MWI for dummies?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:44 pm

MWI for dummies?

I am a bit tired of wacky theories about multi-worlds, so can someone please explain in the simplest and most concise terms possible exactly what the basis behind it is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_theory
MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely[13] many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.

Firstly I’d think that at most there’s a very large number [non-denumerable] rather than an infinite amount of universe.
I’d question if infinity can have a beginning [in philosophy not math I.e. in real not metaphoric terms].
I don’t believe you can have an event and indeed a universal set of events that occur without there being information and communication about that. …and hence distinct and separate universes.
Observing is an inept use of terms, conscious observation or otherwise looking at something does not change anything.
You cannot change history, it is fixed, you cannot not have done something that you have done. An event occurred how it occurred and then no longer exists.

wiki
The many-worlds interpretation shares many similarities with later, other "post-Everett" interpretations of quantum mechanics which also use decoherence to explain the process of measurement or wavefunction collapse.

Fundamentally:
Why does decoherence lead to two or more universes? Why does it not simply mean that there are many possible outcomes within the single universe?

Why does measurement change anything? I can understand that making an interaction can change something, but can that rightly be thought of as ‘measuring’ or ‘observing’?

Do we ultimately have something very simple which has been wrapped up in fancy language, that we are all confused by it all because we are using the wrong terms which throw us of the trail - so to speak?
Really what we have here is an inability to qualify reality in usualy scientific terms, its simply more fuid than any explanation or interpretation can possibly represent.
_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:33 pm

It's just a fairytale to bemuse those who insist on believing in ghosts and hobgoblins, something to add mystique to science and technology. A part of the competition with the other religions to capture the imagination of the [Zen]Kitty's.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:59 pm

Ok, yea perhaps that’s it, I was just wondering what makes scientist believe in it?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:04 pm

If "scientists" don't believe in it, why would science be interesting?
Theoretical physics is merely Sci-Fi in real life rather than merely in Hollywood.
As a motion picture, most people accept that such things are fantasy, but if a university professor teaches it as "theoretical fact", it has much greater impact on the unsuspecting dummies.
While of course, preaching with the same hand of how foolishly fictional the other religions are.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Moreno » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:34 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:Fundamentally:
Why does decoherence lead to two or more universes? Why does it not simply mean that there are many possible outcomes within the single universe?
There is no consensus on many worlds. But the advantage of many worlds is that it retains determnism. If there is a single world, then events are probablistic rather than deterministic.

Why does measurement change anything? I can understand that making an interaction can change something, but can that rightly be thought of as ‘measuring’ or ‘observing’?
It seems that observing IS interacting.

Do we ultimately have something very simple which has been wrapped up in fancy language, that we are all confused by it all because we are using the wrong terms which throw us of the trail - so to speak?
I don't think so. I am pretty sure it is strange from our perspective.

Really what we have here is an inability to qualify reality in usualy scientific terms, its simply more fuid than any explanation or interpretation can possibly represent.
Many physicists do not buy the many worlds explanation and many consider it untestable. But it has advantages and is coherent.
By the way, there are quite a number of multiverse hypotheses.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:27 am

As someone who accepts and has read a number of papers on MWI, perhaps I can answer some of your quesitons:
quetzalcoatl wrote:Firstly I’d think that at most there’s a very large number [non-denumerable] rather than an infinite amount of universe.

I would agree. The number is very large, and increasingly massively each moment. Presumably there are billions upon billions of quantum events going on each second, and each one of them has at least 2, and at most...well, at most is pretty fuckin high...possible results, and since in MW each possible result is it's own universe, some astronomical number of parallel universes presumably gets created every second.

Observing is an inept use of terms, conscious observation or otherwise looking at something does not change anything.

