How much is too Many Worlds, is it just right?

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:11:27 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 à 09:41, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit :

I have one question (for Carroll or Zurek):

Suppose world W branches (in reality, not in "bookkeeping") to worlds W0 and W1.

If reality is pure information (basically purely mathematical bits of 0s and 1s), then that sort of "production" seems OK.

But what if W is (or contains) matter. Based on matter contents of W, W0, and W1:

If the matter contents of W0 plus W1 combined is greater than the matter content of W,

how was the extra matter "produced"?

If an infinity of indicernable universes already exist at the start and are only differentiating/diverging (instead of splitting), then no matter is created, all of it was already there.

Quentin

 

That's one answer to the question. (Is that the answer in Carroll's book?)

Is that answer satisfactory to everyone?

@philipthrift 

[Philip Thrift]

More answers here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/fEQhtiZipBk/ok7Ny2e4AwAJ

@philipthrift 

[Alan Grayson]

Not a plausible answer. It would mean that all possible universes which could be created, existed prior to the BB, or forever backward in time. That is, It assumes the universe "knows" in advance that some lab guy will do a double slit experiment. What's really amazing and depressing about the MWI is that it's presented as simplifying wave mechanics, as if explaining the creation of all that energy and space in those other worlds is a mere triviality. In fact, that problem is rarely, if ever, raised. AG

[Stathis Papaioannou]

You are just expressing an assumption. It is like arguing that the universe should stop somewhere beyond the orbit of the moon, because a much larger universe is wasteful.

--

Stathis Papaioannou

[Alan Grayson]

No. I am just applying logic to a model and showing it makes no sense -- something those who disagree, strenuously avoid to maintain their illusions. AG

[Stathis Papaioannou]

There is nothing illogical about duplication of matter. You are applying an intuition from everyday experience.

--

Stathis Papaioannou

[Bruce Kellett]

There is not necessarily anything illogical about any made-up set of laws. The trouble is that we want evidence, and contact with experience. Living in a dream is all very well, but it won't get you anywhere......

Bruce 

[Alan Grayson]

They think they have a form or indication of evidence; namely, that there is NO evidence of the collapse of the Schrodinger equation when the measurement occurs.  AG

[Bruce Kellett]

What evidence do people want? The only evidence that is relevant is that when we make a measurement, we see only one outcome. You can dream up other copies seeing all the other outcomes if you like, but there is absolutely no direct evidence for that. Stick with the evidence -- that is what I say.

Bruce 

[Bruno Marchal]

Yes, and even more for a computationalist, as those many-worlds are the canonical appearances emerging from all computations, which exists once we agree that x+2=7 admit a solution. 

For a physicist, an answer is that thermodynamic is internal to each histories, and mainly a statistical reality. But the many-worlds assumes mechanism, so eventually they have to explain the many worlds from the canonical many-histories interpretation provided by the universal machine in arithmetic. Everett’s explanation is sound but not complete, somehow.

Bruno

@philipthrift 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c13243cd-ccfd-45f1-a39f-45ea3473bee1%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Sep 2019, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:43 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:42 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 22:02, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

No. I am just applying logic to a model and showing it makes no sense -- something those who disagree, strenuously avoid to maintain their illusions. AG

There is nothing illogical about duplication of matter. You are applying an intuition from everyday experience.

There is not necessarily anything illogical about any made-up set of laws. The trouble is that we want evidence, and contact with experience. Living in a dream is all very well, but it won't get you anywhere......

Bruce 

They think they have a form or indication of evidence; namely, that there is NO evidence of the collapse of the Schrodinger equation when the measurement occurs.  AG

What evidence do people want? The only evidence that is relevant is that when we make a measurement, we see only one outcome.

But the simpler theory (SWE) explains this, so why add an axiom which contradict the SWE, and introduce an unintelligible (and dualist) theory of mind?

You can dream up other copies seeing all the other outcomes if you like, but there is absolutely no direct evidence for that.

All evidences for SWE are indirect evidences for it. 

Stick with the evidence -- that is what I say.

