Yakk

So, this is a wierd consequence of one interpritation of QM, namely many worlds.

The many-worlds interpritation of QM has a few interesting properties.
1> It is deterministic. You know exactly what will happen from a given situation.
2> There is no magic "quantum wave collapse".
3> It doesn't require hidden variables.
4> It is local: ie, you don't require faster-than-light communication between quantum hidden variables to explain waht is going on.

I believe it is the only interpritation that deals with all of the above.

The other interesting thing about it is there is an experiment you can theoretically perform to verify for yourself if the many-worlds interpritation is correct or not.

You become Schrödinger's cat.

Put yourself in a box. Have a device that uses radioactive decay to generate a random number.

Every time you push a button, it uses the random number to decide if you will die. 50% chance you die, 50% chance you live, each time.

Press the button 1000 times.

Now, under non multi-world interpritations of QM, you will never hit the button 1000 times. The odds against you successfully doing this are so slim, they are basically zero.

Under the multi-world interpritation, one of you will walk out of that box, having hit the button 1000 times, the machine working perfectly, alive.

At which point, you will know that the many-worlds interpritation is true, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Anyone watching from outside the box will almost certainly not know it: they will see you enter the box, and die, basically 100% of the time.

Of course, if you are wrong, you end up dead.

If you generalize this thought experiment, what is going on in the box is no different than what is going on in the universe. Various events which boil down to QM events happen, and we grow old and die.

But, for every physical process, there is a miniscule chance that almost any result will happen. For instance, there is a miniscule chance that you will never grow old, because your body just won't age.

This chance is zero for almost all practical puposes. Except, of course, if many-worlds is true. If many-worlds is true, those chances will happen. There will be a universe where you never ever die. 1 billion years from now, you will be walking around without any medical aid.

It is a wierd thought.

Note that you won't be alive with anyone else: all your family and friends etc will die almost certainly.

Any thoughts?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

djtestudo

That is definatly an impressive statement, and if my knowledge of quantum mechanics surpassed Michael Crichton's Timeline, I'd probably understand it

Seriously though, nice thinking.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

TheKak

That would kind of suck if you had to watch everyone you loved grow old and die while you stayed young.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

John Henry

This is not strictly true. It would only be the case in a universe where the only causes of death were quantum machine gun events like the one you describe above. That one relies on you having a finite chance of survival in every event. There are certain events for which everybody's chance of dying is exactly 1.

To give an example of what I mean, take a modified version of your experiment. Lets assume that your original experiment says that if the nuclear coin toss flips heads, you get shot in the head and if it flips tails, you don't. Now lets change it to heads you get shot in the head, tails you get your head chopped off. Now all subsequent universes result in you dying.

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." - Fight Club

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

Yakk

See, there is a problem with the thought experiment.

It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that the bullet will simply travel through your head and leave you perfectly intact.

The odds against this are huge. So huge you will never experience it happening to another.

So, the coin lands heads. The sword passes through your neck and you don't die. The odds against this are 2^10000000000000000000 to one. But, it could happen.

And this is the flaw in the thought experiment: in "reality" you'd walk into the box, and the machine would break down, or you'd be crippled by bullet unable to press the button again, or something else would happen. Something more likely than 1:2^1000 odds. Or, more precicely, you would be more likely to be one of those future selves than the one that proves that QM uses the many-universe theory.

The other cute implication of Quantum Immortality is that you are simply choosing your past. Which past do you want to have lived, one where you where a dick, or one where you where happy and had a good life? Both will exist until and beyond the point where stars wink out one by one...

I find this consequence of an interpritation of physics interesting. Don't believe it yet, but neither do I disbelieve it.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

TheKak

Actually, life itself would have to evolve differently for you to live forever, or there would have to be a way to replace cells from an external source (I guess stem cells may well do this in the future if our government pulls its head out of its ass). You grow old and die as a safety device agaisnt cell mutation. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy tends to not be as good as the first one, so eventually they die (I forget what the piece is called, its at the end of your DNA strings if I remember correctly, though I may be way off on this one it has been a while (starts with a T)).

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

Stompy

I actually discovered this theory on my own... thought it up for myself before I ever knew it was an actual theory. I find that quite strange.

