Understanding MWI: A Newbie's Guide to Quantum Physics and the Multiverse

[confusedashell]

I'm a complete newbie on quantum physics and I don't think my mind is made to understand such complex features of science.
Although I've stumbled upon a few MWI articles that has melted my mind down a bit.

What I do not understand is, let's suppose MWI is true.
Does this state I am constantly moving form one universe to another, that my mother is not really my mother?

Or does it state we are all in the same universe all the time? like this universe with all the conscious humans in it is constnatly branching off in the same universe?
and that the other "worlds" are the other worlds, always separate from this world that is consitant?
So I can stop thinking every person I meet is a new person even if it's my brother I grew up with?

this **** is tearing my sanity apart, please clear this up for me in layman terms if your so nice:)

 

[Ben Niehoff]

It is entirely meaningless to say the many-worlds interpretation is "true" or "untrue". It is merely an interpretation of the equations, and it has no independent consequences on our experiences or experiments. Whether there is one world undergoing quantum probabilistic evolution from one state to the next, or many worlds bifurcating at every possible juncture such that their overall structure obeys quantum principles, is really just a matter of definition (or abstraction). It has no bearing on the actual physics.

 

[confusedashell]

this meaning there is one universe and not 95728958932085732785920 as David Deutsch says?
And the you who responded this post now, is the same as the one who is going to respond again or are we "jumping from universe to universe" all the ****ing time?

 

[vanesch]

You shouldn't look too deep into interpretational issues of quantum theory until you understand well enough the formalism and the reasons/arguments for a certain view.

 

[confusedashell]

Heh, no ****, I understand that now but.. a little too late.

I now feel that life is utterly meaningless if it is true that we are jumping universes all the time and my girl is not the girl i fell in love with at first sight and my mom is just a clone and my friends etc...

Is this what MWI states or does MWI state our universe is consistant and every inhabitant will forever remain in it?

Anyone care to answer that simple question those who has the proper understanding of MWI

 

[vanesch]

I now feel that life is utterly meaningless if it is true that we are jumping universes all the time and my girl is not the girl i fell in love with at first sight and my mom is just a clone and my friends etc...

If you push MWI all the way, yes, that's it, more or less. But it doesn't make any observational difference.

 

[confusedashell]

I don't care about "oberservational difference" i care for the truth...:\

Is there any middle way MWI an science support or is MWI go kill yourself the only truth?

I read this is the proof of MWI:

"
To predict that future quantum computers, made to a given specification, will work in the ways I have described, one need only solve a few uncontroversial equations. But to explain exactly how they will work, some form of multiple-universe language is unavoidable. Thus quantum computers provide irresistible evidence that the multiverse is real. One especially convincing argument is provided by quantum algorithms — even more powerful than Grover’s — which calculate more intermediate results in the course of a single computation than there are atoms in the visible universe. When a quantum computer delivers the output of such a computation, we shall know that those intermediate results must have been computed somewhere, because they were needed to produce the right answer. So I issue this challenge to those who still cling to a single-universe world view: if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed? I have yet to receive a plausible reply."How the hell is this even released to the public I won't ever be able to function normall again:(

 

[OOO]

I now feel that life is utterly meaningless if it is true that we are jumping universes all the time and my girl is not the girl i fell in love with at first sight and my mom is just a clone and my friends etc...

Is this what MWI states or does MWI state our universe is consistant and every inhabitant will forever remain in it?

What does meaningless mean ? I'd rather believe that an interpretation of reality is meaningless than reality itself is meaningless.

But when you will have managed your crisis, at least you will be aware of the fact that some ideas are useful while others aren't that useful...

 

[confusedashell]

Yeah but I mean, is this true?
I have a friend who studies MWI a lot and says Hugh Everett / David Deutsch does not believe in the splitting type of ****...? it's just Max tegmark who also support the crazy idea of Quantum Immortality and another concept that completely defies all known laws of physics.

My friend tells me most serious phycisists believe in new small universes spawning, nto even noticeable, not WHOLE universe, only smaller than a ****in dice for a limited period of time, then it disolves again.

