Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Things MUST go wrong

  1. May 29, 2004 #1
    Things MUST go "wrong"

    According to the multiuniverse theory, all the probablities that occur in life occur in other parallel universes. Now, there is a possibility that I will either get an A or and F on a test. An F by my standards is bad. An A on the contrary is good. Both events (where I get an A or an F) occur in parallel universes. In this universe, I get an A, in a parallel universe I get an F.

    Say I recieved an F in this universe. The only comfort I would have is that in a parallel universe, I would have an A and in another I'd have a B.
    Now let us consider the occurence where I recieve an A. I would know that in a parallel universe, I would have an F.

    So IOW, does it matter what happens at all? In another parallel universe (if things are not "perfect" for you) things would be perfect or if things are perfect for you, there would be an alternate universe where things are not perfect for you.

    I feel I am heading in the direction of determinsm.
    I would like input on my ideas and corrections in if any.

    thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 29, 2004 #2
    a quick reply (hopefully not too quick)...

    What would be the reaction of a professor if it was explained that all was copasetic because your assignment was being turned in right that very moment, in a parallel universe? :biggrin:
    In practical terms you are in this universe. The others will take care of themselves, no need for you to always receive the short stick.
     
  4. May 29, 2004 #3

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even if we assume that multiverses exist as you have described them, you have have to ask yourself to what extent you are connected to your other 'selves.' If a multiverse copy of yourself gets an A, does that have any bearing on you in this universe? I think not. It would be silly to not care what grades you get because you know that someone else in your class will get an A, and it seems equally as silly (if not more so) to not care what grades you get because someone else in some other universe will get an A.
     
  5. May 29, 2004 #4

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This theory seems to run into a bit of a mathematical problem. Let's say intially you have only one universe, and one moment passes in that universe. According to this theory, you have then created an infinity of universes in which every possible outcome of that moment (there are infinite possibilities) is played out. In the following moment, each of those universes would then need to undergo the same multiplication. But how can this be? You can't perform a mathematical operation on each number in an infinite set because you will never be able to finish (you can never reach the end of "infinity"). Does anyone know of a way to overcome this difficulty?
     
  6. May 29, 2004 #5

    My point is, I will get an A and an F. In Universe A, I get an A and in universe F, I get an F. So is it a must that I get an F because such a probablilty exists in another universe? Will I trip and fall "at the same time" I am not? Almost like a determinism type universe.
     
  7. May 29, 2004 #6

    You mean to say that multiverse theory can be solved?
     
  8. May 30, 2004 #7

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I suppose if you take the multiverse thing literally, then yes, any event that has a nonzero probability of happening actually does happen in some universe. But who knows, if you are a great student maybe there is zero probability that you get an F. :wink:

    Anyway, I don't think you can identify yourself with your multiverse copy. If you get an A, then you're in universe A and that's it. There's someone almost exactly like you in universe F who got an F, but that person is not you.
     
  9. May 30, 2004 #8
    What makes "me" me? If someone is exactly like me, what seperates them from me?
     
  10. May 30, 2004 #9
    I would like to attempt answering this;
    What separates you from them is that you are an Ego and there appears to me no way you can avoid this. In choosing what is to be believed, or what actions are to be pursued, the process only supports that an Ego is at work.

    When Hypnagogue says;
    I believe he is correct.



    Now inspect the wording of your last post;
    Note the part above I emboldened; you recognize your Ego and call it “me”. You call it “me” even while considering the ramifications of the existence of others exactly like you. If such an individual, instead of existing in a parallel universe, was standing in the room next to you, could not the question still be asked; what separates you from me? Whatever the answer to that question might be are you not, in asking, acknowledging a difference does in fact exist?
    I call it the Ego, the acting man.
     