Observing doesn't mean conscious observation in the context of quantum physics. Indeed, the use of the term "observation" is a big source of confusion for people who talk about quantum physics without taking the time to look into it at any depth. The quantum vocabulary may consist of words that have connotations to the every-man, and the QM use of those words often completely rejects those connotations. Sometimes, that's much simpler than just creating a new word: just use an old one, that's vaguely similar in the idea it conveys, and ignore the dissimilarities. A big portion of language is a metaphor, afterall.

Why does decoherence lead to two or more universes? Why does it not simply mean that there are many possible outcomes within the single universe?

Well, here's the deal: if there are many possible outcomes, but only a single universe, which one is chosen? How does the universe choose which one happens? Most non-MW interpretations call this "choice" collapse. IE all the different possibilities collapse (I think I have this correctly) into one reality. However, the reason why the idea of collapse is unattractive to many quantum physicists is that they don't understand the mechanism for collapse -- they don't understand how the universes chooses which one among the possibilities is to become the real one. I couldn't be sure myself, but I've read and heard many people say that experiments actually rule out collapse. I couldn't say if that's true or not, but it's something to consider. At the very least though, we don't have any evidence for collapse, i think...

So, MW, instead of proposing that the universe chooses one of the possibilities, just says that each possibility is realized. There are also, from what I've heard (though I couldn't say for sure again), significant pieces of experimental evidence for this.

Why does measurement change anything? I can understand that making an interaction can change something, but can that rightly be thought of as ‘measuring’ or ‘observing’?

Someone else correctly pointed out that to measure IS to interact. The act of measuring requires an interaction. Invariably.

It's not clear to me what percentage of quantum physicists and theorists accept MW. Some sources say up to 58%. Some people say that quantum physics IS many worlds -- they believe that, given all the evidence from quantum physics, there is no other conclusion to be made. The two terms -- QM and MW -- are practically synonymous, according to them. I couldn't say with any authority that that's true, I don't know.

I find it a really fun topic. Hope I answered some questions. I'm no expert though, so if I gave any misleading information or was unclear about anything...well, just take what I say with a grain of salt.

Lesswrong has a series of articles about QM, from the MWI point of view. Perhaps you can find something of value in there.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:05 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:
quetzalcoatl wrote:Firstly I’d think that at most there’s a very large number [non-denumerable] rather than an infinite amount of universe.

I would agree. The number is very large, and increasingly massively each moment. Presumably there are billions upon billions of quantum events going on each second, and each one of them has at least 2, and at most...well, at most is pretty fuckin high...possible results, and since in MW each possible result is it's own universe, some astronomical number of parallel universes presumably gets created every second.

The universe has no bounds and is thus infinite. There is no alternative despite the fanciful imaginings of the Quantum Magi.

Flannel Jesus wrote:
Observing is an inept use of terms, conscious observation or otherwise looking at something does not change anything.

Observing doesn't mean conscious observation in the context of quantum physics. Indeed, the use of the term "observation" is a big source of confusion for people who talk about quantum physics without taking the time to look into it at any depth. The quantum vocabulary may consist of words that have connotations to the every-man, and the QM use of those words often completely rejects those connotations. Sometimes, that's much simpler than just creating a new word: just use an old one, that's vaguely similar in the idea it conveys, and ignore the dissimilarities. A big portion of language is a metaphor, afterall.

Largely true.
If you look into REAL QM, you find that what they are talking about has little to nothing to do with what you hear people profess that they have said. The confusion and ambiguity is quite intentional, but as FJ stated, you have to know what "they" actually meant when they made their statements.

Flannel Jesus wrote:
Why does decoherence lead to two or more universes? Why does it not simply mean that there are many possible outcomes within the single universe?

Well, here's the deal: if there are many possible outcomes, but only a single universe, which one is chosen? How does the universe choose which one happens? Most non-MW interpretations call this "choice" collapse. IE all the different possibilities collapse (I think I have this correctly) into one reality. However, the reason why the idea of collapse is unattractive to many quantum physicists is that they don't understand the mechanism for collapse -- they don't understand how the universes chooses which one among the possibilities is to become the real one. I couldn't be sure myself, but I've read and heard many people say that experiments actually rule out collapse. I couldn't say if that's true or not, but it's something to consider. At the very least though, we don't have any evidence for collapse, i think...