Anyone got any information on this? cause this makes more sense.I simply deny to believe We all split universes all the time, that makes zero sense in ALl ways, because if as much as a ****n atomic thing went different in ANY of the other universes, you would not sprung into existence which leads me to conclude u can only exist in one universe for ever, together with everyone else...anyone agree's with me on any of this or is my friend wrong? (he's read most MWI books and it's history)

 

[OOO]

How the hell is this even released to the public

I guess some people will share your concern about that. But this is a free world and every idea will find its natural habitat. Some ideas survive, others don't.

 

[OOO]

Yeah but I mean, is this true?

As has been said before, this is not a question of true and untrue. This is just an interpretation that tries to make sense out of the probabilistic ingredients of quantum mechanics. But you don't need it to make physical predictions.

My friend tells me most serious phycisists believe in new small universes spawning, nto even noticeable, not WHOLE universe, only smaller than a ****in dice for a limited period of time, then it disolves again.

Then your friend should get his facts straight. None of my presumably serious colleagues believes in such things. But I'm sure there are enough people who devote their lives to exploring MWI. So this is obviously dependent on social context...

Maybe you keep much more calm about all this if you don't let yourself impress that much by people's efforts to explain what they don't yet understand.

 

[vanesch]

I don't care about "oberservational difference" i care for the truth...:\

Ah, then you're in for a shock: "truth" is not something that can be scientifically established (or in any other way btw). The best you can do is "is observationally in agreement".

The reasons to adhere to MWI will become clearer when you learn about the formalism of quantum theory: it is just a straightforward application of the elementary postulates of quantum theory, and it is formally nicer than any other approach, although it is of course intuitively terrible. Does this mean that your implications are then "true" ? Maybe, maybe not. My personal opinion is that if the quantum formalism as we know it today will stand the test of time, then there are serious reasons to take on the MWI view. But then, whether our current quantum formalism is something that will stand the test of time is something I'm agnostic about. In the mean time, MWI is a good way to look upon the formalism of quantum theory, when using it. It helps getting insight in how the formalism works.

BTW, if you *really* want to find life meaningless, consider then solipsism: your mind is alone and is dreaming up the whole universe, including the illusion that you have a material body. It cannot be contradicted. Is it "true" ? Maybe, maybe not.

All these considerations are, IMO, good exercises to get your mind free from a priori considerations based upon daily experience. However, they are terrible ways to think about everyday life: we need another paradigm when living in daily life in order to function correctly. So: I consider MWI when I'm doing quantum mechanics, and I consider "everyday life as usual" when doing "everyday life", realizing that all this is probably at least partly illusionary. I'm not 100% sure that other people are "really" there when I talk to them or see them, but I take it as a working hypothesis which gives me good results in daily life (in other words, I can get organized my daily life much better when I think of them as being there "for real"). I have a similar attitude with MWI and quantum theory. I'm not 100% sure that all that superposition thing is correct, but I can handle quantum theory much better when I think of it as being so.
And when I look at the moon, I'm not 100% sure that the moon is there the way Newton told us, but it helps me calculate and understand its motion.
You should, for the thing you're doing/considering, use the ontological paradigm which helps you get the best results, realizing that you cannot be 100% sure about it.

 

[OOO]

BTW, if you *really* want to find life meaningless, consider then solipsism: your mind is alone and is dreaming up the whole universe, including the illusion that you have a material body. It cannot be contradicted. Is it "true" ? Maybe, maybe not.

This is an excellent example in this context. It took me years to get over solipsism and every once in a while I am suffering a relapse...

 

[confusedashell]

Thanks... relapse in solipsism I've been strugglin with for the last 2+ years 24/7...:P

OOO how did u get over it?

Btw any of you BELIEVE in MWI that you jump from one universe to another 24/7?

 

[jtbell]

I simply deny to believe We all split universes all the time,

Fine! You have lots of company.

Just pick an interpretation of QM that you feel comfortable with, or at least, that you feel least uncomfortable with. Just recognize that so far, we have no way to distinguish between these interpretations using experimental evidence, because they all share the same mathematics, or at least reduce to the same mathematics, as far as experimentally testable phenomena are concerned. And they all have features that make some people uncomfortable (different people in each case, of course).

I'm an agnostic myself, as far as interpretations of QM are concerned. I enjoy reading about them, but I try not to take debates about them too seriously.

