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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Yes, and very many people believe that their dead relatives are offended by whispers of disrespect too.
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).
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.
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…
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].
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?!
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?
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.
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.
_
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.
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.
“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).
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.
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].