My first reaction to that paragraph was to laugh, but actually reading it further, FJ pretty properly sums it up. "They don't know the cause" and don't want to say that there is one that they can't see, therefore it is left open for the speculation that no "choice" was made, but rather all of the options were evenly taken. They will do anything to avoid that "choice" element as it implies a Chooser and a determiner, an actual "God" that they cannot see. Thus they say, "no choice was made", "All events took place. You merely ended up with one of the very many still going on." Of course, they don't respond when one asks, "But what determined the choice of which one I ended up with as my reality?"

All of this is of course ignoring that there can only be one reality in the first place (by definition). Something is either real or it isn't and all that is real culminates the concept of the one category called "Reality".

Flannel Jesus wrote:So, MW, instead of proposing that the universe chooses one of the possibilities, just says that each possibility is realized. There are also, from what I've heard (though I couldn't say for sure again), significant pieces of experimental evidence for this.

I'll guarantee that there has never been the slightest evidence, nor can there ever be. The entire philosophy is void of rationality.

Flannel Jesus wrote:
Why does measurement change anything? I can understand that making an interaction can change something, but can that rightly be thought of as ‘measuring’ or ‘observing’?

Someone else correctly pointed out that to measure IS to interact. The act of measuring requires an interaction. Invariably.

That is almost true.
As was recently demonstrated with the Entanglement experiment, one actually can measure a thing without touching it. But of course, they have to actually use reasoning in the process, thus it is almost never done.

Flannel Jesus wrote:It's not clear to me what percentage of quantum physicists and theorists accept MW. Some sources say up to 58%. Some people say that quantum physics IS many worlds -- they believe that, given all the evidence from quantum physics, there is no other conclusion to be made. The two terms -- QM and MW -- are practically synonymous, according to them. I couldn't say with any authority that that's true, I don't know.

It is all sociopolitics and persuasion of the masses for sake of influence. Actual Science has nothing to do with it.

Flannel Jesus wrote:I find it a really fun topic.

And is a large part of the goal. Capture the imaginations of the young and naive so as to ensure they do not attend to the competition religions.

Flannel Jesus wrote:Hope I answered some questions. I'm no expert though, so if I gave any misleading information or was unclear about anything...well, just take what I say with a grain of salt.

You did pretty well actually.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby nameta9 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:59 am

I don't think the word infinity does justice to what the real nature of the world is: infinity presupposes something countable, some algorithm, some method to conceive, visualize, etc. But in all truth, what the real physical world is compared to us as an Observer is closer to "Totally Unrelated", "Not Conceivable", "Outset of our Range", "Impossible to Decode in any possible Way", etc. Our mathematical concepts are just very vague and gross approximations to something that can't be decoded in any way at all, no matter how hard you try, no matter what kind of Observer you design (as in a new Brain and Mind and Neural Circuit to Observe and Think the Universe, etc.).

We just invent pretty pictures that we can undertand and manipulate in our mind, associate them with what we observe and experience and call that "Science".

Nothing can contain Anything, we are lost forever....
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:43 am

Rational Metaphysics led to the paradigm of reality being defined in terms of an infinite series wherein each element was another infinite series of the same form. Then an infinite number of those are placed into a matrix, a "box". Then an infinite number of those comprise the unbound universe.

So I had the situation of infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity.. ad infinitum, multiplied by infinity, and multiplied by infinity again.

Reality = Inf * Inf * (Inf^Inf)^Inf

Contemporary mathematics doesn't handle infinity very well at times, so I had to come up with a new form of mathematics that could handle such an extreme case. I ended up with "Afflate Analysis", a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis. The result allowed for me to express the extreme infinite chaos in a mathematical manner. And then from that number of concerns, physical reality unfolds as order emerges.

