Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.

We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.
One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).
But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!
So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
The Photon Collapse Interpretation posits far fewer photons, and doesn't strain our credulity by suggesting that we believe in a huge number of unobservable entities. Clearly it is vastly preferable on the basis of Occam's Razor.
Wait, say the Many-Photons proponents. That's not simple. Who cares how many photons there are, or whether we can see them? What matters is the simplicity of the underlying concepts, and whether or not the predictions fit the data. Who cares if you can't observe every photon?
And this whole "collapse" thing is completely ad hoc. Not to mention clunky, unnecessary, and ill-defined. You aren't actually concerned with simplicity or scientific integrity, you're just reluctant to accept things you can't see for yourself.
Nonsense, insist the collapsers. Science is about what we observe. Positing unobservable entities is extravagant, wasteful, and undermines the very nature of science and the Enlightenment project. Who knows to what kind of hideous relativism it will lead?
https://t.co/G19NR7Hvwa
I'm on the Many-Photon side of things. Simplicity is judged by your concepts, not how many entities are in your theory. Happy 90th, HEIII!

More from Science

You May Also Like

Nano Course On Python For Trading
==========================
Module 1

Python makes it very easy to analyze and visualize time series data when you’re a beginner. It's easier when you don't have to install python on your PC (that's why it's a nano course, you'll learn python...

... on the go). You will not be required to install python in your PC but you will be using an amazing python editor, Google Colab Visit
https://t.co/EZt0agsdlV

This course is for anyone out there who is confused, frustrated, and just wants this python/finance thing to work!

In Module 1 of this Nano course, we will learn about :

# Using Google Colab
# Importing libraries
# Making a Random Time Series of Black Field Research Stock (fictional)

# Using Google Colab

Intro link is here on YT: https://t.co/MqMSDBaQri

Create a new Notebook at https://t.co/EZt0agsdlV and name it AnythingOfYourChoice.ipynb

You got your notebook ready and now the game is on!
You can add code in these cells and add as many cells as you want

# Importing Libraries

Imports are pretty standard, with a few exceptions.
For the most part, you can import your libraries by running the import.
Type this in the first cell you see. You need not worry about what each of these does, we will understand it later.