Higgs boson?

[PKT_VOL]

Oh, yeah, and you were asking about my thoughts on the arrow of time. I think this is essentially what the link I provided the other day was dealing with, though, admittedly, I didn't read it that thoroughly. I was simply looking for a source, since I was at work and didn't have any books on hand.

So, during this period of inflation, an arrow of time begins, as we have created essentially a "new universe" even though it is just a local point of inflation in a much larger universe. But as the universe ages trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years to the point that it returns to a homogeneous universe with zero entropy. At this point, time ceases. But other points of inflation, elsewhere in the universe, are experiencing their own Big Bangs, and starting their own arrows of time.

Now the philosophical part. How can a period of inflation begin in a region of the universe with zero entropy, if there is no flow of time? Wouldn't you need to somehow advance time to a point where the inflation could start?

Well, I don't know. But that lends a bit of validity to the notion that time is simply an observance of the conscious mind. Maybe time itself still exists, but an observer wouldn't interpret it moving forward during this period of zero entropy. It wouldn't matter, of course, because there could be no observer in a zero entropy system.

Is time a local phenomenon, where each point in the universe, depending on the level of entropy, time is evolving at a different rate? Similar or even related to Einstein's relativity, where time moves at a different rate due to the effects of gravity.

Maybe it has to do more with entropy than gravity. As a point in space with more mass is going to have higher entropy. Hmmm.... Now my mind is wandering off. Trying to figure out if that's true.

Well, let me start of by saying it all depends on what you believe time is, what you believe the "flow" of time is, and what you believe the nature of time is.

For me, time is a function of 3-dimensional space. There are two ways of thinking about it, either is correct to me. You can simply think about our traditional 3-dimensional space but with an extra dimension connected in a way that would be perpendicular (it is impossible for humans to truly imagine this, but you get the point). Or you can think of it my favorite way being that of a movie reel where the images on the reel are infinitely small splices of 3-dimensional space with vector recognition. Time, or the "flow" of time then is the images moving through the projector at a rate of speed.

Now that we know where I am coming from with my idea of time, we can apply it your hypothetical.

First, zero entropy would not have an effect on my theory of time. Entropy only effects the matter and energy (the stuff) of the universe. It does not effect space. Thus, time would continue until there is no space. Now, the "flow" of time would cease to anyone "watching" such a reel because the stuff within space which gives the illusion of time "flowing" is not there. Basically, there are no points of reference at all where all the atoms are uniformly separated and at absolute zero.

Now to your second question about time in relation to inflation. It depends upon the nature of these "new" spots of inflation within the "old" universe. If they are just random spots of inflation that do not create their own space, meaning they quite literally just randomly and in a violent way spread matter and energy apart, then there would be no effect on time at all on a universal scale. However, there would fluctuations upon the perceived local time due to gravitational and velocity implications. If the "new" spots of inflation create their own space, then the time within that space would be its own separate entity.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Once again I say, just because you can move either direction in an equation does not say anything. Is there an equation that suggests time is non-directional?

Of course there are, all the laws in which time is included. Time either is non-directional or it moves in both directions simultaneously; it just depends on which way you want to look at it.

Study rejects faster than light particle finding | Reuters

I was merely pointing out that it is a possibility. I knew the discovery was hotly debated.

If I understand completely, the "collapse" would be the many different worlds, would it not? I don't see where decoherence is necessary.

Not following what your getting at.

No. It doesn't even do that. To use Occam's razor to suggest preference for any one theory over another, other than two theories that are completely identical other than one detail, is ridiculous. Mathematical or otherwise...

Your interpretation of Occam's razor is super-conservative. I obviously take a little bit more liberal of an interpretation. Although I don't use it to valid one theory over another. I feel there is a happy median between the two.

I've had a few glasses of wine, so I'll look over this in the morning and make sure it makes sense.

Also I'll get to your other posts.

Eh, not a fan of wine. I had a horrible jug of wine on a camping trip which ruined wine for me.

 

[Thrasher865]

From those questions and your answers, it shows that the flow of time is a human perspective. Thus, the "arrow of time" is also nothing more than a mere illusion.

I still think you're way off here. What you're doing is saying that mathematical equations don't restrict time to one direction, but how would they? Absolutely nothing has been proven to say that time is non-directional, and that the flow of time is an illusion to the observer. Of course, we may never understand this, as the entire universe is essentially an illusion to observers.