Not that I actually believe in it to the point where I'm convinced, but the thought crosses my mind ALL the time. Like when I get a headache, I'll think, "In some other dimension, I died from an aneurysm just then."

__________________
I love lamp.

Yakk

Stompy, it is wierder than that.

If the Mutli-Universe interpritation is correct, what we call enthropy is simply the laws of statistics: almost every universe will have locally increasing enthropy.

The laws of chemestry and biology are also just large-scale statistics on top of QM.

Not only did you die from an aneurysm right then, you also spontaniously transformed into a scale model of a rocketship (made of metal etc).

The universes that you had a headache are ALOT more common than the aneurysm ones, which are ALOT more common than the spontanious rocketship ones. So, you can expect to never experience the rocketship ones, and the aneurysm ones are extremely rare.

But, the rocketship one happened. Maybe, if the interpritation is correct.

The problem is, there are no real practical experiments to tell if the interpritation is correct. So, you can't live your life assuming it...

If you did assume, there are other interesting consequences.

When Jesus said "the kingdom of heaven is near, someone here will live to see it" -- well, every person there became a "quantum immortal" in some reality.

And, personally, it means you can choose which past you will have experienced. You will experience any one of an infinite number of futures: only the past you haved lived will be in common.

But, like I said, you can't assume it. =)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

CSflim

Well, I don't think that this experiment would work at all. (Even with the assumption that many worlds is correct).

A radioactive decay occurs/doesn't occur. It is detected by a quantum amplifier and the universe gets split in two. In one of those universes the amplifier clicks, in the other one it doesn't.
"You" are in one or the other of these universes. A few moments later you get shot in the head and die. It will surely be of little consolation to your carcas breathing its last breath that somewhere else there is some "other you" that is enjoying a great stream of luck, while you are lying here bleeding.

__________________

gophtc

what does it matter if there are many worlds, if they are not linked, dont affect eachother, and you can't travel between them?

MojoRisin

YES!! but would you don't realize is this. There is not only a rocket ship universe, but one with a cup of chocolate milk, one with a pair of nailclippers, one where Mr. T walks in the room and says " I pitty da foo!@" and there are many more things that could happen, and when I say many more, I mean infinitely many more! And if that were all so, then what are the chances that the universe in which we live is the only one where insane things like that do NOT happen? I'd say thats a slim chance. I really don't know much about astrology or whatever but thats how I see it.

...but wait, now that I've thought about it. Most of these worlds would be destroyed by being too unstable, if things like this were more common they could cause mass hysteria, or have worse of an impact on society, things that could easily lead to our overall extinction. The instability of physical life would be difficult to maintain in most universes. You could say that perhaps we are one of the few to have made it this far, but as we all know, the world is mad and life is a mysterious burden. Perhaps during the night a 5000 pound pancake will collide into the side of my house dribble down and drown me in the sweet syrup that is death. Now I am dont, I suppose there an infinite amount of things that could happen when I hit the post button but, being an almighty creature of God I use my will to power and I know without a doubt what will happen. What is there to matter when all is lost to infinity?

__________________
Dropping a barbell he points to the sky and says "The suns not yellow, It's chicken!"

final_identity

Your probabilities are non-modern. They are Hume's. I like that.

Well, you said "any thoughts?" so I gave you my thoughts.

When you surmise that something is so highly unlikely that, for all practical purposes, it becomes an impossibility, you are saying something that many statisticians would rebel at. But I agree with it. Hume explained, for example, that we don't KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that we might as well assume it will, because for all practical purposes, we have a good ENOUGH proof that it will. You're doing the same.

This unfortunately puts you at odds with most quantum mathematicians and physicists, who largely have not read Hume and mostly tend to believe there is no wheel that they cannot reinvent. Your use of quanta to get unquantized is an odd cart-before-horse-without-wheel construction, therefore.

Please, rephrase yourself in light of this complaint of mine.

__________________
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. Friedrich Nietzsche

final_identity

Oh, and by the way, read David Lodge's "Thinks," a story about adultery involving a cognitive psychologist who runs some kind of thought-experiment-department where Schroedinger's cat wanders the halls.

__________________
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. Friedrich Nietzsche

Yakk

Ayep, most of "you" die.