 

[confusedashell]

Thanks for the suggestion, I just acnnot take Copenhagen interpretations serious as I came to the same conclusion Ir ead einstein came to when denying it.

is there any SINGLE UNIVERSE interpretations out there, if so could you "show me" ?

The **** is I'm a 18 year old with way to much on his mind, basically existential crisis hit me with solipsism syndrome I've been trying to beat for 2 years.
Which lead me to obsessively 24/7 research science and try to regain sanity.

Solipsism is refuteable, you cannot think of new colors, therefore you did nto create anything of this.
You cannot dream before you ahve percieved.
Simple and easy...

But anyone know of any QM's that doesn't **** your mind to the point where u want to kill urself?
I mean there must be SOMEONE who believe in objective reality and one universe? which is the only OBSErVEABLE THING EVER...?

 

[OOO]

Thanks... relapse in solipsism I've been strugglin with for the last 2+ years 24/7...:P

OOO how did u get over it?

With a good psychiatrist. No, seriously, the impression that I cannot change the world to my liking is the strongest evidence I guess. So there is no way to go wrong: the fail safe mode of operation of my brain is to think of an objective world, although I don't know exactly how it's working. Should I ever notice any extraordinary incidents, like levitating my desk with the power of thought, or guessing the lottery numbers, I'm darn sure that I will enjoy this unforeseen insight for the rest of my life.

After all I'm convinced, that the cause of solipsism is just human hubris, the imbalance between what we can do and what we can imagine.

Btw any of you BELIEVE in MWI that you jump from one universe to another 24/7?

I haven't spent any time on understanding its deeper structures. But from my superficial impression it sounds like nonsens to me. Like making UFO's responsible for the pyramids and such. But as I say, I don't know nothing about it. You asked me.

 

[confusedashell]

Yeah definately...

Solipsism is the worst delusion to go through...

The **** is, after I stated 24/7 obsessing and not moving from my desk because of constant shock and just wanting to die I've ntoiced so many coincidences... I think of something then I notice something on a webpage or something that corresponds to this.
Like solipsism, Iw as thinkin about it 2miniutes before you guys wrote it doown...Know what the worst thing is? I DNO **** about quantum ****, but I got the worst imagination u can imagine.
I can just visualize how it is and now wanting to die, and my mind works so quick so I think

"if we jump form universe to unvierse all the time we never really get to see anyone, because visual perception takes 1 tenth of a second to percieve and then ur already in a new universe...

I have no **** nclue if i should try the quantum suicide experiment and hope its wrong or if my brain will recover this ever.. :\

 

[OOO]

But anyone know of any QM's that doesn't **** your mind to the point where u want to kill urself?
I mean there must be SOMEONE who believe in objective reality and one universe? which is the only OBSErVEABLE THING EVER...?

As Feynman once said, whether the description of our world can be put into a finite set of equations is a totally open question. So killing yourself because our contemporary understanding of physics is not as complete as you expected, is a bit of overreacting, isn't it.

I wonder if the stone age man would have been influenced in his bear hunting habits by our current discussion. The problem is a bit artificial, like an itching spot on your skin. If you keep on scratching the itch will get worse. But if you go out and have fun (which means for a physicist: do some constructive things with the tools you have ), the itch will cease spontaneously.

 

[vanesch]

This is an excellent example in this context. It took me years to get over solipsism and every once in a while I am suffering a relapse...

I enjoy it when things don't go the way I like it
Kind of "let the bastard go on, he doesn't exist really, and doesn't even realize it"

 

[confusedashell]

Nono, do you not realize the extent of what is being said?

NOONE IN UR LIFE MATTERS, THEY ARE THERE FOR A SPLIT SECONDI do not know how the **** you guys get through the day... my mind is over

I wish I was a caveman with a stupid brain, this overactive ocd brain of mine is not really helping me at ****ing all, supposed to evolve to sruvive, when my evovled to kill itself, ironic

 

[vanesch]

Nono, do you not realize the extent of what is being said?

NOONE IN UR LIFE MATTERS, THEY ARE THERE FOR A SPLIT SECOND

That's how I've always looked upon life, really...