Lol, I see what you did there. Both sides have implicit evidence and neither side has explicit evidence. Thus, you have your interpretations.

It does seem collapse theory has a bit more "magic" with it though, in my opinion. MWI does sometimes seem like the cheap way out.

Hah. You think collapse theory has more "magic" to it, than an infinite number of worlds being spontaneously created every time something as simple as the ionization of an atom occurs? With no explanation for what causes these new worlds to spawn or why or when or from what?

It just means that we, the human perspective, cannot travel backwards or forwards for that matter in time. To us, we can only experience Presentism. Does that mean time does not move forward? Or move at all? That time does not exist?

Simply put, I think the mathematical model of time supports Eternalism. Thus, the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously.

Btw, you can see the projectile go backwards when recorded. On the film, the past, present (while filming), and the immediate future is all on tape. Depending on how you interpret it, time can seemingly move in either direction. Nice analogy to Eternalism.

The mathematical model doesn't support anything. The mathematics tend to explain all the other phenomena in the universe relative to time. Of course in an equation you can plug in whatever value you want for time. You can run the equations backwards. This says nothing about the direction of time itself.

In your opinion, although you say you don't know, do you believe time most resembles Presentism, Eternalism, or Growing Block Universe?

All three seem probable to me. I would lean toward Presentism, but not rule out the others. GBU doesn't seem logical, until you think about the expansion of space-time. That would conflict with eternal inflation, so it's certainly my least favorite of the three.

 

[Thrasher865]

Wait, what exactly are we talking about? If we are talking about perceptions, then I agree with you but only from a human aspect. If you are talking about no differences on a probability level of quantum mechanics of the universal wave function, then I am not sure we agree. Decoherence doesn't allow for the proper coherence of the universal wave function to come to light. There will never be clarity on that issue. So I am not sure how there can be "no micro differences" on the front, if that's what you meant.

Because there is not a localization of the particle. The wave function is identical for every observer, and evolves identically. The "micro differences" would be purely observed, and they would not be distinguishable.

The problem with this is that we use very scientific equipment to measure the outcome of our controlled experiment. It's not exactly our faulty human perspective at work.

Your "very scientific equipment" doesn't operate like it would seem you think it does. It cannot determine the location of a particle to a degree to disprove this. You act like we have tiny cameras that can pinpoint the location of an electron.

On an implications level, collapse theory is absolutely more simple than MWI. You would be correct to use Occam's razor in support of collapse theory. However, I look at the core issue, the mathematics, instead of the implications. Implications are just symptoms of the issue at hand.

No, I absolutely would not. You still don't grasp what I've been saying. You cannot use Occam's razor to decide between two opposing theories, unless the two theories are identical except for one detail.

The only time it would be okay to use it would be if you wanted to take collapse theory, and then add in multiple worlds. Well, in collapse theory, many worlds aren't necessary, so you would have to exclude them according to Occam's razor.

 

[Thrasher865]

Of course I believe this on a philosophical level. However, this has no implications on ultimate reality (the universal wave function); unless you believe it is automatically connected to our minds in some way (some people believe that our minds are connected to some central entity, and that is where our reality {although still subjective for the individual})

We are absolutely part of the wave function, so therefore we are definitely connected. There are no borders in the wave function.

I hate absolutes, as I have stated before. Everything is relative.

Okay, when I say absolute, I mean anything that is not infinite. And yet, you are perfectly fine with an infinitely many worlds.

I don't view it like that; I view it as if they already exist in a different phase space.

Well, then you aren't in agreement with the generally accepted form of MWI.

I am not sure I follow. Are you stating the external world doesn't exist? I am not sure you can say that the universal wave function (or something like that) does not exist while simultaneously believing the external world (anything outside your mind) exist.

It doesn't exist physically. Precisely what I said. It is only information that we interpret. The particles do have mass, and we don't yet know what the property of mass is. Maybe we will find the Higgs Boson soon and hopefully answer that question.

 

[Thrasher865]

Interesting. Why?

There is no explicit or implicit evidence either way, so I cannot answer that question. Perhaps because in an infinite universe, with possibly infinite number of worlds, it seems outrageous for all of this to occur over an infinite period of eternally existing time.

