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

[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.

 

[confusedashell]

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.

Yeah but please get my point:

ARE WE ALL IN THE SAME UNIVERSE. NONE OF US CAN EXIT IT.
SO the mom I've spoke nto all my life is the SAME original or COPY as ALWAYS.
She has not SPLIT into different universes ?

 

[xantox]

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 you compare three cases, 1) where A exist in a single instance, and 2) where other instances of A labeled as A1, A2, etc exist in other universes, and 3) where slightly different instances of A labeled as B, C, D, etc exist in other universes. Then in case 2) and 3), A will not feel any different than in case 1). Branches are other universes, completely disconnected from this one.

To focus on case 3), there may be universes where you didn't post this thread in this forum, but where your mother will also exist and your memories up to the point when you posted this thread will match. However, your memories and life after that point, will differ.

 

[JesseM]

Yeah but please get my point:

ARE WE ALL IN THE SAME UNIVERSE. NONE OF US CAN EXIT IT.
SO the mom I've spoke nto all my life is the SAME original or COPY as ALWAYS.
She has not SPLIT into different universes ?

Well, that's not true according to the many-worlds interpretation (though of course we have no way of knowing if this interpretation is actually true). The MWI doesn't say you can "exit" the universe of course, it just says that everything in the universe is constantly splitting into multiple copies which have different histories--like copies of the Earth where the US lost the revolutionary war and other copies where it won, or copies where you got one job vs. copies where you got a different one. They are all part of the same universe, but copies which are different on a macroscopic level don't interact in ways that are detectable to us, so the other versions of the world and of ourselves are unseen by us.

 

[confusedashell]

Yea but exactly, that's what I am trying to say, like.

Ok, if it's bnranching and whatever, does it mean that me and you the one who answered my post in THIS universe will always remain in the same "path" as me?
Like Me(myconsciousness) (A) and you(yourconsciousness) (A) in universe (A) will always remain isolated from the other ones?

If you get what I am saying, if MWI is true it means, that my girlfriend(which has 35823598 clones in different universes) will still be THE girlfriend that I met in this universe?
It's not like you go to another universe and your friends in different ones, we all remain in the same?

is that what MWI is saying ?

 

[JesseM]

Ok, if it's bnranching and whatever, does it mean that me and you the one who answered my post in THIS universe will always remain in the same "path" as me?
Like Me(myconsciousness) (A) and you(yourconsciousness) (A) in universe (A) will always remain isolated from the other ones?

You'll be in effect isolated from versions of yourself with different histories then you remember up to the present, and likewise you'll be in effect isolated from versions of other people whose memories were shaped by a different series of events than the series of events that shaped your memories (of course people can have imperfect memories of events even in a non-MWI context).

If you get what I am saying, if MWI is true it means, that my girlfriend(which has 35823598 clones in different universes) will still be THE girlfriend that I met in this universe?

Again, each person's history has a branching structure, you can't say which branch is the "original" and which is just a "clone". But any two pair of people who can interact on a macroscopic scale will share a single consistent history--a version of you that went out for dinner with your girlfriend 32 days ago won't somehow be matched up with a version of your girlfriend that stayed in and had dinner at home 32 days ago, and the same thing is true for all macroscopic events in your shared history, no matter how trivial.

 

[confusedashell]

aah yeah exactly that's my point, think you've saved my life LOLCuz this means this universe is consistant and no splitting scifi bull**** occurs...
And the girl i was with yesterday is not just a clone its THE EXACT same consciousness. And has been all life...

 

[vanesch]

aah yeah exactly that's my point, think you've saved my life LOL
Cuz this means this universe is consistant and no splitting scifi bull**** occurs...
And the girl i was with yesterday is not just a clone its THE EXACT same consciousness. And has been all life...

This is in fact not clear at all, and, because it is totally observationally impossible to make the difference, in fact not a scientific question - that is: a question which will be one day answered through the scientific method. As observationally, there's no way to know the difference between a perfect clone and an "original", you will never be able to find out "where" the original resides. Of course, from the PoV from the "original", it went in some branch and not in another, so much is clear: you for instance, came in your branch, and not in "your copy's" branch, and this branching is determined by Born probabilities. Now, the problem with "you - original" and "your girlfriend - original" staying in the same branch, would mean that if you and your girlfriend set out to do EPR experiments, that, in order for you both to remain in the same branch, you'd need to "pick your branches" in correlated ways. If you insist upon the picking to be independent for each observer, normally you have a low chance to remain in the same branches. But you'll get a perfect copy of her, and she'll get a perfect copy of you :-)

And, again, as I pointed out, this is not a scientific question, as you will never be able to find out the difference between "the original" and "the copy" - this is only known to the subjective experience that you postulate must be associated with your girlfriend's body if you assume her to have such a consciousness - which is unobservable in itself! In other words, any distinction between "the original" and "the copy" resides entirely in the subjective world that is associated with that body, and doesn't have anything externally observable to it. That's why some people say that there is no "copy and original" but just "two descendants". Objectively they're right. But for yourself for instance, there's a clear difference between "your original" (of which you are subjectively aware) and "your copy" (of which you're not aware, but which might probably now have an awareness of itself). But to an outsider, there's no way to make the distinction.

You can decide it either way: you can decide that there's a "superbranch" in which all the "originals" remain, if that makes you comfortable. Of course, now the "theory of branching consciousnesses" starts looking a bit Bohmian. Hell, if you feel better that way, why not think of it that way.

I think the best way to think about all this is that MWI on this scale only makes sense if we know for sure that gravity will not perturbe the unitary superposition. It might be that linear quantum theory is just an approximation to something else. However, MWI seems nevertheless the most straightforward interpretation of the linear quantum theory we know today.

 

[confusedashell]

So your basically saying our lives is less than worthless pointless and even worth spendin time living?

I mean honestly: you believe you 24/7 meet "new" versions of your friends that's clones?

Seriously, I mean, seriously?

Makes no sense tho, cause, when someone dies, he never returns, if u were JUMPIN universes he'd surely ressurect a few times atleast... Since this is not the case, it seems to me ALL OF US remains in the same "branch" forever unless you believe ur consciousness is somewhat special and can travel separate from the rest of the physical world.

*Pray to spaghetti monster all Quantum phycisist who has faith in MWI tries the quantum suicide experiement so we don't have to hear this scifi delusionalism no more* :D

 

[xantox]

So your basically saying our lives is less than worthless pointless and even worth spendin time living?

Again, there is absolutely no link whatsoever between the above facts and whether one's life is pointless or not.

I mean honestly: you believe you 24/7 meet "new" versions of your friends that's clones?

You already meet new versions of your friends, regardless of the multiverse hypothesis. Our mental state changes, our entire body changes, 98% of our atoms are replaced with others within one year, etc. If you accept that "your friend tomorrow" is the same as "your friend today" in a single universe, then using the exact same logic you must call in the multiverse "your friend tomorrow in branch A" and "your friend tomorrow in branch B" the same as "your friend today".

 

[confusedashell]

to me that's different...

I mean, would you rather have your real girlfriend or a clone if single universe is reality?
And the brain stays the same atom-wise all ur life so same consciousness and u can't really compare the two.
As the 98% takes a year, not a nanosecond.Either MWI is false and no real physicist truly believes it or the myth that scientist are narcissitic emotional dead humans seems to fit:P