
How ought we to decide about planning ahead
when in every motion both outcomes are read?
The answer to this is simple, it seems.
Go about life as normal, and have normal dreams.
All outcomes occur, that much is for certain,
but that hasn’t removed uncertainty’s curtain.
In this particular world one outcome abides,
and everyday rules of probability apply.
Just ask not what the odds are of getting things done
but instead “Out of all worlds, am I in the right one?”
The odds on that seem to mirror any classical calculation,
and will likely abide by our normal causation.
And now’s the time to bring this paper to close,
the arguments done, the poem composed.
But first a recap and some final remarks
on the many worlds theory and debate it has sparked.
First I’ve described the problem of measure
and then elaborated on this theoretical treasure.
Parrying an epistemic assay,
the fears of the odds-minded were then allayed.
From here I suppose it need only be said,
if you’ve degree in your pocket or brain in your head,
that many worlds theory is best, hands down,
deserving of quantum mechanical crown.
And to those who’d accuse me of hyperbole,
I can’t imagine just what better option there’d be.