 

[Thrasher865]

Collapse theory will always be wayyyyy more complex mathematically than MWI.

You tune out half of what I say, don't you? MWI is "simpler mathematically" because it cannot be explained with mathematics. I argued that if there were a way to explain it mathematically, that it would be infinitely more complex.

You cannot compare mathematical complexity, because (1) it doesn't matter. Occam's razor is not to be used here. And (2) you can't compare mathematical complexity of an interpretation that hasn't even been explained mathematically. This seems like common sense to me.

 

[Thrasher865]

That backs up my proposal. The only thing we would disagree on is the relative simplicity, mathematically speaking, of MWI vs collapse theory.

No, it doesn't at all! You have real selective reading glasses.

Are you completely skipping over the phrase "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

MWI and collapse theory make completely different predictions.

 

[Thrasher865]

Entirely possible. Would the Big Bang/Inflation be like a true Big Bang or a random influx of inflation? I would imagine a Big Bang because you say another universe.

My intention in putting "another universe" in quotes was to say that it would appear to be another universe from inside it, but would in fact be part of the greater, global universe.

How would the Big Bang originate? A random influx of the current universal wave function? I guess the new Big Bang would have the same universal wave function albeit a different starting condition and information. Or would the "random influx of the current universal wave function" cause an EXACT duplicate of our Big Bang, thus an EXACT duplicate of our universe? If so, eternal return happens, just in a different way than Big Bang/Big Crunch or phase space initiated eternal return; Nietzsche would be happily vindicated.

No, I don't see how this would relate to eternal return. There could be many, many universes popping up all the time. Each one would be different and would contain its own arrow of time. Perhaps the nature of the big bang would determine the nature of the arrow of time.

Btw...what would happen a human (although I know not possible given your hypothetical, but then again, its a hypothetical so I might as well add my own flavor to it) that is wondering in a defined space of the "old" universe. He is relatively close to the spot of the "new" Big Bang. What happens during inflation when the parameters/perimeters of the "new" universe reach him?

I think that necessarily, there could not be any organized matter anywhere near the point of inflation. So, there's no point in postulating how it would appear.

 

[Thrasher865]

Well, let me start of by saying it all depends on what you believe time is, what you believe the "flow" of time is, and what you believe the nature of time is.

For me, time is a function of 3-dimensional space. There are two ways of thinking about it, either is correct to me. You can simply think about our traditional 3-dimensional space but with an extra dimension connected in a way that would be perpendicular (it is impossible for humans to truly imagine this, but you get the point). Or you can think of it my favorite way being that of a movie reel where the images on the reel are infinitely small splices of 3-dimensional space with vector recognition. Time, or the "flow" of time then is the images moving through the projector at a rate of speed.

Now that we know where I am coming from with my idea of time, we can apply it your hypothetical.

First, zero entropy would not have an effect on my theory of time. Entropy only effects the matter and energy (the stuff) of the universe. It does not effect space. Thus, time would continue until there is no space. Now, the "flow" of time would cease to anyone "watching" such a reel because the stuff within space which gives the illusion of time "flowing" is not there. Basically, there are no points of reference at all where all the atoms are uniformly separated and at absolute zero.

Now to your second question about time in relation to inflation. It depends upon the nature of these "new" spots of inflation within the "old" universe. If they are just random spots of inflation that do not create their own space, meaning they quite literally just randomly and in a violent way spread matter and energy apart, then there would be no effect on time at all on a universal scale. However, there would fluctuations upon the perceived local time due to gravitational and velocity implications. If the "new" spots of inflation create their own space, then the time within that space would be its own separate entity.

I like to think that a period of inflation would bring with it its own space. Although just because it forces existing matter outward in existing space, does not mean that within the cosmological horizon there is no separate arrow of time. If time is indeed dependent on the flow of entropy, then this new low entropy area of the universe would experience a flow of time that the "empty" universe around it was not experiencing.

So, let's talk about causation. If you believe in Eternalism, then you believe in fate? You believe you have no control over your actions, you are simply an observer?

 

[Thrasher865]

Of course there are, all the laws in which time is included. Time either is non-directional or it moves in both directions simultaneously; it just depends on which way you want to look at it.

Can't argue this point anymore.

Not following what your getting at.

That there is no necessity for a collapse, because the creation of many worlds account for all the different possibilities.