No multiverse, "multiple-worlds" needed - Occam's Razor.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:08 am

James S Saint wrote: "But what determined the choice of which one I ended up with as my reality?"

I was hoping someone would ask this question. It's actually a question that doesn't really make sense, and it's slightly confusing and convoluted as to why it doesn't make sense.

See, the thing is, every single one is the reality for some version of you. You didn't end up with only one as your reality, you ended up with a different version of you for each reality.

Now, the most rational question after this is, "OK, but why is THIS version of me in this reality?" To which the response is, I think, "THIS version of you IS DEFINED AS the version in this reality. That's how you distinguish between THIS ME and THAT ME -- by which reality they inhabit. If it wasn't THIS you, it wouldn't be THIS reality. It would be another one." Perhaps there's a better answer to the question though. I think they talked about this question on the Standord page on MW.

-------------------------

I'll actually try a different approach that I just thought of:

Let's say you and I are running a quantum experiment with only two possible results. Let's just, for short hand, call those results "Left" and "Right". So, beforehand, let's say there's a 50% chance of "ending up" in the Left universe, 50% in right.

You naively say "I wonder which one I'll end up"
to which I respond, "Well, you'll end up in both!"
"No, flannel, you know what I mean."

To which I respond, "I know what you think you mean. What you think you mean doesn't actually make sense though."
You say "Alright you prick, let's just run the damn experiment."

So we run it, and two universes are created, LEFT and RIGHT.

Left you says "Alright, so I'm now in Left. Why am I not in Right?"
"You are in Right too."
"Well...but why not this version of me?"
"Well because this is the version that's in the Left one"
"But why didn't this version end up in the Right one?"
"Because the Right version of you ended up in the Right one. You're now the Left version of you."
"But why am I not the Right one"
"Well...cuz you're the one who ended up in the Left one."

Meanwhile, in the Right universe:
"Alright, so I'm now in Right. Why am I not in Left?"
"You are in Left too."
"Well...but why not this version of me?"
"Well because this is the version that's in the Right one"
"But why didn't this version end up in the Left one?"
"Because the Left version of you ended up in the Left one. You're now the Right version of you."
"But why am I not the Left one"
"Well...cuz you're the one who ended up in the Right one."

Now, what the question kinda presupposes is that, somehow, it would make some sort of difference if, at the exact moment of the split in the universe, before you're even aware of the split, LEFT you and RIGHT you traded minds. The reason this wouldn't make a difference, the reason it doesn't make sense, is that right at the moment of the split but before you're aware of the split, LEFT mind and RIGHT mind are the same mind. If some outside force were to trade our minds at exactly the moment, the same conversations would happen, but this time LEFT you would be having the conversation RIGHT you had before, and vice versa. From the point of view of an outside observer watching both universes, it would be experimentally the same if you switched and if you didn't.

It also seems to presuppose non-physical consciousness, which I don't necessarily think is a fair assumption.

But perhaps I'm not explaining this clearly or even correctly. I'll try to look it up, see what I find.

[edit] THIS IS THE STANFORD ARTICLES' APPROACH
2.2 Who am "I"?

"I" am an object, such as Earth, cat, etc. "I" is defined at a particular time by a complete (classical) description of the state of my body and of my brain. "I" and "Lev" do not name the same things (even though my name is Lev). At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I". I have a particular, well defined past: I correspond to a particular "Lev" in 2002, but I do not have a well defined future: I correspond to a multitude of "Lev"s in 2010. In the framework of the MWI it is meaningless to ask: Which Lev in 2010 will I be? I will correspond to them all. Every time I perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all "Lev"s obtaining all possible results. Although this approach to the concept of personal identity seems somewhat unusual, it is plausible in the light of the critique of personal identity by Parfit 1986. Parfit considers some artificial situations in which a person splits into several copies, and argues that there is no good answer to the question: Which copy is me? He concludes that personal identity is not what matters when I divide.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:03 pm

I pretty much agree that a person asking, "why am I not a bird?" is a bit irrational, but the sheer number of absurdities proposed by the quantum mechanics multi-world fantasy is so huge as to be truly unquantifiable. Stanford wouldn't be able to tolerate my presence in their bent minds at all.