However, the Multi-Universe theory says that at least "one" of "you" will walk out of the room. And that "one" of "you" will indeed know that the Multi-Universe theory is correct: every other interpritation says "nope, this really can't happen".

Second, do you care about the universe you no longer have contact with? Remember, you don't exist in most of them. Hell, humanity doesn't exist in most of them. It has even been postulated that Galaxies or Stars might not exist in most of them...

The difference is, the QM Philosophers are saying that those "unlikely" events might all happen, for a definition of happen that is strange.

It changes it from "the sun might not rise tommorow" to "the sun will not rise tommorrow and the sun will rise tommorrow". Both will "happen" if the interpritation is correct.

Now, nobody knows if the interpritation is correct. There are other competing interpritations, and no 'decent' way to distinguish between them. Multi-universe has some nice properties which make it tempting to believe in.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Slavakion

Telomeres. And the ironic thing is that there's a chemical (or enzyme maybe) that keeps telomeres from degrading. But that chemical promotes cancer. Ya can't win...

Sorry to get slightly off topic.

final_identity

Run this by me again: in order to avoid producing a poor copy of themselves, cells prefer suicide over immortality? How touching, and artistic of them ...

__________________
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. Friedrich Nietzsche

MultiverseKid

If most, if not all, options have a "miniscule" chance of occuring, then doesn't that mean that all options (e.g. head getting chopped off and dying; or head getting chopped off and living) will equally, or close to, occur?
In addition you mentioned in your experiment that "you" would push the button 1000 times. This may or may not be enough trials to take into consideration the "2^10000000000000000000" chance of getting your head chopped off and living. So to truly validate the experiment there would have to be an infininte number of trials to validate the possible infinte solutions. In this case even a "2^10000000000000000000" chance of something happening would happen infinte number of times.
If that is the case, how does that define multiverses? Either there are multiverses that all this occurs in, or there is one universe that has infinite possibilities of events to occur. Otherwise, there are multiple universes in which all this MUST occur because every option would have had to be accounted for and occured to prove that it was in fact an option.

__________________
Meaning of Life:

Everything has, is, and will have happened.

Janey

For me to grapple this concept (beyond you providing some remedial reading) can you put Heinlein's the Number of the Beast inot perspective with the theory? I read that book, and thought that I understood it.

Yakk

The numbers involved are bigger than you think.

In fact, the universe we live in is a very 'likely' one. There may be many wierd universes, but the odds are this one is completely and utterly normal.

Because we define normal by it being likely.

Even in a 'wierd' universe where one strange thing happens (Mr T spontationously appears), what happens after that will probably be normal.

Wierd universes where wierd stuff continues to happen are very very rare.

The scale of the probabilities involved is simply ridiculous. More universes probably exist in which the half of earth spontaniously turns into anti-matter, than in which 10 copies of Mr T appear, says "I pity the fool", and then spontaniously disappear.

That is the beauty of it. It might be possible to arrange an experiment, theoretically, that would confirm or deny this model of the universe.

You just can't communicate the results of your experiment to most of the possible futures.



No. The math, which seems to work, says some are more likely than others. A continuum of possibilities, with probabilities for each.

Just because there are an infinite number of sheep, doesn't mean that they are more than 7 black ones.

More precicely, you can have an infinite number of sheep, with 10% of them black, if you define "10%" in some reasonable ways. 0.0000001% of then could be green even. =)

The goal is simply to find an experiment that would determine if you are living in a universe where all possible futures exist, or in which there is only one future that comes into existance.

It depends on what you call a universe.

If the interpritation is correct, then there are parts of reality that are casually disconnected from this reality. You could call that a "different universe", because you can't get there from here or vice versa.

I do not see the need for that hypothesis.

This question does not make sense to me.

Sorry, I liked Heilein's juvy, but found his later fiction ... less appealing. So I don't remember reading "Number of the Beast".

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

ObieX

Certain areas of the body produce this enzyme in small amounts, but most of the body doesn't get any to the point where it would do anything constructive. Skin cells for example get small portions of it, mainly because they do a butt-load of growing to do things like seal cuts, and just normal replenishment. The reason its probably so active in cancer cells is to help promote their wild growth, part of the glitch that makes a cancer cell a cancer cell. Once there's a cure for all types of cancer then the use of telomerase may be more useful in the lengthening of the human life span.