Your interpretation of Occam's razor is super-conservative. I obviously take a little bit more liberal of an interpretation. Although I don't use it to valid one theory over another. I feel there is a happy median between the two.

There's not. If you want to do that, then use "the rule of simplicity," which is a more liberal interpretation of the razor. It would still be a ridiculous thing to postulate that the simpler theory has any more merit than the other.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I still think you're way off here. What you're doing is saying that mathematical equations don't restrict time to one direction, but how would they? Absolutely nothing has been proven to say that time is non-directional, and that the flow of time is an illusion to the observer. Of course, we may never understand this, as the entire universe is essentially an illusion to observers.

1) Nothing about time is proven beyond the fact that gravity and velocity have an effect upon time.

2) Time in the natural law equations does not have direction. However, depending on how you interpret them, time is either non-directional (static) or bi-directional.

Where am I going wrong?

I agree that the entire universe is essentially an illusion.

Is there any reason to believe that the flow of time is not an illusion to the observer?

Hah. You think collapse theory has more "magic" to it,

On a mathematical scale, yes.

than an infinite number of worlds being spontaneously created every time something as simple as the ionization of an atom occurs? With no explanation for what causes these new worlds to spawn or why or when or from what?

It definitely seems unnatural and a cheap way out as I said before. As to how it works, as I said before, I believe it is a function of phase space.

The mathematical model doesn't support anything. The mathematics tend to explain all the other phenomena in the universe relative to time. Of course in an equation you can plug in whatever value you want for time. You can run the equations backwards. This says nothing about the direction of time itself.

You take such a skeptical view of the equations. To me, the mere fact that you can plug any value into the equations and have the equations work perfectly is proof (to me) that time is not unidirectional. If time was truly unidirectional (towards the future), the equations should not run correctly backwards.

All three seem probable to me. I would lean toward Presentism, but not rule out the others. GBU doesn't seem logical, until you think about the expansion of space-time. That would conflict with eternal inflation, so it's certainly my least favorite of the three.

Interesting given how you seemingly perceive time.

In presentism, there is no time. Time doesn't exist so their is no flow of time and no "arrow of time" as you postulate.

GBU is the most logical with our experiences. We have proof of the past and we believe we are living in the present with the future undetermined. I am not sure how eternal inflation would be at odds with GBU.

Eternalism is nuts. Then again, I think it is the most fascinating; it's a wonder why I champion this version of time.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Because there is not a localization of the particle. The wave function is identical for every observer, and evolves identically. The "micro differences" would be purely observed, and they would not be distinguishable.

So the universal wave function is strenuously determined? Absolutely no probability involved?

Your "very scientific equipment" doesn't operate like it would seem you think it does. It cannot determine the location of a particle to a degree to disprove this. You act like we have tiny cameras that can pinpoint the location of an electron.

I understand this, however, my point was that it was independent of direct human interpretation.

No, I absolutely would not. You still don't grasp what I've been saying. You cannot use Occam's razor to decide between two opposing theories, unless the two theories are identical except for one detail.

The only time it would be okay to use it would be if you wanted to take collapse theory, and then add in multiple worlds. Well, in collapse theory, many worlds aren't necessary, so you would have to exclude them according to Occam's razor.

Yes, in your very strict interpretation of Occam's razor, one cannot. If you have a slightly more liberal interpretation Occam's razor, like I do, then you can use it to determine which one is more reasonable on a personal level. You still cannot use it to scientifically accept one theory over another one.

 

[PKT_VOL]

We are absolutely part of the wave function, so therefore we are definitely connected. There are no borders in the wave function.

The above quote and does not harmonize with this:

Because that's what I've been saying. The only thing that matters is how we interpret the universe individually.

One within the universal wave function cannot possibly analyze itself. It would be akin to saying that the universe wave function interpreting itself. Very Inception-like. Then again, I believe in different levels of reality similar to Inception. I just want to point out what the implications of what you are saying.

Okay, when I say absolute, I mean anything that is not infinite.

What? That makes no sense. I'm not following you.

And yet, you are perfectly fine with an infinitely many worlds.

It would be relative.

Well, then you aren't in agreement with the generally accepted form of MWI.

Eh, most don't think about it past the split from our universe.

It doesn't exist physically. Precisely what I said. It is only information that we interpret. The particles do have mass, and we don't yet know what the property of mass is. Maybe we will find the Higgs Boson soon and hopefully answer that question.