You should calm down. In order for MWI to have a chance to be right, the superposition principle has to be valid for macroscopic bodies, over extended times, where gravity is active. It is very well possible that the superposition principle is limited in these areas.
But even if the superposition principle is right, there are still different flavors of MWI you could get used to. For instance, think of your girlfriend. Now think of her, and imagine that I make a perfect copy of her, with all her souvenirs and everything, and then destroy the original. For you, would that really make any difference ?
Imagine now the following: a classical universe, with infinite extend. That means that all possibilities also really exist somewhere. It means that somewhere far far away (beyond the edge of the visible universe), there exists an exact copy of you, and an exact copy of your girlfriend, which is right now being cut in two by a maniak with a chain saw. Right at this very moment !

See, all these idealizations, whether they are MWI, or "infinite Newtonian universe" or whatever, always lead to situations which seem for us, furry mammals, quite disturbing. It simply means that the world isn't the thing you thought it was. That doesn't mean it is what you think it is *now*. But it is a weird place all right.

 

[LURCH]

I don't know if this will help you any, but I am one of those who do not accept MWI. Not because it is asthetically unpleasant, or phylisophically inconvinient, but because it contains a paradox. To my way of thinking, the fact that MWI makes certain mathematical formalisms easier to think about is not sufficient reason to accept it as anything other than a usefull supposition. As I see it, any theory, model, view, or interpretation that leads to a paradox is self-disproving. Therefore, I cannot accept MWI in any of its current forms as a valid or rational interpretation.

However, if it serves as a usefull way of looking at things, like a fairy tale that helps children to learn an important truth, then it has a purpose. All I'm saying is, let's don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, here; if you "deny to believe that the nuiverse splits all the time," then that's cool (I happen to agree with you), but don't dismiss the usefulness of being able to play "Let's pretend" that it does.

BTW (and this might be better discussed in the Phyl. Forum), I think there may be a fundamental flaw in your assumption that life becomes meaningless if MWI is "true." So you might want to take a sec to ask yourself why the universe needs to be a single, non-bifercating unit in order for your life to have meaning. After all, no matter how many universes exist, or how many "you's" occupy them, there is only one "you" occupying the exact space that you currently occupy. I mean, if you were not unique, then the other you's would not have split off into their own realities. If uniqueness is your standard for meaningfullness, then you're safe either way.

 

[confusedashell]

Thanks both.
Ofcourse, the human brain is very complex and understand a lot of ****, but as einstein said, he denied to believe QM was anything special or anything we could ever understand.
I think I understand him, isn't there like 30 different interpretations of serious phycists?
Why is it Copenhagen / MWI gets most attention.
copenhagen goes against itself by saying there could be no existence without observance which throws all science out the window such as evolution cosmology etc. that's obviously BULLCRAP.

MWI on the other hand, I dno where they got the idea that there must eb other universes, couldn't there be rational alternatives? if so can someone point me in that direction?Theres 3 things about MWI i do not like that tears me apart:
One: I want to be unique
two: even worse, I DO NOT want to think I am a serial rapist in another universe just because it's physically POSSIBLe
tree: worst of all, if this is true, the girl I am inlove with is another girl 24/7, now I'm a atheist, but love is still important to me and this position tears my ****ing existence apart.Lurch, you got any other interpretations or want to elaborate your view?
I'm not good at finding any rational views, fears controls my beliefs if I think on my own...

see my mind suffers execcisve pure o(mental form of OCD) i cannot play anything that scares me, I red one article on solipsism and haven't been out of the house since almost... that's how brainshattering insane thoughts is to me;\I have also had the approach to life that most is "meaningless" in the big sense and humans are responsible for their own meaning purpose and enjoyment of their brief time of awareness as human beings before they are sucked up in mothernatures recycle machine...
no problem here, as long as those around me are real conscious individuals, independant of me and I'm just as natural and we are all i nteh same universe, I'm good...

but MWI comes a long and ****s me up. Now I know it's just a interpretations, but it seems 60% of the phycisist agree on it now and the rest is on the copenhagen interpretation.
How is it none of these people go insane?

What was the theory that said we are all in the same universe always branching in the same universe?

That there is parallel universes but we are never ever splitting off or touching them?String theory? but that got assraped didn't it?;\

 

[vanesch]

I don't know if this will help you any, but I am one of those who do not accept MWI. Not because it is asthetically unpleasant, or phylisophically inconvinient, but because it contains a paradox.

What's the paradox then ?