Objection 1
But my first objection to their fantasy is the requirement to ignore what it means to exist in the first place. To exist means to have affect upon what something exists relative to. If a proposed parallel universe is said to exist then it must have affect upon the universe of which it is supposed to be parallel. But of course, if it actually does have the slightest affect upon it, then it isn't parallel, but intersecting. If it is truly parallel and having no affect upon "our reality", then why even claim that it exists? It couldn't be measured in any manner at all and nothing could be known about it whatsoever. It is a waste of mind time to even think about it, hence irrational. Why would anyone care?

Objection 2
But next comes the issue of how it all started in the first place. If they assume that the universe had no initial magical creator, they are stuck with the notion that their paradigm of infinite universes, even if not individually infinite, would have to have been developing throughout an infinite past, which would yield an infinite number of infinite varieties regardless of any supposed quantum segments of time (which in itself is senseless). They are stuck with a totally unquantifiable number of universes as each, during each segment of time creates an infinite number of varieties and has been doing so for an infinite past. It would yield a number greater than infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity.. ad infinitum. And that is just in an effort to count the number of universes, not to mention the more than infinite complexity involved in each one.

Objection 3
And then there is the issue that time is merely a measure of relative change. Having any quantum gaps in time is senseless and an absurd fantasy. Similarly space has the same issue. Any notions of quantum gaps in space is completely irrational. How can one have gaps of space between space itself? Space is merely a relative measure of distance regarding direction. Any gap is a part of the measure or it doesn't exist, as stated in the first objection.

The list of rational objections to quantum fantasies could go on forever, unquantifiably.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:37 pm

Objection 1:
Illogical -- to say that because something doesn't have an effect on the place that you live in, it doesn't exist...existence doesn't work like that.
Also, some people think that split universes never fully decohere, and can continue to have slight effects on each other. There are experiments proposed to test this, though idk if they've done so yet.

It's not completely illogical to claim that something exists even though it can't and won't have an effect on you, and I can explain why: if I program some sattelite in space to shoot out a single photon into space, and i point that photon into a part of the sky where no stars and galaxies are visible to our most powerful microscopes, then, given our current knowledge, it's not irrational to say that that photon will continue to exist and continue to shoot out, even after we've lost contact with it and can no longer see any effects of it. After shooting out the photon, it won't have an effect on us whatsoever, and yet it's not illogical to think that it continues to exist. Why?

Well, it kinda works like this: not all unfalsifiable beliefs are irrational -- the unfalsifiable beliefs that rest upon the implications made by other, falsifiable, beliefs are rational. We have significant evidence for object permanence, and the (usual) conservation of matter. If we assume those are true, we can assume that the photon we shot into space continues to exist, even if we can't see any effect from it. To assume that the photon ceases to exist once it stops having an effect on us...well that assumption violates pretty much every law of physics. To falsify the idea that the photon continues to exist, you don't point to the fact that it doesn't have an effect -- you'd have to falsify the laws of physics that imply its continued existence.

Likewise, many seem to think that MW is supported by many falsifiable beliefs, even if the existence of other universes isn't itself falsifiable. And anyway, if the alternate you's heard you saying they don't exist, that might hurt their feelings. Be polite.

Objection 2:
This isn't a problem for MW. The problem of first cause OR infinite regress is a problem for every single idea about how the universe started. Nobody knows the answer, not just ManyWorlders. Nobody knows the answer to that. Not even you.

Objection 3:
idk what you're going on about.

Anyway, MW, as you know, isn't completely proven, and I'm by no means an expert at defending it. If I happen to be unable to satisfy any of your questions, be aware, you and the audience, that that doesn't falsify MW. I'm sure there are many valid reasons to be skeptical of MW. I just happen to find it compelling, and fun to talk about, and fun to argue for.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:00 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:Objection 1:
Illogical -- to say that because something doesn't have an effect on the place that you live in, it doesn't exist...existence doesn't work like that.