It's circular reasoning. If everything is only information and does not exist physically (I don't disagree), then that same concept applies to the mind/brain. You would have information trying to analyze information simultaneously; which is ridiculous. It would be circular. Thus nothing really exist at all except empty information, us included.

 

[PKT_VOL]

There is no explicit or implicit evidence either way, so I cannot answer that question. Perhaps because in an infinite universe, with possibly infinite number of worlds, it seems outrageous for all of this to occur over an infinite period of eternally existing time.

The possibility of other worlds would be inconsequential to time.

You said you lean towards Presentism and an arrow of time. Where does the past go?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You tune out half of what I say, don't you? MWI is "simpler mathematically" because it cannot be explained with mathematics. I argued that if there were a way to explain it mathematically, that it would be infinitely more complex.

You cannot compare mathematical complexity, because (1) it doesn't matter. Occam's razor is not to be used here. And (2) you can't compare mathematical complexity of an interpretation that hasn't even been explained mathematically. This seems like common sense to me.

I agree with you tentatively but for different reasons. The MWI universe is mathematically simpler because when it gets to a certain point, it believes that the other side of the equation (I am very loose with my language here) simply disappears into another universe. Collapse theory does not. It has both sides, the side observed and all possibilities, coming together. It makes it more complex. The problem with it (for me) is that there is no rhyme or reason to how it collapses. Like I said before, MWI seems like a cheap way out at times.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No, it doesn't at all! You have real selective reading glasses.

Are you completely skipping over the phrase "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

MWI and collapse theory make completely different predictions.

Within our universe, they make the same predictions (end game). They both attempt to explain how the universal wave function probability gets from many different possibilities to what we experience everyday in our universe. The implications of MWI is irrelevant outside our universe.

 

[PKT_VOL]

My intention in putting "another universe" in quotes was to say that it would appear to be another universe from inside it, but would in fact be part of the greater, global universe.

Ah, Inception-like. Just different levels of reality.

No, I don't see how this would relate to eternal return. There could be many, many universes popping up all the time. Each one would be different and would contain its own arrow of time. Perhaps the nature of the big bang would determine the nature of the arrow of time.

You completely misread my input. Reread it and see if it makes sense to you. A new arrow of time would happen, but it would be irrelevant to how eternal return would happen in my response.

I think that necessarily, there could not be any organized matter anywhere near the point of inflation. So, there's no point in postulating how it would appear.

You completely missed the point. There doesn't need to be organized matter. There will be matter there regardless of how simplified. The real point is what happens to that matter when the edge of the "new" universe reaches it? Think of an observer on a mountain (outside the grand "old" universe) looking down upon this phenomenon.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I like to think that a period of inflation would bring with it its own space. Although just because it forces existing matter outward in existing space, does not mean that within the cosmological horizon there is no separate arrow of time. If time is indeed dependent on the flow of entropy, then this new low entropy area of the universe would experience a flow of time that the "empty" universe around it was not experiencing.

So, let's talk about causation. If you believe in Eternalism, then you believe in fate? You believe you have no control over your actions, you are simply an observer?

It depends on what you mean by fate? If an observer is looking (from an outside perspective down) at our current universe, more specifically, our current phase space on a continuum of time, then yes, our phase space/universe is determined. But this view does not entail "fate" in the classical sense that we are accustom to.

To your second question, it depends. With respect to our current perspective looking towards the future, I do believe we have control over our own actions. However, if we are looking at our actions from the future within our own phase space, then no, our actions are strictly determined. Phase spaces are constantly in a state of flux (on the move).

I am sure that doesn't makes sense. I have a fairly different view of things. If you have more questions about it, I will gladly answer them.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Can't argue this point anymore.

Eh, I tried to explain it from a different point of view in my latest round of responses. Hopefully, I made some headway here.

That there is no necessity for a collapse, because the creation of many worlds account for all the different possibilities.

There is necessity for collapse. When it collapses, it causes a split from our universe. The different possibilities of collapse drive this process.

There's not. If you want to do that, then use "the rule of simplicity," which is a more liberal interpretation of the razor. It would still be a ridiculous thing to postulate that the simpler theory has any more merit than the other.

Maybe, but human nature is going to make you lean towards one more than the other (even if it is only ever so slightly).