  11. May 30, 2004 #10

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To expand on what BH said, that which delineates the boundaries of your identity is simply the boundaries of your own consciousness. In a sense, you are not me just because your consciousness is not my consciousness; if our consciousnesses somehow merged together, wouldn't we become one entirely new person? Likewise, you are not your multiverse copy because your consciousness is distinct from that of your multiverse copy. (If it weren't, you'd feel the disappointment of your multiverse copy's F, and so on.)
     
  12. May 31, 2004 #11
    speaking of multiverses....

    I found a transcript from a BBC documentary concerning multiuniverses. It says :


    here is the URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

    I was under the impression that m-theory was what [apparently] held the key to an explanation to everything in the universe. I don't see how parallel universe produce a unifying theory.

    Boulderhead:
    How would you define an ego? It is an intriguing concept.

    What would be the difference if you said "…I don't think you can identify yourself as your multiverse copy." instead of "…I don't think you can identify yourself with your multiverse copy. " ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2004
  13. Jun 1, 2004 #12
    Here is another article which claims that multiuniverse theory describes how the mind interacts with matter.

    What is your take on this? Does multiuniverse theory describe how the mind interacts with matter? If so, is it indirect?
     
  14. Jun 1, 2004 #13

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Post a link to the article. As far as I know, anyone doing actual research on the neural basis of consciousness (or the neural interface if that is what you think it is) does not take seriously the idea that any new theories of physics will be necessary for a complete understanding.
     
  15. Jun 11, 2004 #14
    That's rather strange. You are presupposing this thing exists and then using curious definitions of "you" and "matter" and so forth. Basically you are making an equivocation between all conceivable circumstances and essentially asserting that there is no value. You're not really heading into a discourse on determinism though you are really asking about value when you have seemingly destroyed value. Would make for a good episode of Stargate or something I guess, though. =)
    *Nico
     
  16. Jun 11, 2004 #15

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    I think the article is bunk. We have been following the latest theories of quantum theory and cosmology on the various physics and astronomy boards, and none of these theories say anything at all about consciousness. So I'm betting the people who claim they do are fantasizing on their own acount, not referencing the brane theories, M-theory, string field theory, quantum geometry or quantum gravity that are actually produced by scientists.
     
  17. Jun 12, 2004 #16

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are you sure? There are a finite number of particles in the universe (a very, very large number, to be sure, but still finite). Are there an infinite number of possible states for a particle to be in? If not, then there will be a very, very, very large number of universes, but not an infinity of them.
    :surprise:
     
  18. Jun 12, 2004 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Nereid, some eigenvalue sets are continuous. Wouldn't there be a world for every point on a line segment in that case?
     
  19. Jun 12, 2004 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Whether or not there are an infinite number of states for a particle to be in, I was thinking more along the lines of the infinity of possible trajectories for these particles to take.
     
  20. Aug 20, 2004 #19
    Even assuming that the multiverse theory is correct, the fact that both possibilities exist that you get an A and an F is no reason not to care wether you get one or the other.
    Because even if both possibilities exist, the probabilities of both outcomes are not the same. If you are a good student, there will be more probabilities that the outcome is A. Therefore there will be many universes in which you get an A and very few where you get an F.

    About the consciousness issue....
    Several interpretations of quantum theory, starting by the Copenhagen and other typical ones such as John Wheeler's, give an important role to the conscious observer in collapsing the many probabilities into a fixed reality (in the multiverse language, in selecting in which multiverse version do we continue our -ego- existence)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2004
  21. Aug 24, 2004 #20

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, it is continuous for the sake of simplicity. But if you take that, for instance, the Planck length is the smallest thinkable position resolution, and the Planck time is the smallest thinkable time resolution, then in the *visible* universe there are only a finite (but very very big) number of space-time events. The number of dimensions in the corresponding Hilbertspace would be still much bigger, but finite. In fact, sometimes, very big numbers are more mindboggling than simply saying "infinity" :-)

    cheers,
    Patrick.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Things MUST go wrong
  1. Making things go BOOM! (Replies: 6)

  2. Everything must go (Replies: 16)

Loading...