First take care how you use the word "illogical". Whether what I said was accurate or not, it was not illogical.
But what you said that I said wasn't right.
I didn't say, "has no effect on where I live".
I said, has no affect on my reality at all, "my universe".
And it is perfectly logical and more importantly, rational (for the reasons mentioned).

Flannel Jesus wrote:Also, some people think that split universes never fully decohere, and can continue to have slight effects on each other. There are experiments proposed to test this, though idk if they've done so yet.

And some people think that ghosts live in their attics. They too have experimental evidence.
None the less, the universes are NOT parallel if they intersect.
And if they affect each other, then they are the same universe, merely separated enough to only affect in proposed quantum intersections, ghosts that come and go when their time lines allow for brief moments of communing with the spirits of the other world.

Flannel Jesus wrote:It's not completely illogical to claim that something exists even though it can't and won't have an effect on you, and I can explain why: if I program some sattelite in space to shoot out a single photon into space, and i point that photon into a part of the sky where no stars and galaxies are visible to our most powerful microscopes, then, given our current knowledge, it's not irrational to say that that photon will continue to exist and continue to shoot out, even after we've lost contact with it and can no longer see any effects of it. After shooting out the photon, it won't have an effect on us whatsoever, and yet it's not illogical to think that it continues to exist. Why?

As any good physicist will tell you, the effort it took to "shoot it out" will have affect upon you. But also, as that photon travels, it is affecting the space that it is in (else we would never know that any of them existed). As any space is affected, all space is affected, hence "dark-matter". So yes, to say that it didn't exist or that it had no affect, would be in error.

The only way anyone ever proclaims that something isn't there, does not exist, is that it has no affect upon any senses or instrumentation directly or indirectly. Look in front of you. Do you see an elephant? How do you know or even suspect that there isn't one there?

Flannel Jesus wrote:Likewise, many seem to think that MW is supported by many falsifiable beliefs, even if the existence of other universes isn't itself falsifiable. And anyway, if the alternate you's heard you saying they don't exist, that might hurt their feelings. Be polite.

Yes, and very many people believe that their dead relatives are offended by whispers of disrespect too.

Flannel Jesus wrote:Objection 2:
This isn't a problem for MW. The problem of first cause OR infinite regress is a problem for every single idea about how the universe started. Nobody knows the answer, not just ManyWorlders. Nobody knows the answer to that. Not even you.

Excuse Me???
To hell I don't.
Meet your "Nobody", son.
But regardless of who else might know anything or not, THEIR problem persists and proposes a greater problem in that it proposes something unquantifiable (against the very foundation paradigm of their fantasy).

Flannel Jesus wrote: I just happen to find it compelling, and fun to talk about, and fun to argue for.

That's the only purpose for it. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:25 pm

Well, for all your arrogance you certainly aren't very convincing. I'll leave it at that. I don't really feel like going into all the mistakes in your post. As you said, you have an endless stream of this nonsense.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby nameta9 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:32 pm

"Nobody knows the answer"

It is not the nobody knows the answer, even if you knew the answer, it would simply be an answer you already knew, it would simply be a sequence of symbols, another description of sequential logic, another cause and effect description of the Universe, etc. it would simply be what you already know just said in a different way, as we only and always and ever always just say the same thing over and over again but with a different pretty picture. What can be said and discovered, what we can do, all of any possibility has been established once and for all by the design of our mind and logic and the identity principle and non contradiction. Our mind and thought processes and language and logic have already said, once and for all, all that can ever be said and discovered, it is hardwired from the outset, it is a solid crystal that can only be shattered in order to get to something new: but just look at all of the debates, just look at all of the "conflicting" opinions and choices and descriptions, all of the possible blocks of text, etc. they are trying to reach a truth, or trying to combine the blocks of text into a "greater" truth, but there is no possible "greater" truth, there is no accumulation of knowledge and any positive result, only an infinite array of symbols, ever only expressing a new combination, so many point like sequential logic paths that are disjoint and sometimes combine and sometimes clash, but never going anywhere because it is our logic and mind that is limited, we need crazy and nonsense more than anything else, we need insane, we need wild, we need ever more brains exploding into billions of pieces...

