Russ,
That was actually a very good article! I remain amongst those skeptical that
one can really test the theory, but it is nice to see the theory explained such
a straightforward way, and to know there are people making solid attempts to
test it.
One major cop-out / overtly-overstated-claim though is Vilenkin's speculation
that:
"This picture of the universe...
explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear
to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The reason is that intelligent
observers exist only in those rare
bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right
for life to evolve."
That, at least in my mind, sidesteps the question, as it can be reduced to:
"The reason nature appears to be fine-tuned for the emergence of
life is because it is."
Another way to phrase this is that if we are going to be happy (as scientists)
with the answer that things are the way they are due to "pure chance," we
didn't need multiverse theory to be happy.
Also, my favorite bit is in Tegmark's article. He states:
"Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are
predictions of certain theories."
Speaking with most of my sociology-of-science knowledge revolving around the
field of psychology, the ability to maintain that distinction is admirable,
incredibly valuable to the progress of a field, and I wish more people could do
it.
Eric
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 04:28 PM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>And speaking of multiverses, this was just published on the
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe>.
>>
>>
>>
>In the August issue ofScientific American, cosmologist George Ellis describes
>why he's skeptical about the concept of parallel universes. Here, multiverse
>proponents <a class=" snap_noshots"
>href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20110727#";
> style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left:
>0px; padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 3px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-left:
>1px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px;
>border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial;
>outline-width: initial; outline-style: none; outline-color: initial;
>font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial;
>background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip:
>initial; background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none;
>cursor: url(http://cdn.apture.com/media/imgs/crsr/socialLink.png), default;
>border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-collapse: collapse;
>clear: none; float: none; display: inline; width: auto; height: auto;
>font-weight: normal; position: relative; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 102,
>204); border-bottom-style: dotted; top: -1px; border-top-left-radius: 2px 2px;
>border-top-right-radius: 2px 2px; border-bottom-left-radius: 2px 2px;
>border-bottom-right-radius: 2px 2px; background-position: initial initial;
>background-repeat: initial initial; "
>onclick="window.open('http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20110727#');return
> false;">Alexander Vilenkin</a> and <a class=" snap_noshots"
>href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20110727#";
> style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left:
>0px; padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 3px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-left:
>1px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px;
>border-l!
eft-widt
h: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: initial;
outline-style: none; outline-color: initial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align:
baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial;
background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color:
transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; cursor:
url(http://cdn.apture.com/media/imgs/crsr/socialLink.png), default;
border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-collapse: collapse; clear:
none; float: none; display: inline; width: auto; height: auto; font-weight:
normal; position: relative; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 102, 204);
border-bottom-style: dotted; top: -1px; border-top-left-radius: 2px 2px;
border-top-right-radius: 2px 2px; border-bottom-left-radius: 2px 2px;
border-bottom-right-radius: 2px 2px; background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial; "
onclick="window.open('http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20110727#');return
false;"></a><a class=" snap_noshots"
href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20110727#";
style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left:
0px; padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 3px; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-left:
1px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px;
border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial;
outline-width: initial; outline-style: none; outline-color: initial; font-size:
16px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial;
background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip:
initial; background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none;
cursor: url(http://cdn.apture.com/media/imgs/crsr/socialLink.png), default;
border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-collapse: collapse; clear:
none; float: none; display: inline; width: auto; height: auto; font-weight!
: normal
; position: relative; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 102, 204);
border-bottom-style: dotted; top: -1px; border-top-left-radius: 2px 2px;
border-top-right-radius: 2px 2px; border-bottom-left-radius: 2px 2px;
border-bottom-right-radius: 2px 2px; background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial; "
onclick="window.open('http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20110727#');return
false;">Max Tegmark</a> offer counterpoints, explaining why the multiverse
would account for so many features of our universe—and how it might be tested.>
>
> >
>-- Russ Abbott
>_____________________________________________>
>
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
> Google voice: 747-999-5105
> blog: <http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
>
>
> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/>
>_____________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Russ Abbott <<#>> wrote:
>
>
>>
>I just looked at Theory of Nothing on
><http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Nothing-Russell-Standish/dp/1921019638>. Two
>very nice reviews. Amazon's "Look Inside" doesn't show much, but the book
>looks very much worth reading. The Introduction talks about Schrodinger's cat.
>It had never occurred to me that the cat always experiences a boring hour and
>then comes out alive--at least according to the Many Worlds View of QM. It's
>on my reading list.