And even if we could expand the human life span that would probably cause more harm than good. The world is already nearing the limit of what it can handle when it comes to the number of humans it can support. We gotta get better at space travel, and other things, before any of this can start.

Main Entry: tel·o·me·rase
Pronunciation: te-'lO-m&-"rAs, -"rAz
Function: noun
: an enzyme that is a ribonucleoprotein catalyzing the synthesis of chromosomal telomeres in eukaryotic cell division and is particularly active in cancer cells

The only problem with the many worlds is that we live in one world. We have little to no control over what happens in most circumstances. To be able to take advantage of this system we would either need the ability to traverse and "read" to/from all of these infinite worlds simultaneously,or have ultimate control over every single bit of energy in existance. Since i don't see any of these thigns happening, i prefer to not worry about this.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Lebell

I've pondered the ramifications of the QM multiverse theory and have my own possibility to put forth.

What if immortality consists of experiencing every universe?

That is, after you die in one universe, your conscience is shifted to the next that you exist in?

If in general you live your life well, this would indeed be heaven on earth. Likewise if you live your life poorly, you would have hell on earth.

Interesting possibilites

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Hain

Lebell, have you ever read From the Corner of His Eye by Dean Koontz. That is the defined immortality and divinity, the chance to see all possibilities of your life.

Yakk, what I think MultiverseKid is getting at is if there is an infinite number of chances, would that not require one to have the God? Beats me if that is what is being entered into the conversation. Still, not bad for your first post MultiverseKid. Welcome to the boards.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

zen_tom

Much of what has been said here, could serve as evidence suggesting that the many-worlds theory is in fact false.

I just don't hold with the idea that a new universe is created every time something random occurs. It's a hugely over engineered way for the universe to behave.

Many worlds smells of people trying very desparately to hold on to the 4 properties of the universe that many people wish were real.

i.e.
If you can accept that any of these are false, then the many-worlds theory evaporates into implausible silliness, what with infinate probabilities, and people living forever etc.

By the way, Is false, if it's extremely unlikely that you'll live forever, it's also extremely unlikely that only you, and your loved ones will too (only more so) Many Worlds would suggest that in some universe, you, and all your friends and family will live happily ever after, for ever, with a lifetime supply of magic beans.

WillyPete

How do the laws regarding a finite amount of energy and matter in the universe coincide with quantum theory?

Most people I talk to think of the multi-verse as continually branching timelines based on choices of people and random on/off events. They don't tend to think of it as x amount of matter or energy existing in all possible states at the same time.

eg: If a 'new' universe were to exist each time I was faced with a yes/no decision, then there'd be too many such 'verses to be supported by the limited amount of matter. To my understanding it's more of a concept that while my conscious decided to cross the road I simultaneously exists as walking further before crossing. ie: I'm pretty much everywhere at once at any given moment.

Am I right or terribly misguided?

BigBen

This thread has officially fucked my head up.

I should know better than to wander in here and start reading. There is a universe out there somewhere that shares the same past as me? There are infinite universes like that, and they are branching out during the present to account for the infinite possibilities that may occur, RIGHT NOW?

Okay, thank god I didn't take physics in University.

You guys have given me something to think about. On my death bed, many years from now (I hope) I will look at my loved ones gathered around and say cheerfully "No big deal, there are millions of alternate universes where I am still alive and well. Onward and Upward!"

Would that not be the coolest fucking epitaph ever?

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

zen_tom

WillyPete, that's the main problem with the Multi-Verse idea - do all those other universes ACTUALLY exist physically somewhere? Or is it just a mental trick to help avoid the breakdown of one of those 4 'comfortable' tenets.

Remember, Time, which we used to have listed as the 5th one of those tenets (a mental foundation on which we base much of our 'understanding' of the universe around us) got utterly trashed by Einsten around 100 years ago or so.

Before time, it was the laws of gravity and motion (we thought that things just 'liked' being on the earth), and before that, we thought that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, and all the stars, the sun, the moon and all the planets whirled round us on a complicated series of inter-connecting spheres.