Keep on breaking down all the structures we have constructed describing reality.

Keep on vomiting all your BS information on the cesspool that is the internet...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:15 pm

James S Saint wrote: If "scientists" don't believe in it, why would science be interesting?
Theoretical physics is merely Sci-Fi in real life rather than merely in Hollywood.
As a motion picture, most people accept that such things are fantasy, but if a university professor teaches it as "theoretical fact", it has much greater impact on the unsuspecting dummies.
While of course, preaching with the same hand of how foolishly fictional the other religions are.


Yup that’s exactly what I thought! :)

Moreno wrote: There is no consensus on many worlds. But the advantage of many worlds is that it retains determnism. If there is a single world, then events are probablistic rather than deterministic.


Good! I’d much rather it were probabilistic. Science seems to have the persona that requires absolute explainability, and that requires determinism. The winners are the ones in the right [in any religious conflict].

It seems that observing IS interacting.


Right, but how exactly? What they mean by ‘observing’ isn’t rightly covered by the term which is why its deceptive. Really in the light slit experiments they are making a physical interaction and seeing change accordingly.
What is strange about it?!

Flannel Jesus wrote: I would agree. The number is very large, and increasingly massively each moment. Presumably there are billions upon billions of quantum events going on each second, and each one of them has at least 2, and at most...well, at most is pretty fuckin high...possible results, and since in MW each possible result is it's own universe, some astronomical number of parallel universes presumably gets created every second.


I assume that no two events can occur simultaneously then, otherwise two universe with the same changes would occur.

Main point is; how!

How does two or more possible results result in two universes?
When that single event would be creating an entire universe of events. As there must assumedly be a correlation between informations and a physical exchange between the two or more positions in the quantum superposition, then the creation of a new universe from one event would affect the relationships of every other event in the universe ~ thus nullifying or otherwise changing the superposition of each party?

Well, here's the deal: if there are many possible outcomes, but only a single universe, which one is chosen? How does the universe choose which one happens? Most non-MW interpretations call this "choice" collapse. IE all the different possibilities collapse (I think I have this correctly) into one reality. However, the reason why the idea of collapse is unattractive to many quantum physicists is that they don't understand the mechanism for collapse -- they don't understand how the universes chooses which one among the possibilities is to become the real one. I couldn't be sure myself, but I've read and heard many people say that experiments actually rule out collapse. I couldn't say if that's true or not, but it's something to consider. At the very least though, we don't have any evidence for collapse, i think...


I imagine its like a puppy stood in front of two doors, it wants to get in as it knows its owner is in there and its hungry, but until the owner shouts it doesn’t know which door to enter.
In other words you have a set of possible outcomes, then real-world events [in the same universe] determine in a probabilistic manner which of the decisions are required for the desired outcome. Naturally as events are relative and in that sense ‘flowing’, there has to be a quantum superposition to connect such fluid events! the whole thing is entire.

I don’t believe they have experiments which show MWI to be right, as part of its premise is that there is a divide between universes. If that duality does not exist then it means my point above concerning communications between worlds is definitely right, and hence the MWI theories with said duality are wrong.

I read the less-wrong articles ~ good stuff though he takes an age to get down to any specific info. Thanks for the informative reply anyhow. :)

Nameta9 wrote: I don't think the word infinity does justice to what the real nature of the world is: infinity presupposes something countable, some algorithm, some method to conceive, visualize, etc.