 

[OOO]

Ofcourse, the human brain is very complex and understand a lot of ****, but as einstein said, he denied to believe QM was anything special or anything we could ever understand.

Well, if you know Einstein, then you know that everything is relative... Take reality for example:

When I first saw your user name, I thought it meant "confused a shell" and only now I have realized that it means "confused as hell". When you referred to "OCD", I thought you mistakenly meant "QCD".

So the moral of the story is: learn to enjoy your failures and you won't feel obsessed anymore. Don't know if this helps you, but this whole thing is obviously not about physics.

 

[confusedashell]

Yea but how can I know about the mistakes.
Obviously solipsism is a msitake. no doubt.
But can MWInterpretation be just as simple "misinterpreted" as words?=P

In a sense its about both mental health and physics.
If i never heard about these theories etc I wouldn't suffer mental health issues like this...My best argument again MWI is that IF it truly existed, SOMEONE would travel from the future of one of this so called INFINITE to the past and explained it all to us, no one has so therefore can't be infinite universes atleast...

Could all interpretations be wrong and QM just beeing queer and there's nothing more to it?

 

[jtbell]

Thanks for the suggestion, I just acnnot take Copenhagen interpretations serious as I came to the same conclusion Ir ead einstein came to when denying it.

OK, so you don't like MWI and you don't like Copenhagen. But those aren't the only two widely discussed interpretations of QM. Have you checked out the Bohm interpretation ("Bohmian mechanics") yet, for example? At least one guy who posts here regularly is a big fan of Bohm.

 

[OOO]

Yea but how can I know about the mistakes.

You don't have to. 99 Percent of our lives is inert to mistakes. Otherwise most children wouldn't survive a single day.

 

[confusedashell]

Ofcourse we make mistakes, but when it comes to "reality view" you cannot afford a mistake it is basically lief quality 100% on stake in the picture...

Yea, i do not like MWI and Copenhagen seems selfcontradictionary for me to even consider as there obviously was a universe way before any evolved being could observe it...

I haven't checked oout Bohm interpretation, I've heard of him though, what was his opinion / interpretation in layman terms if you do not mind explaining?
I go on wikipedia and read and all I see is mathemathical equations that make less sense than reading korean to me:P :)

Does it state any crazy **** like consciousness being important or existence of other universes?

By the way incredible great forum, only been registered 1 day and people are so helpful:)

 

[confusedashell]

Vautsch here's the post my friend sent me on email today about MWI:

Deutsch and all of the prominent scientists throughout history who supported MWI don't believe in "splitting" MWI. They believe in MWI with parallel universe but NOT splitting in the sense that you interpret (people split). Its impossible for reasons obvious to scientists.

POP SCIENCE AND SCIFI MOVIES believe in splitting. That infects popular words and people then think that is what scientist believe.

It's not.

They believe in parallel mini universe. Not something massive, but rather microscopic that happens then collapses. It isn't a universe even the size of a finger.. it is microscopic truly. No evolution could happen its so small basically. It exists for a finite, very limited period of time. It comes into existence then goes away VERY fast. Not long enough for it to be meaningful other than to say 'it exist' momentarily.

There are no clones or splitting of people. We are who we are and that always stays the same and EVERYONE we know stays the same over time (they just grow old). This is what those scientists believe who believe even in MWI. They don't believe in splitting the way you thinking about it.. Is this true? Obviously this guy has got it from somewhere (he does not do asspulls) and is very serious when researching.
He bought the book Fabric of Reality immediately when MWi started "bugging" him to and read upon it tons..

and my memory recalls David Deutsch saying "this will go down in history as one of the greatest achievements in science, or atleast in ONE universe" and "I acknowledge in another universe i might have written this article better".
Which seems to say he does not believe we splitt of and separate to different paths in the parallel verses(if they indeed exist) ?

 

[OOO]

Ofcourse we make mistakes, but when it comes to "reality view" you cannot afford a mistake it is basically lief quality 100% on stake in the picture...

I disagree. It's just the experience that we can understand certain things by thinking, which raises the addictive expectation that this always works.

Imagine you were a little child again and you got your first peach. And you found out that there is such an attractively shaped pit inside of this apparently soft fruit. Form now on you will start looking for stones in all more or less soft things just to repeat that sense of achievement.