Evidences do not make sense apart of some theory. The difficulty is that evolution have not prepared us for things like quantum mechanics or mechanism, so we find “Reality” counter-intuitive. Yet, I would say that it is better to stick to a theory when it works, and change it only if we have evidence that it is refuted by Nature.

Bruno

Bruce 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT9_YmLr1n-9DZ0bGD2ODfA-R1rdK1YC%3DoM1x%3De2XvNOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:59 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not a plausible answer. It would mean that all possible universes which could be created, existed prior to the BB, or forever backward in time. That is, It assumes the universe "knows" in advance that some lab guy will do a double slit experiment.

That's called backward causality, and I think it's an implausible answer too, but the fact is those guys in the lab came up with bizarre experimental results that can not be dismissed as your flying saucer men in New Mexico can be because unlike that this bizarre stuff can and has been repeated many thousands of times; there is no doubt it's real and something weird is going on, the only question is how weird. Backward causality is one explanation for these very odd results but Many Worlds doesn't need it and Hugh Everett thought his idea was a little less bizarre than backward causality, and so do I. One thing is certain, whatever the truth turns out to be it's going to be STRANGE.  

 John K Clark  

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Sep 2019, at 11:45, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:11:27 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 à 09:41, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit :

I have one question (for Carroll or Zurek):

Suppose world W branches (in reality, not in "bookkeeping") to worlds W0 and W1.

If reality is pure information (basically purely mathematical bits of 0s and 1s), then that sort of "production" seems OK.

But what if W is (or contains) matter. Based on matter contents of W, W0, and W1:

If the matter contents of W0 plus W1 combined is greater than the matter content of W,

how was the extra matter "produced"?

If an infinity of indicernable universes already exist at the start and are only differentiating/diverging (instead of splitting), then no matter is created, all of it was already there.

Quentin

 

That's one answer to the question. (Is that the answer in Carroll's book?)

Is that answer satisfactory to everyone?

Yes, and even more for a computationalist, as those many-worlds are the canonical appearances emerging from all computations, which exists once we agree that x+2=7 admit a solution. 

For a physicist, an answer is that thermodynamic is internal to each histories, and mainly a statistical reality. But the many-worlds assumes mechanism, so eventually they have to explain the many worlds from the canonical many-histories interpretation provided by the universal machine in arithmetic. Everett’s explanation is sound but not complete, somehow.

Bruno

If there were a Sean Carroll 2 on a book tour, not presenting Many Worlds, but (by name) Multiple Histories, I wonder how his response in the media would differ.

Wikipedia:

Many histories may refer to:

• The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory
• The consistent histories interpretation of quantum theory
• The sum over histories or path integral formulation of quantum theory

The concept of multiple histories is closely related to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the same way that the many-worlds interpretation regards possible futures as having a real existence of their own, the theory of multiple histories reverses this in time to regard the many possible past histories of a given event as having real existence.

This concept was introduced by Richard Feynman, whose Feynman path integral is integrated over the set of all possible histories.

The idea of multiple histories has also been applied to cosmology, in a theoretical interpretation in which the universe has multiple possible cosmologies, and in which reasoning backwards from the current state of the universe to a quantum superposition of possible cosmic histories makes sense.

@philipthrift

[Alan Grayson]

You seem to have a bug up your butt about the possibility that an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell NM sometime early in July 1947. It goes along with your belief that possibly uncountable worlds are created when some person does a double slit experiment, and your defacto absurd claim that this represents a simplification of wave mechanics. Really? I suppose you haven't heard of numerous UFO sightings, some being close encounters and all caught by cameras and radar, by the US Navy in recent years, which might be alien. This is hard evidence we can agree on; something weird is going on. AG

[Bruno Marchal]

With mechanism we have all computations and the quantum (consistent) many-histories/worlds needed to be derived from arithmetic, without using any physical assumption, and still less the ontological commitment made in the current paradigm (the primary physical universe). Study my papers to get the proof, and ask question for this. You cite paper which are a bit made obsolete in the Mechanist frame. I do not assume physics. The existence of physical beliefs is what we have to explain when we assume explicitly the digital mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science (not in physics).

Bruno 

@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/82f4e7c8-033b-4a02-80e3-d60c1ce61fbc%40googlegroups.com.