>>
>>
>> >
>-- Russ Abbott
>_____________________________________________> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
> Google voice: 747-999-5105
> blog: <http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/>
>_____________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Grant Holland <<#>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> Exciting, Russ. I've downloaded <http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0001020v6>,
> and will take a look.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Grant>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> On 7/26/11 3:16 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>
Of course, I published a paper in 2004 (Why Occams Razor) doing
>essentially the same thing (I expanded on this somewhat in my 2006
>book, Theory of Nothing).
>
>I would also say, that Lucien Hardy did something similar in 2001
>(Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms). Also, there have been
>other works linking the uncertainty principle to the Cramer-Rao
>inequality from information theory.
>
>I expect this current paper (when I finally get around to read it), will be
>equivalent to what I've done. Ultimately, it may come down to history
>which method is preferred, or if some uber-clear version is presented
>(like Dirac did to Schroedinger and Heisenberg's theories).
>
>It would be all the more remarkable if this approach was fundamentally
>different.
>
>All I have to say now...
>
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:37:46AM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
>
>
I expected this to have more of an impact than it seems to be having. What
>am I missing?
>
>*-- Russ Abbott*
>*_____________________________________________*
>*** Professor, Computer Science*
>* California State University, Los Angeles*
>
>* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>* blog: *<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/>
>*_____________________________________________*
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Russ Abbott <#> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>From APS Physics <http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/55>.
>
>We know how to use the “rules” of quantum physics to build lasers,
>microchips, and nuclear power plants, but when students question the rules
>themselves, the best answer we can give is often, “The world just happens to
>be that way.” Yet why are individual outcomes in quantum measurements
>random? What is the origin of the Schrödinger equation? In a paper
>[1<http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/55#c1>]
>appearing in Physical Review A, Giulio Chiribella at the Perimeter
>Institute inWaterloo, Canada, and Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano and Paolo
>Perinotti at the University of Pavia, Italy, offer a framework in which to
>answer these penetrating questions. They show that by making six fundamental
>assumptions about how information is processed, they can derive quantum
>theory. (Strictly speaking, their derivation only applies to systems that
>can be constructed from a finite number of quantum states, such as spin.) In
>this sense, Chiribella et al.’s work is in the spirit of John Wheeler’s
>belief that one obtains “it from bit,” in other words, that our account of
>the universe is constructed from bits of information, and the rules on how
>that information can be obtained determine the “meaning” of what we call
>particles and fields.
> ...
>
>They assume five new elementary axioms—causality, perfect
>distinguishability, ideal compression, local distinguishability, and pure
>conditioning—which define a broad class of theories of information
>processing. For example, the causality axiom—stating that one cannot signal
>from future measurements to past preparations—is so basic that it is usually
>assumed a priori. Both classical and quantum theory fulfil the five
>axioms. What is significant about Chiribella et al.’s work is that they
>show that a sixth axiom—the assumption that every state has what they call a
>“purification”—is what singles out quantum theory within the class. In fact,
>this last axiom is so important that they call it a postulate. The
>purification postulate can be defined formally (see below), but to
>understand its meaning in simple words, we can look to Schrödinger, who in
>describing entanglement gives the essence of the postulate: “Maximal
>knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include maximal knowledge
>of all its parts.” (Formally, the purification postulate states that every
>mixed state ρA of system A can always be seen as a state belonging to a
>part of a composite system AB that itself is in a pure state ΨAB. This
>pure state is called “purification” and is assumed to be unique up to a
>reversible transformation on B).
>
>Chiribella et al. conclude there is only one way in which a theory can
>satisfy the purification postulate: it must contain entangled states. (The
>other option, that the theory must not contain mixed states, that is, that
>the probabilities of outcomes in any measurement are either 0 or 1 like in
>classical deterministic theory, cannot hold, as one can always prepare mixed
>states by mixing deterministic ones.) The purification postulate alone
>allows some of the key features of quantum information processing to be
>derived, such as the no-cloning theorem or teleportation
>[7<http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/55#c7>].
>By combining this postulate with the other five axioms, Chiribella et al. were
>able to derive the entire mathematical formalism behind quantum theory.
>
>
>
>*-- Russ Abbott*
>*_____________________________________________*
>*** Professor, Computer Science*
>* California State University, Los Angeles*
>
>* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>* blog: *<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/>
>*_____________________________________________*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
