On Oct 26, 11:29 am, Nick Prince <nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com>
> QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
> By the end of the first evolution due to Msg, the infinite
> bundle of universes has partitioned into two bundles i.e. one bundle
> of universes that have a Z spin up electron moving upwards with a
> neutral detector reading and an alive cat, and another bundle of
> universes that have a Z spin down electron moving downwards with a
> neutral detector reading and an alive cat.
> Once you open the door to MWI, it seems like there is no point for
> "you", as a specific outcome of specific conditions of this universe,
> to try to make sense of anything which includes any outcome in any
> other universe.
> I don't see why the partition would be limited to Z spin up and down.
> Why wouldn't each universe have already proliferates into infinite
> orthogonal Z spin possibilities. Z wobbles and jiggles, and hyper-
> Magoo slide-bounce-jumps. Each one would be a multiverse of universes
> based on each spin alternative and each one of those would be a
> multiverse with different alternatives to just 'live' and 'dead'.
> could stop and start constantly like Morse code in some. In others the
> apparatus will be alive and the cat will be inanimate. There could be
> no life at all except for one omniscient raisin on the moon of an
> eyelash in Prisonworld Delta...
> I'm thinking the partition would be limited because Initially my
> assumption is that
> the instruments (in all worlds where this experiment is being
> conducted) all work properly. Hence in those universes where
> this particular test is going on then they would be partitioned
> accordingly in only z spin up or z spin down (but yes it's an
> idealization which was my point; by relaxing this idealization you
> will get many more alternatives). David Deutsch
> covers a similar example for a tossed coin on page 280 of his book
> "The Fabric of Reality" (he even draws a picture to help understand
> how the heads and tails versions of the set of worlds develop. In his
> he only gives two sets of world after the experiment because I think
> he is
> assuming the coin "works properly" i.e. is a fair one. Moreover that
> there is no possibility that the coin can end up landing on its edge
> or any other possibility. These other possibilities could be
> accounted for in the original state vector though and then the other
> branches would show up in the analysis. This is why I modified the
> effect of the evolution operator to reflect other possibilities but
> limited them so that it does not overcomplicate the argument.
I don't know, it seems really arbitrary to me. MWI is already
overcomplicated. Why would there be some clause that prevents
universes from spawning in which the coin works differently? I'm just
saying that the logic of MWI does not impress me enough to begin with
to really consider it seriously.
> There may be other universes, I just don't see the point in thinking
> about them. How could we ever know anything about them? Maybe each
> universe has it's own infinite set of potential mutiverses that it's
> creatures consider plausible without ever stepping outside of the
> actual universe that they are in? I think all MWI scenarios suffer
> from a gross lack of imagination of what Multiple universes really
> would mean.
> As I said in my post I'm trying to get a picture of how Deutsch's idea
> of differentiation works and how it is reflected in the formalism of
> quantum mechanics. You say that we can't know anything about them but
> we do (according to Deutsch's interpretation of QM) experience
> interference from them. He goes into this in the early chapters of
> his book also.
> You say that you don't see any point in thinking about these other
> universes but the possibility of their reality is a frequent topic on
> this list so it seems as good a place as any to discuss them as a
> possibility in the search towards a theory of everything.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to say that nobody should think about
these possibilities, I'm just giving you my personal objection to the
theory in case there is something that I'm missing.
> If thy are
> there, then by thinking about how they fit with the formalism of QM it
> might be possible to develop our understanding of the theory in the
> right direction or even show MWI to be false. Surely we should
> explore all reasonable possibilities?
> I am interested to know if my development of the evolution of the
> state vectors in my equation (6) is a reasonable approach (say from
> even the copenhagen interpretation point of view if you like - or any
> other interpretation for that matter).
I can't help with that unfortunately. My own TOE explains why QM may
be a misinterpretation to begin with (even though the observations and
predictions of QM are of course valid).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at