MMW is it valid or true?

I am much more intrigued by the idea that if there are multiple physical dimensia, then it has correspondences with mathematical infinite set theory. But, I think it ultimately fails.

Georg Cantor is famous for his diagonalization proof of sets larger than infinite sets in set theoretic mathematics. I see an analogue to this in the MMW (Many Worlds Interpretation) idea from QM physics.

But, physicist swork in a much more applied ground. They know that there are limiting categories. Such as Pauli’s Exclusion principle, that states no two identical particles (e.g. fermions) can have the same quantum number set. This principle means there are limits to matter in configuration space. So, mutiverses are not infinite. So much for its analogue with infinite set theory, it doesn’t apply I mean.

Further than this, does the MMW concept really imply worlds that exist in parallel to each iother? It is not testable in the tradition of science, emprically, and thus tentative. I want to believe it’s true, but find it w/o rigor, in its formulation, I can’t.

Forgive me for saying this, but in my field, mathematical logic consistency and validity can lead to falsity being true with just those qualities. That is you can just as well PROVE something is FALSE as well as you can the truth.

Positing there at coexisting realities based on an algebra of groups at the quantum level seems specious to me.

To see this, I a few weeks ago, I did an exercise. I assumed that instead of respecting the algebra law that -x- = + We assume it stills equals -. I found applying this change regularing to calculus calculations that many, I mean many calculations would come up with wrong values. Wrong in the sense that for instance, a load on a bridge would be positive, when it s/b negative. Imagine how that would upset engineers! My point is this: making a sweeping assumption about the nature or reality from a conclusion in QM might be in error. Though I like the idea.

I understand what you are saying, but assume that mathematics cannot explain this. Unless we have physical evidence no equation can be considered true because we do not have a true value to begin with.

Agreed Zero! That’s a some author name. But, not trying to establish the ascendancy of math over anything. I don’t think you took it that way, though your comments seems to imply that. Mr. Goedel showed us the weakness of formal logic with his Incompletness Theorem.

I’m suggesting that QM is where math logic was (and still is) with the quoted theorem above. It’s version is the MMW doctrine.

Interesting to note, Kurt Goedel never attempted and never proved that we have both incomplete and undecidable formalisms. Many say that would absurd because a system wouldn’t be a system. I can dig that.

On a related topic in QM, Entanglement seems much more well-founded, though just as strange.