When you finally come to onions you'll notice that they have many layers you can strip off but, alas, there is no stone inside and, what's more, they're not sweet at all. Will you be running around until the end of your life and ask people if this is really true ? Or will you accept that there is no pit inside reality, and use onions in an adequate way to prepare some of your meals ?

 

[confusedashell]

I disagree. It's just the experience that we can understand certain things by thinking, which raises the addictive expectation that this always works.

Imagine you were a little child again and you got your first peach. And you found out that there is such an attractively shaped pit inside of this apparently soft fruit. Form now on you will start looking for stones in all more or less soft things just to repeat that sense of achievement.

When you finally come to onions you'll notice that they have many layers you can strip off but, alas, there is no stone inside and, what's more, they're not sweet at all. Will you be running around until the end of your life and ask people if this is really true ? Or will you accept that there is no pit inside reality, and use onions in an adequate way to prepare some of your meals ?

That's deep buddha:P

I understand your point, but for me other humans and personal relationships is really important, this is not the case with you?

 

[OOO]

That's deep buddha:P

I understand your point, but for me other humans and personal relationships is really important, this is not the case with you?

It is, but I don't have to explain to myself that my son exists, only because he is consistent with what I know about physics. Nobody should use a hammer to arrange flowers.

 

[confusedashell]

Oh you have a son How old is he? never teach him QM's:P

Yeah **** like that is hopefully something I will experience in the future and I'd hate to doubt his permanent existence in the same universe as me...
So you do not buy into the MWI split ****?

Sorry for repeating the question so many times it's just so ****ing confusing.
Damn wish I never opened a philosophy book or a physics book and kept common sense realism as 98% of the world.

Also when you said you struggled solipsism, and overcame it, it means it is possible to overcome it and regain reality and sanity right? I feel hopelessly lost... Probably because my perception is like an overdose of LSD (got a anxiety disorder called Derealization where everything looks flat).

 

[OOO]

Oh you have a son How old is he? never teach him QM's:P

5, so no QM yet.

So you do not buy into the MWI split ****?

No.

Sorry for repeating the question so many times it's just so ****ing confusing.
Damn wish I never opened a philosophy book or a physics book and kept common sense realism as 98% of the world.

Also when you said you struggled solipsism, and overcame it, it means it is possible to overcome it and regain reality and sanity right? I feel hopelessly lost... Probably because my perception is like an overdose of LSD (got a anxiety disorder called Derealization where everything looks flat).

There is no such thing as sanity. This world is full of crazed maniacs. Some of the maniacs make believe that they are normal because they belong to a certain group, and some others get remorses because they don't. Just be indulgent to yourself and others and everything will turn out right.

 

[confusedashell]

Definately but I think we can all agree

Schizo's, Solipsists, Fundamental martyr muslims etc goes under MANIACs.

 

[Count Iblis]

MWI bugging me

There exist a copy of you who is not bugged by the MWI

 

[confusedashell]

haha actually that's another thing i find very unanswered by MWI.

if the universe is deterministic all the others must have been IDENTICAL, so it makes seriously no ****n sense to me

 

[Hurkyl]

After all I'm convinced, that the cause of solipsism is just human hubris, the imbalance between what we can do and what we can imagine.

What about logic? Philosophers aren't idiots, you know. (Of course, a lot of idiots think they're philosophers! Just to be clear, that's not directed at anyone here)

In any intellectual discipline, it's good to know a diverse variety of examples. Solipsism is extremely useful in that regard; for example, it can be used to instantly rebut many of bold claims. For example:

Person A: Of course an apple exists!
Person B: Oh really? Prove it!
Person A: Well, I can see it, I can feel it, I can taste it.
Person B: But how do you know all of that isn't just a figment of your imagination?
Person A: ...

and it undermines many other claims -- for example, one philosophical position is that we can only trust in what we directly observe... which sounds like an impressive axiom, until you realize that it very quickly leads you to solipsism.