 

[Thrasher865]

You take such a skeptical view of the equations. To me, the mere fact that you can plug any value into the equations and have the equations work perfectly is proof (to me) that time is not unidirectional. If time was truly unidirectional (towards the future), the equations should not run correctly backwards.

I guess you don't work with equations on a daily basis? The fact that they "run correctly backwards" means nothing to me. If we know the nature of a systems behavior as we run it forward, then we can reverse the process mathematically and predict where it was at a time in the past.

I draw zero conclusions based on that. I still believe we have no way of knowing whether time is directional or not.

Interesting given how you seemingly perceive time.

In presentism, there is no time. Time doesn't exist so their is no flow of time and no "arrow of time" as you postulate.

GBU is the most logical with our experiences. We have proof of the past and we believe we are living in the present with the future undetermined. I am not sure how eternal inflation would be at odds with GBU.

Eternalism is nuts. Then again, I think it is the most fascinating; it's a wonder why I champion this version of time.

Then I guess I follow growing block universe. I don't know these philosophical terms very well. I do not believe that the past still exists.

Eternalism is nuts. That was what I believed until about 2 or 3 years ago, when I started seriously reading about quantum mechanics and cosmology. I think it's because I liked to believe the most crazy out there stuff. It's like ghosts and the supernatural. You WANT to believe it's true, your brain just won't let you.

 

[Thrasher865]

So the universal wave function is strenuously determined? Absolutely no probability involved?

No there is lots of probability involved. The thing is, when the wave function evolves from t=0 to some other time in the near future, the new and old forms of the wave function are probabilities of the location of every bit of matter in the universe.

To calculate probabilities from all the known probabilities at t=0, you are only going to get 1 universal wave function. It's not like if you were going to calculate the location of everything at time t. If you are calculating the probability of the location of all matter, there is only 1 answer.

Does that make sense? I'm having difficulty explaining it.

Yes, in your very strict interpretation of Occam's razor, one cannot. If you have a slightly more liberal interpretation Occam's razor, like I do, then you can use it to determine which one is more reasonable on a personal level. You still cannot use it to scientifically accept one theory over another one.

Well, then let me just say, you're doing it wrong. In quantum physics, the more complex theory is the better theory more often than not. Occam's razor shouldn't even enter the discussion. You go with the theory that provides the most evidence. At this point, it's kind of a wash.

 

[Thrasher865]

The above quote and does not harmonize with this:

How do the two not harmonize?

One within the universal wave function cannot possibly analyze itself. It would be akin to saying that the universe wave function interpreting itself. Very Inception-like. Then again, I believe in different levels of reality similar to Inception. I just want to point out what the implications of what you are saying.

Okay, explain to me why this is not possible.

What? That makes no sense. I'm not following you.

If something were absolute, it would not be infinite. Sorry for the confusion.

It would be relative.

I don't follow you there. Relative to what? Infinite is infinite...

Eh, most don't think about it past the split from our universe.

Why? Most think about the split itself. And most believe that it is created by some nature. So what is this nature of creation of new worlds?

It's circular reasoning. If everything is only information and does not exist physically (I don't disagree), then that same concept applies to the mind/brain. You would have information trying to analyze information simultaneously; which is ridiculous. It would be circular. Thus nothing really exist at all except empty information, us included.

Yes.... I don't see the problem. We are only bits of information as well. Maybe there is something supernatural going on, but I don't think so. The universal wave function is one entity. But, that doesn't mean that smaller systems within the greater whole couldn't act independently. They still would not be separated from the greater system.

 

[Thrasher865]

The possibility of other worlds would be inconsequential to time.

You said you lean towards Presentism and an arrow of time. Where does the past go?

It doesn't "go" anywhere. The universe just continues to evolve. I've made it clear to you that I don't believe time is similar in nature to a spatial dimension.

 

[Thrasher865]

I agree with you tentatively but for different reasons. The MWI universe is mathematically simpler because when it gets to a certain point, it believes that the other side of the equation (I am very loose with my language here) simply disappears into another universe. Collapse theory does not. It has both sides, the side observed and all possibilities, coming together. It makes it more complex. The problem with it (for me) is that there is no rhyme or reason to how it collapses. Like I said before, MWI seems like a cheap way out at times.

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to collapse. Like I've been saying, the collapse could be interpretative.