because it’s cool.
“None the less, the universes are NOT parallel if they intersect.”
Exactly, and in fact a real parallel universe is one that has no possible relationship with us and ours, no possible logical connection with ours, not even the constraints of existence, non-contradiction and the identity principle, a universe that is totally disjoint from ours, totally outside of any possible decoding we can perform, totally not related in any possible logical or philosophical or metaphysical way. That is why real parallel universes exist only when the Observer becomes something different from our Man Brain, a new design of the Observer (a completely new design of Mind, Brain, Neural Circuits, Internal Logical Connections, Memory Organization, how it is all connected to Emotions and Sentiments, Pain and Pleasure events, circuits and systems, etc.) will create a new Experience Space for that new observer and hence will create a new Universe with completely new laws of Physics as the observer is simply the sequence of events the Observer Experiences by talking to itself, by interacting with matter, but as such is simply interacting with itself, inventing itself, creating its own universe moment by moment, it is simply an Information Relationship. It goes without saying that a parallel universe is totally illogical, contradictory, totally absurd, very far out, and very cool exactly because it is so different from what we are used to.
I like these new parallel universes, especially if they don’t exist (since they are beyond true and false and existence and non existence). But especially because even if what all I said is false, it is true, I can say and do all, I always win, I love lies and deceptions, I love complete insanity…
What the many worlds theory implies in Quantum Physics is simply many universes that are almost identical and similar to ours, with most logical and non-contradiction and Identity Principles always operating.
But you would have to check that out “experimentally”…
"How does two or more possible results result in two universes? "
Well you can invent anything you want, you can design a theory or logic or sequence of symbols that shows how that is possible, it doesn’t have to be “not illogical” or “not contradicting”, it doesn’t have to even be right, it just has to be fun, like a little game it can be anything you want, you are free to invent all and make up all kinds of stuff and all kinds of mistakes you want, lie to yourself, force any theory you want, break all the rules, you are free…
that’s what I meant by the flowing due to relativity, you don’t have a stable specific state to begin with, you have flowing states. If you are stood next to the clock it does not change relatively, its only as you move away on the train that it does. So we have two stances in any case, so we have to have two different outcomes. If Einstein looks at the clock he starts to think about the relativistic nature, if he didn’t then he wouldn’t. however he did and so such worldly events forced the issue in that particular case.
Certain occurences have to happen in the holistic world, a machine cog turns and the wheels go around, we don’t ever have the arbitrary case that sometimes they don’t turn then they do.
Hmm I suppose I am thinking of it all from the top down perspective, when perhaps you are more concerned with the bottom up version I.e. that it all happens at the QM level rather that that it occurs respectively to macro-mechanics. In that case perhaps it takes whatever pathway is available to it rather than making a choice?
I am inclined to think that we have to consider the whole in terms of the whole, that it doesn’t work on any particular level but on all levels. Everything is taken into the equation and >then< the decision is made respective to all parties involved. Or more probably there are no decisions made it just flows in the simplest manner.
…or what nameta9 said; random decisions are made because it doesnt know what to do. bad decisions die quickly perhaps? so we are left with a stable universe/result.
_
QM doesn’t concern itself with macroscopic objects – Einstein himself is not a quantum being, but rather a composite of millions, billions, trillions of quantum “particles” (if they can be called that).
First, I must say, I’m glad that James S Saint happened to honor my by speak of me. It’s an honor to have one’s name comeforth from Mr. Saints.
The Many Words Idea is covered by Max Tegmark here. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf
But there is Inflationary which gives rise to Multiverse, and there is Quantum Mechanics interpretation that uses the Multiverse, and there is just your any old Platonic idea that All mathematics exist in some realm, and these mathematics are actualized with a world that follows it’s formula. 
Why is a collection of QM less than a particular instance of wave function collapse ~ or have no effect et al? Our sat-nav’s wouldn’t work without adjustments for relativistic effects, nor would our spaceships travel in comparative time to the earth if they travelled fast enough [and they’d be an entire ’object’ rather than QM working aside from collections/objects]. I know this is relativity but at least that’s measurable.
I just think that with the quantum world we have to see the whole thing as fluid and entire, rather than in terms of particular objects. Is it not so that one thing can effect another at any part of the universe.
I didn’t really understand anything you said in your last post, except the last paragraph, which is more or less correct.