 

[OOO]

What about logic? Philosophers aren't idiots, you know. (Of course, a lot of idiots think they're philosophers! Just to be clear, that's not directed at anyone here)

In any intellectual discipline, it's good to know a diverse variety of examples. Solipsism is extremely useful in that regard; for example, it can be used to instantly rebut many of bold claims. For example:

Person A: Of course an apple exists!
Person B: Oh really? Prove it!
Person A: Well, I can see it, I can feel it, I can taste it.
Person B: But how do you know all of that isn't just a figment of your imagination?
Person A: ...

and it undermines many other claims -- for example, one philosophical position is that we can only trust in what we directly observe... which sounds like an impressive axiom, until you realize that it very quickly leads you to solipsism.

I'm curious about how you think some claim could be logically undermined by showing that it leads to solipsism...

Is solipsism equivalent to logical false or does the philosopher rather utilize a mixture of scare and authority here ?

 

[reilly]

I'll ask three questions:

1. How many universes are there -- what kind of Cantorian infinity are we talking?

2. If there is no splitting, what conservation law attends to the constancy of the number of universes?

3. Can anyone explain, without contradictions, Deutsch's rather odd notion of shadow photons?

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[setAI]

Vautsch here's the post my friend sent me on email today about MWI:

Deutsch and all of the prominent scientists throughout history who supported MWI don't believe in "splitting" MWI. They believe in MWI with parallel universe but NOT splitting in the sense that you interpret (people split). Its impossible for reasons obvious to scientists.

POP SCIENCE AND SCIFI MOVIES believe in splitting. That infects popular words and people then think that is what scientist believe.

It's not.

They believe in parallel mini universe. Not something massive, but rather microscopic that happens then collapses. It isn't a universe even the size of a finger.. it is microscopic truly. No evolution could happen its so small basically. It exists for a finite, very limited period of time. It comes into existence then goes away VERY fast. Not long enough for it to be meaningful other than to say 'it exist' momentarily.

There are no clones or splitting of people. We are who we are and that always stays the same and EVERYONE we know stays the same over time (they just grow old). This is what those scientists believe who believe even in MWI. They don't believe in splitting the way you thinking about it..


Is this true? Obviously this guy has got it from somewhere (he does not do asspulls) and is very serious when researching.
He bought the book Fabric of Reality immediately when MWi started "bugging" him to and read upon it tons..

and my memory recalls David Deutsch saying "this will go down in history as one of the greatest achievements in science, or atleast in ONE universe" and "I acknowledge in another universe i might have written this article better".
Which seems to say he does not believe we splitt of and separate to different paths in the parallel verses(if they indeed exist) ?

the MWI and Unitary QM say that macro-scale histories evolve from all the possible outcomes of every particle interaction- they are whole universes as real as the one you are observing now- Deutsch has addressed this directly many times:

" Philosophically, I would like to add to that that it simply does not make sense to say that there are parallel copies of all particles that participate in microscopic interactions, but that there are not parallel copies of macroscopic ones. It is like saying that someone is going to double the number of pennies in a bank account without doubling the number of Pounds."

David Deutsch[/color] http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/PhilosophyNow.html

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm curious about how you think some claim could be logically undermined by showing that it leads to solipsism...

Is solipsism equivalent to logical false or does the philosopher rather utilize a mixture of scare and authority here ?

If the person you're debating with rejects solipsism, then it's sufficiently false.

One example I see is when someone wants to reject some sophisticated physical concept (entanglement and force fields are two typical examples). They argue that the fact these are not "directly observed", that we should consider them a mere mathematical trick rather than referring to anything "real". However, such a person typically wants to believe certain things are "real", such as an apple (otherwise, he wouldn't have singled out certain concepts). By demonstrating that the "direct observation" criterion leads to solipsism, this conflicts with the persons claim that there really do exist "real" things like apples, and so this removes most of the force of the argument.

 

[xantox]

NONE IN UR LIFE MATTERS, THEY ARE THERE FOR A SPLIT SECOND

No, that is totally wrong. First, you cannot, even if you want, take the point of view of the multiverse, you can only analyze it theoretically. If MWI is true you only inhabit one branch, cannot "exit" from it, and nevertheless your life there is stil both real and absolute. It is far too easy to fail to reconcile physical theories with experience not because that reconciliation does not exist, but because we have rather simplistic theories of our experience. So, concluding from that common failure that life is meaningless, that is truly something meaningless (since it does not follow from it and bears no relationship with it).

 

[OOO]

If the person you're debating with rejects solipsism, then it's sufficiently false.