It looks to me as though there is a pattern of breaking down these common sense assumptions we make about the universe, and that imaginative attempts at preserving them (while entertaining) are unlikely to provide any real description of the underlying structure of the universe. (Just my humble opinion)

Yakk

While QM immortality says that could and will happen to one future Lebell, most of the future Lebells will have a far more prosaic existance.

There will be a future in which you die. There will be a future in which you are alive in 1 million years. Most of the futures in which you are alive in 1 million years will be because of relatively normal reasons that make sense at the time, not mystical mumbo-jumbo chance.

Yes, that will happen. But it will happen with low probability.

Let "F" be friends and family live forever.
Let "K" be you live forever.

P(K|K) = 1
P(F|K) =~ 0

There are other hints besides the 4 properties you listed.

While I've seen papers that seek to explains these things without use of many-worlds.

First of all, mathematically, to describe the probability that an electron will go from point A to point B, you integrate it's probabilities over all paths. In general, this is how you work things out in Q-M -- you pretend everything happens. This, for some odd reason, tells you what you will observe.

Secondly, there is no experiment you can do that can prove your own mortality to yourself. There is an experiment you can do to prove your own immortality.

Btw, hidden variables are insufficient to explain observations, and neither is indeterminism.

As far as I'm aware, you need a magic "quantum wave collapse" and "faster than light communication of zero-information quantum wave collapse syncronization" in order to avoid having to use many-universes.

Or, we can assume a naive interpritation of what the math says we are doing is actually happening, and examine the consequences.

Quantum Computing
Where is the Q-M quantum computation happening? We are building a 'many-universe' computer, transmitting information between the universes, then arranging it so the universe in which the correct answer is worked out has a probability near 1.

The Double-Slit Experiment

How is that electron interfearing with itself? The electron-instances that go along each path push and pull against each other.

Schrodinger's Cat
Until we open the box, both the living and dead cat universes are not perpendicular. Opening the box makes us see only one of the two universes, the other one no longer visible, because it was rotated nearly 90 degrees away from us.

Schrodinger's Kittens
You make two Schodinger's cats in an entangled state: if one is dead, the other is alive.

You carry them, box closed, 1,000 light years apart.

Open one box. If it is alive, when you see the light from the other cat's box being opened, the other cat will be dead. And vice versa.

Many universes interpriation: opening the box causes you to be unable to see the universe in which the other cat is inconsistent with your local perceptions.

Many-universes makes Q-M things make intuative sense on macroscopic levels. It makes sense on mathematical levels. It is consistent with all observations.

I find locality violation philosophically abhorant than just making the universe a bit more broad. M-U is an interpritation that is consistent with observations, simple in explaination, explains the things that are difficult to explain, and beautiful in body -- that is why I think it may just be true.

Hmm -- so, you think the 'stuff' gets too thin on the ground.

This is because you see the universe as dividing up into threads. It is far more continuous than that.

Imagine things casting shadows, but the shadow being the thing -- lights moving in many colours, on an infinite dimensional tapestry. Sheets of reality twisting and turning so they are at nearly (but not quite) right angles to one another, with their shadows on each other becoming indistinguishable from random noise.

It is a bigger reality, both more complex and more elegant than the clumsy "magical wave collapse" and "secret particle information subway" realities.

Who are you? Those that are elsewhere are images of you, things that what you used to be did become.

This is where I find some interesting implications.

You will be sick in bed. And you'll recover, no matter how ill you will get. Those around you will see you die, yes, but you will see yourself recover.

It becomes your duty to reconcile them with your death, with no longer being able to see you, while you yourself are facing no such risk of loss.

Desease and Death are sad, because they hurt others with your absence.

The alternative explainations are worse than the wierdness you get from the many-universe theory.

You think that the math is just an illusion. But, for whatever reason, math has proven to be the best modeler of the universe we have yet found. I'm taking the math at face value, and it says this universe is but a slice of reality.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

zen_tom

Math is great, but as the great mathematician Goedel proved, it is impossible for math to prove itself, or to provide any help in establishing the correctness or falsness of itself.
So in my personal choice, I prefer to take non-locality (which in some cases has been shown experimentally to occur) and the idea that there are things beyond our perception that we may yet be able to model mathematically that might provide us with the rest of the answers we are looking for.