Anyway, one of the things you said in a previous post deserves clarification: you pointed out the possibility that Einstein wouldn’t have looked at a clock and then wouldn’t have discovered relativity, or something like that. So, let’s assume for a second that indeed there was a moment in time where Einstein was in a room with a clock, and that in the present universe we’re in he looked at the clock and subsequently – let’s even assume consequently – discovered relativity.
The possibility here that you’re referring to is not necessarily an actual possibility. In QM, we can talk about actual possible events which are different from what I’ll call pseudo-possible events. I’ll describe both. Keep in mind that these terms aren’t used in QM, I’m just using them to distinguish between an incorrect interpretation of QM and a correct one.
Actual Possible Events:
If we were to, say, run the double slit experiment, and let’s say we’re using a tool to measure which slit it goes through. Let’s say that in 1 minute we will shoot one photon through. It’s fairly accurate, according to our knowledge, to say that it’s actually possible for the photon to end up in any place behind the slits that isn’t completely blocked off (if we weren’t using a tool to measure which slit it goes through, it would be able to even end up in places that were blocked off). Now, MWI takes each actual possibility and makes a universe out of it, as we’ve discussed.
Pseudo-Possible Events:
Right now, you might say that it feels like you could go and jump off a balcony. It feels like you could run into the middle of a street in an attempt to get run over. It feels like you could go and get a pen and poke your eyes out. All of these events seem possible to you, but this kind of possible is not synonymous with actual possibility. The reason is, I think, fairly straight foreward: assume for a moment that MWI is true, and let’s just start at the moment that you started reading this post, ignore all parallel universes prior to that moment, and we’ll just worry about the parallel universes after that moment. Though these events may seem possible to you – you may think it’s possible to poke your eyes out – it may (and probably is) completely the case that no series of actually possible quantum events would lead to that outcome. No combination or permutation of quantum events would result in those actions happening, say, within the next five minutes. (I don’t KNOW that that’s the case, maybe all along you’ve been planning on poking your eyes out tonight). But, the point is that just because it feels possible doesn’t mean it’s actually possible. Just because it feels like you could do something doesn’t mean that any actual possible series of events would lead to that necessarily.
And, if we take Einstein at the moment he entered the room with the clock, and erased all parallel universes prior to that moment and focused on only the ones following from that moment, it may be that none of the subsequent parallel universes includes an Einstein that didn’t look at the clock.
Interesting post fj, thanks!
I meant that a collection of quantum effects may work together, rather than thinking of it all in terms of individual quantum superposition’s. The macroscopic world works like that e.g. if I move a glass with my hand, then all the QM effects in that action are working with the macroscopic set. Otherwise we would have to think of me moving the glass being done as an effort by the particulars.
This is also what I meant with the rocket moving faster in time than a man stood on earth, the rocket as an object is forcing the quantum decisions macroscopically ~ as an object.
Position 1. I agree that when the photon is shot through the slits it ‘acts like a bullet’ [as its often described] if its being ‘observed’ [I.e. something is making it act as expected for a particle and not a wave]. As such it can only move around like such an object can.
Position 2. Then if it is not being observed it can go anywhere even beyond where its blocked off. This is because it is no longer a single object but an entire ‘ocean’ or is otherwise EVERYWHERE at once. We could say analogously that the act of observing makes the ocean form into a droplet of water, and in the location at which it is being observed.
…hence it’s the observation from in a sense outside the ocean which makes quantum energy act as packets of energy, this is why I made the assumption that events in the world of objects create the effect to begin with. In other words QM are being determined by worldly occurences.
I agree with you’re position here. I think - if I may, that there is a series of most probable events, or even determined events, because as you say I would have had to have been thinking about poking my eyes out prior to the moments before and probably for some time prior to the decision to do so.
I assume then, that QM is based on decisions in the immediate timeframe of specific events.
What I mostly meant concerning Einstein was that there are always duel positions. The relativistic [moving away from the clock] and the still [the person stood next to the clock]. Just as relativity is also measured against light as the universal medium [the still].
Now we are getting somewhere, great stuff! 
_
fj, I understood and enjoyed your explanation of WMI, thank you.
Now, could you do a lateral pirouette over to the Debunk Free Will thread and explain to me why one doesn’t need to first believe in determinism before free will can be refuted and whether or not determinism is valid in all cases? That would help me so much with my quest. Thanks. --Liz
The only problem with this, there are two but I’ll stick with one, is that QM states that anything that can happen (which would be your Pseudo-Possible and Actual-Possible) will happen. You will walk through a wall, given enough time and that would seem to be a Pseudo-Possible. That’s a prediction of QM known as Quantum Tunneling. So your distinction doesn’t hold for QM.