One example I see is when someone wants to reject some sophisticated physical concept (entanglement and force fields are two typical examples). They argue that the fact these are not "directly observed", that we should consider them a mere mathematical trick rather than referring to anything "real". However, such a person typically wants to believe certain things are "real", such as an apple (otherwise, he wouldn't have singled out certain concepts). By demonstrating that the "direct observation" criterion leads to solipsism, this conflicts with the persons claim that there really do exist "real" things like apples, and so this removes most of the force of the argument.

I know what you mean but I'm far from being convinced of the usefulness of solipsism and logic in such a case (or maybe I take a little too serious what you say).

People usually have good reason to trust their senses more than anything else. Even the hallucinating psychotic projects the malfunctioning of his brain to reality because this is flashed into his (like everybody else's) firmware. If you hold an apple in your hands that's certainly more trustworthy than someone telling you the apple you see on your computer screen is in the appartment next to yours, at least if you don't have your neighbour's keys.

I think this is the root of sane skepticism and the only thing the expert has to tell to the layman is: it takes a lot of hard work to achieve a level of trust similar to the one we have in our senses. And still it's prone to error and even fraud.

In my opinion, causing a short-circuit via logical tricks and appeal to solipsism seems a bit counter-productive for the understanding between laymen and experts.

 

[ganstaman]

haha actually that's another thing i find very unanswered by MWI.

if the universe is deterministic all the others must have been IDENTICAL, so it makes seriously no ****n sense to me

Wait, QM is deterministic? Oh, I think I need someone to explain some stuff to me.

 

[confusedashell]

No, that is totally wrong. First, you cannot, even if you want, take the point of view of the multiverse, you can only analyze it theoretically. If MWI is true you only inhabit one branch, cannot "exit" from it, and nevertheless your life there is stil both real and absolute. It is far too easy to fail to reconcile physical theories with experience not because that reconciliation does not exist, but because we have rather simplistic theories of our experience. So, concluding from that common failure that life is meaningless, that is truly something meaningless (since it does not follow from it and bears no relationship with it).

Yeah but that is my whole issue with MWI if it's true.
What does it really state people seem confused and have differnt opinions.
If I(this consciousness) is A, then there copy B C D E F G H + + + + in universer B C D E F G H +++
So when I'm branching, do it split?
So the mom A from UNIVERSE A as me that gave me birth is now in a other universe or are we (A's from UNIVERSE A) ALWAYS branching in the same consistant and closed system universe?
If I'm always in the same branch, then won't everyone else be too?

 

[JesseM]

Yeah but that is my whole issue with MWI if it's true.
What does it really state people seem confused and have differnt opinions.
If I(this consciousness) is A, then there copy B C D E F G H + + + + in universer B C D E F G H +++
So when I'm branching, do it split?
So the mom A from UNIVERSE A as me that gave me birth is now in a other universe or are we (A's from UNIVERSE A) ALWAYS branching in the same consistant and closed system universe?
If I'm always in the same branch, then won't everyone else be too?

If the mom A that gave birth to you "splits" into alternate versions A1, A2, A3, etc., what basis would there be for saying one of these versions was the "original" and the others were just copies? All the branches would be on equal footing, it seems to me...they would all be "descendants" of A.

 

[Count Iblis]

We cannot deny that the brain creates a virtual representation of what we think is an external world and that we experience this virtual reality, not the real world. Perhaps it is better to say that we are this virtual world.

So, it is like being in a computer simulation. If you are in a simulated world, then to you the "real world" is described by the rules that describe the simulation. If you believe in Tegmark's mathematical multiverse, then your world exists in its own right, it doesn't need to be computed in this universe (the one described by the Standard Model and General Relativity).

Not so long ago I visited a friend. He had made some changes to his home on the outside. The front door now looks different. But when I entered his home, I didn't notice that. In fact, I remember entering his home with the old front door, which is impossible as he changed it. When he told me that it was changed, I didn't believe it. I went outside to see that it was indeed changed. Still, I did "see" the old front door when I entered the home.

This sort of thing happens a lot, most of the time we don't notice it. What happens is that the brain uses stored information to interpret new information. Just like when you browse the internet, a lot of of information is recovered from cached information stored in your computer or the proxy server of your ISP. So, it can happen that you don't see the latest version and you are then in a simulation based on old information.