I think math has bastardised the term, infinity should mean all those things you say ~ it’s a lack of cardinality, limits, and hence is impossible to concieve or utilise scientifically. Fuck calculus it’s a nonsense way to try to include infinity in science when science is clearly inept at explaining the higher aspects of reality.
_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:51 pm

If this kind of discussion was posted in the religion forum, people would be going on about unicorns, imaginary friends, irrationality and lack of supporting evidence. But just say the magic words 'quantum mechanics' and all sorts of looniness becomes perfectly reasonable.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:57 pm

phyllo wrote:If this kind of discussion was posted in the religion forum, people would be going on about unicorns, imaginary friends, irrationality and lack of supporting evidence. But just say the magic words 'quantum mechanics' and all sorts of looniness becomes perfectly reasonable.

Everyone accepts the authority figure (of the day). :wink:


..and guys, "infinity" merely means "without end" - no mysticism or magic associated.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:06 am

quetzalcoatl wrote:I imagine its like a puppy stood in front of two doors, it wants to get in as it knows its owner is in there and its hungry, but until the owner shouts it doesn’t know which door to enter.
In other words you have a set of possible outcomes, then real-world events [in the same universe] determine in a probabilistic manner which of the decisions are required for the desired outcome. Naturally as events are relative and in that sense ‘flowing’, there has to be a quantum superposition to connect such fluid events! the whole thing is entire.

I must point out that your attempt to explain how you imagine collapse to take place actually doesn't answer any questions. All it does is add a couple new, vague elements, like "required" and "desired". The question still remains: how does the universe choose which one of the possible events happens?
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:19 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:
quetzalcoatl wrote:I imagine its like a puppy stood in front of two doors, it wants to get in as it knows its owner is in there and its hungry, but until the owner shouts it doesn’t know which door to enter.
In other words you have a set of possible outcomes, then real-world events [in the same universe] determine in a probabilistic manner which of the decisions are required for the desired outcome. Naturally as events are relative and in that sense ‘flowing’, there has to be a quantum superposition to connect such fluid events! the whole thing is entire.

I must point out that your attempt to explain how you imagine collapse to take place actually doesn't answer any questions. All it does is add a couple new, vague elements, like "required" and "desired". The question still remains: how does the universe choose which one of the possible events happens?


It doesn't choose, nothing chooses anything, it just happens without any deeper reason than "just because", "for no reason at all", "it is just assigned arbitrarily", "there is no deeper pattern, meaning rules or laws, etc.", "it just is".

And even if you did know "how" and "why" even that would end up being questioned "why and how that specific why and how" in an infinite recursion of answers to questions to answers until you reach the same ground state or final answer: JUST BECAUSE, FOR NO REASON AT ALL, THERE IS NOTHING DEEPER.



TOBOR THE APE MAN
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:49 pm

James S Saint wrote:I pretty much agree that a person asking, "why am I not a bird?" is a bit irrational, but the sheer number of absurdities proposed by the quantum mechanics multi-world fantasy is so huge as to be truly unquantifiable. Stanford wouldn't be able to tolerate my presence in their bent minds at all.

Objection 1
But my first objection to their fantasy is the requirement to ignore what it means to exist in the first place. To exist means to have affect upon what something exists relative to. If a proposed parallel universe is said to exist then it must have affect upon the universe of which it is supposed to be parallel. But of course, if it actually does have the slightest affect upon it, then it isn't parallel, but intersecting. If it is truly parallel and having no affect upon "our reality", then why even claim that it exists? It couldn't be measured in any manner at all and nothing could be known about it whatsoever. It is a waste of mind time to even think about it, hence irrational. Why would anyone care?



because it's cool.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:48 pm

"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...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:42 pm

I must point out that your attempt to explain how you imagine collapse to take place actually doesn't answer any questions. All it does is add a couple new, vague elements, like "required" and "desired". The question still remains: how does the universe choose which one of the possible events happens?


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.
_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:23 pm

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).
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby ZenKitty » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:13 am

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. O:)
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Next

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users