I don’t think quantum tunneling means that any event will happen, it means that it can happen, though the chances are very low for some things. Infinite time, a multiverse of some kind and yes, then one could expect quantum tunneling to bring home certain seemingly impossible events. But that Jim will leap off a certain balcony on the 23rd of June this year is not in the least made certain by quantum tunneling.
I didn’t say that Quantum Tunneling means that any event will happen. Just that the QM predicts things like people walking through a wall, which is what Flannel would label as a Psuedo-Possible event. And possibles aren’t about certainty, whether actual or pseudo.
Thing is we never get fanciful occurences ~ I think that’s what fj was alluding to. Given enough time you wont walk through a wall, because the next set of events would occur and you’d act relative to them I.e. keep walking [moving from one event to the next] then smack your head against that wall.
Infinite time and universes would mean all events exist, and that would just be insane. …add infinite variance and you’ll see why [everything you can imagine and more would necessarily exist].
The most likely explanation is within the single universe I’d think. We cannot arrive at parallel universes due to the communications paradox ~ where info/communication would occur between universe at the point they divided, hence not parallel.
We cannot also ever prove they exist, and if we could they wouldn’t mean anything to our existence as there is absolutely no relationship to ours, another you is not you, another universe is meaningless to this universe.
If there are other universes or if the universe is infinite, then parallel universes are not the solution.
_
In addition to the formerly described positions…
Position 3. The universal superposition; does it exist? In all cases there is either position 1, or 2 occurring, in the case of position 1 no hypothetical parallel universe is formed, the photons and their actions are known. If then there is another universe built from all positions 2 [not observed], that would only represent a segment of superposition’s in a universe.
Therefore it is not the case that the entire universe duplicates itself.
All we know is that position 2 is universal [perhaps like an ocean], we don’t know if example x of a superposition that’s in position 2 [unknown] correlates with all other instances of the same across the universe. If any position 2’s correlate to any given other ‘y’ position 2’s, that would make them observed and return them to position 1.
Thus it seams most likely that no universal quantum superposition is even arrived at in such a context [other than an ocean], and thus no parallel universe occurs. At most it seems to me that you’d get a single instance of parallel-but-connected single particle universe. Perhaps in effect you’d have a soup of particles coming in and out of existence/universe.
Reference
[i]Position 1. I agree that when the photon is shot through the slits it ‘acts like a bullet’ [as its often described] if its being ‘observed’ [I.e. something is making it act as expected for a particle and not a wave]. As such it can only move around like such an object can.
Position 2. Then if it is not being observed it can go anywhere even beyond where its blocked off. This is because it is no longer a single object but an entire ‘ocean’ or is otherwise EVERYWHERE at once. We could say analogously that the act of observing makes the ocean form into a droplet of water, and in the location at which it is being observed. {this may be how particles are formed!}
…hence it’s the observation from in a sense outside the ocean which makes quantum energy act as packets of energy, this is why I made the assumption that events in the world of objects create the effect to begin with. In other words QM are being determined by worldly occurences.[/i]
_
This doesn’t hold with QM, because it’s not like one thing making contact with another, they pop up on the other side. Like they go from one shell to another shell without any intermediary action. It’s like going from 25pmh to 50mph without any intermediaries.
A multiverse doesn’t even change this prediction of QM. Even with one universe, it can happen. But this is considered a Pseudo-Possible, even though it’s an actual-possible for QM.
One thing I have missed from the whole equation is information and communication. It seems plausible to me that as all objects probably contain info about themselves, there would be an universal network of informations and communications betwixt them. ‘The decision problem’ is possibly addressed in terms of the information and relationships between informations.
On this side things always occur as expected. I haven’t seen any evidence for parallel worlds nor shall I, because they don’t interact hence there’s no way to know. As above I think the most likely explanation is that everything is resolved in this universe.
I still don’t see how a single quantum event in a superposition would effect every other, unless that is there is a relationship between them all [a communication of informations]. Then if that’s so it would all get resolved universally ~ as expected/normally.
I’m not saying anything about a parallel world. I’m just talking about what the theory says about this universe.
I guess your lack of response means you can’t. So be it.
volchok already tried to explain that. so have I in that thread a couple times. if you don’t want to try to understand what was presented, so be it.
But I want very much to understand it, yet I’m unable to do so. I’ve only asked that you explain what you and volchok were saying in the lucid and lucent way you explained MWI, which I understood. I’m not trying to pick a fight–I’m just trying to learn.