I'll go along with the mathematical many-worlds theory, in respect to getting the answers to my quantum equations, but don't think it's a sensible way to describe the universe (mainly due to the infinate possibilities it opens up)

You can neither prove your own mortality or immortality to yourself. If you end up dead you don't know about it, and if you end up alive, you could just be incredibly lucky - there might be something really nasty around the corner that really could finish you off.

WillyPete

Boggled.

I understand it's still all theory but it's just too much to comprehend.
To make me feel better about my miscomprehension of such theory/science/philosophy, I like the analogy of myself being like the student pianist that meets sheets music by hammering each note as I translate it and trying to become the master musician who can simply look at the sheet and understand the flow of the music and know what it would sound like.
Maybe in my other lives....


Some parting questions though.
Do these mutli-verses continue to exist or are they simply states until the unknown is resolved.
Example: Whilst the coin is flipped and still in the air, it's neither heads nor tails until I catch it.
Does the m-u split when I flip it and then coalesce into the single state (say, tails) at the time of the catch? Or does it continue on in state heads AND tails?

Does it split every time I flip a coin for fun, or does it split when I make a decision based on the result of the split? I guess this one wanders into more of the realm of philosophy.

duck0987

By surviving 1000 button pushes, this just proves you are really lucky. You cannot prove multi universe until you are able to observe both outcomes first hand. If you push the button 1000 times you just might be lucky.

__________________
"I've got a lot of friends who don't know how to cook, which I could never understand because not knowing how to cook is like not knowing how to fuck." --Robert Rodriguez

ChickenNinja

There is a short story I read quite a while ago, about a man who experiences just this succession of odds and experiences eternal life. It's "eternal life" because after a global catastrophe kills everyone on earth, his mind is recovered by alien visitors

I do like the idea that we each experience just one line among an enormous tree of events. I even subscribe to the idea to a certain extent. "In another branch of my experience, my best friend just died because the train actually hit him instead of clipping him." "In another branch of my existence, I'm already a successfull business man because I made *this* decision differently." And so on.

__________________
Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

WillyPete

Then why make any decisions at all? Just leave it to you counterpart in the 'other' world.

Yakk

Math takes statements and explains their consequences.

It cannot tell you if the statements are consistent, nor can you find a finite set of statements that describe powerful things (like the concept of 'number' with both addition and multiplication) perfectly.

Or at least, that is what Goedel proved.

What I said what "math has turned out to be amazingly mind-bogglingly good at predicting things about the universe". Look at what Newton or Einstien or Hawking did with math, they predicted observations of things that are so far outside the human experience we had to make up words for them.

There is no experiement that demonstrates locality. There are experiments that demonstrate that either "non-locality" in the form of a quantum wave collapse subway, or many-universes, or some other explaination occurs.

Sounds like the old "god does not play dice with the universe" wager.

"Sure, the math and experiments says this is what happens. But, I'll pretend it isn't happening."

Are we talking mathematical proof or scientific proof?

Mathematically, you can't prove anything about reality.

Scientifically, you could prove many-worlds to yourself beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure, you could "just be lucky" and it turns out you are wrong. But we are talking about science -- every observation that has ever been made could have been just lucky, a huge coincidence, that has nothing to do with underlying reality.

That way lies stupidity and uselessness. The standard of scientific proof is lower than that of mathematical proof for a reason.

That is known as "quantum wave collapse". As far as the mathematics is concerned, the unknown is never fully resolved, it just gets closer to resolved until it looks undistinguishable from it being resolved.

M-U claims that the branches not taken are just as real.

More than that. The location of each molecule of air is a quantum wave, and all the possible quantum paths it can take all happen.

The universes never really 'split'. Just certain paths a particle takes can become mutually exclusive with other paths: the two 'ghosts' of the particle are rotated 90 degrees away from each other (in one of many of the infinite dimensions required). The amount two 'ghosts' of a particle can interact with each other is proprtional to the shadow one ghost would project onto the other, if there was a light haning above one of them.

So, two 'ghosts' of one particle at nearly 90 degrees find it very hard to interact with one another. In essence, they are 'in different universes'.

Such actions happen alot. Like a huge number. No huger than that.

Mathematically, you are correct. Nothing can be proven.

Scientifically, you aren't that lucky. The only reasonable way you could be that lucky is you are insane, or you live in a Q-M universe in which M-U is true.

Do you personally want to the the one who made the decisions, or the one who did not make the decisions?

You get to pick which you you are. Sure, other yous will decide to be indecisive. But do you want to be the decisive or indecisive you?

You have to live with your past. Possibly forever. Choose wisely.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

zen_tom

In the multiverse model, WillyPete, an infinite number of other yous is doing just that...

zen_tom

The thing is, you'd have to be insane to do the experiment.

And if it prooved to be true (i.e. you lived), you'd still be very very lucky, not because of the crazy odds of pulling it off (after all in an infinity of universes, everything is inevitable anyway) but because you were the one that happened to inhabit the particular universe where this happened to occur.

The odds would be exactly the same, and you would have prooved nothing (either scientifically or mathematically) except that you have little regard for your own life. People have been locked up for less than that.

zen_tom

Let's look at it another way:

Take yourself out of the equation and just do something random - flip a coin, or put an isotope in a box that goes ping when it decays, buy a lottery ticket - it doesn't matter - arrange for something extra-ordinarily improbable to occur, and then wait for it to occur - does this proove anything at all?

How improbable does something have to be before it becomes proof? Or is the staking of your life the important thing?

If I flip a coin and get heads 10 times in a row, is that enough? Or 1000? Or 1,000,000? What about if I play Russian Roulette enough times?

Sure, if multi-universes is correct all the crazy things will happen, not necessarily in the universe you live in, but they will, no, MUST happen. Have the people who've been struck by lightning, or won the lottery, or been born with a rare genetic abnormality believe in Many Worlds? You'd have to ask them - but maybe, just maybe, they'll think that shit happens.

Zenir

So what significance does the multiverse theory answer. I have only a general concept of relativity and plan on slowly making my way there. It sounds a lot like they are dealing with probability though. To me it seems like the closed system for genreal mechanical experiments applied to an area of physics explained by probability. You could assume each of teh possibilities, but does it matter if an alternative one occurs elsewhere and how so?

__________________
Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.-Albert Schweitzer, philosopher, physician, musician, Nobel laureate
(1875-1965)

Yakk

zen_tom, if something unlikely happens, then you look at the universe, realize there are others present, and examine the set of possible observations that could have seen the unlikely event.

Everything you described, once you realize there are others out there, becomes a likely thing to happen to someone.

The experiment I described, given a traditional universe, is mind bogglingly unlikely to happen in the history of creation.

2^10 is about 10^3
2^1000 = (2^10)^100 = 10^300

One in 10^300 chance.

Events of that probability do not happen, not before proton decay deletes the universe.

If I flipped a coin and it landed heads up 1000 times, I would look for an outside explaination -- up to and including the laws of physics where completely wrong. If one was missing, I would reasonably have to assume m-u. Out of the reasonable theories, only m-u provides enough 'room' for such an unlikely event to occur.

The "being in the box" experiment is just a graphic example of one such experiment you could do.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

EULA

So is that why the "quantum drive" in Hitchhikers turns you into random objects?

Nimetic

I think ObieX touched on this... but here's my take on it.

If there are N universes but we cannot interact with other ones or prove/disprove them - then they are irrelevant. We should not postulate them in theories. This seems to leave us with the statistical interpretation (but my QM is mostly forgotten anyways at this time).

The concept reminds me of some descriptions of reincarnation. My impression from the majority of reincarnation advocates that I've talked to is that it works something like this

-> body is different in next reincarnation
-> you will not remember your past life
-> you will not have the same personality

At which point I say that my reincarnated self would not be me, and is to all intents and purposes irrelevant to my current life. This seems true whether or not they inherit my "spirit" and/or karma.

Back to multiple-universes. Unless there's a way in which this is provable/disprovable or helpful in the model, my view is that they are about as useful as postulating a higher being. It predicts nothing, solves nothing and cannot be checked (though I do recall reading of one possible experiment, it was ~15yrs ago and memory is dim).

Unless the MUs simplify the equations/model/concept, why include them in our thinking. Is it possibly religion or SF that makes this idea so popular?