The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum
physics must exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the
acceptance on your part of some of the (outrageous) claims of string
theory. I say that the most outrageous claim of string theory is that the
compactified dimensions, (the so-called Calabi-Yau Manifolds (CYMs), which
are discrete ball-like particles a thousand Planck lengths in diameter)
possess the constants and laws of physics. So assuming that every CYM is
identical in our universe, then the number of possible different universes
depends on the number of distinct versions of the CYMs, which is the
so-called String Landscape.

Now according to Yau in his book "The Shape of Inner Space" each CYM
particle has 500 topological holes, more or less I presume. And a
constraining higher-order electromagnetic flux winds through these holes.
Now if the CYMs contain the laws of quantum physics, it is reasonable, but
perhaps not necessary, that that quantum physics applies to this flux and
that it may exist in any number of quantum states. To determine the string
landscape, string theorists have assumed the nice round number of 10 for
the number of quantum states the flux may possess. If so then the number of
possible different configurations of a CYM is 10^500. (For comparison the
number of Planck volumes in our universe is at least 10^175 or the number
of CYMs is about 10^165).

So in a MWI context, even if each universe in the multiverse required a
distinct CYM, there seems to be more than enough to go around. Even if the
number of flux quantum states were say equal to the CYM dimensionality (6),
the number of distinct CYMs  at 10^390 seems to provide ample MWI
universes, even for a Omniverse. But if the CYMs were like a classical
computer rather than a quantum computer, the number of distinct CYMs at
2^500= 10^150 seems insufficient for MWI.

Therefore if all these assumptions are acceptable to you, quantum physics
must apply to the CYMs for there to be enough distinct CYMs to support MWI.
That is a reason why we have quantum physics (Perhaps a LoL rather than a
QED is appropriate here)

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Pierz <> wrote:

> The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I
> was a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment
> sometimes thinking about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most
> satisfying, even though in a sense it is a non-answer, a simple
> ackowledgement that there is no logical reason why there has to be a cause
> of 'everything' even though everything may have a cause. Krauss's argument
> - I admit I haven't read the book (yet), so I am speaking of what I
> understand rhe hist of his argument to be - may be interesting
> physics/cosmology, but I agree with the critics that it doesn't really get
> to the bottom of the proverbial 'turtle stack', and it shouldn't claim to,
> because such a bottom turtle is in principle impossible.
> John Clarke claims that a 'nothing' that contains the laws of quantum
> mechanics and the potential to produce time, space and matter is a very
> pitiful something if it is a something at all. But I think it sneaks a lot
> more into its pitiful somethingness than at first meets the eye. Not only
> the laws of quantum mechanics, but the laws of logic and mathematics
> without which quantum mechanics could not be formulated or expressed - as
> Bruno woukd be quick to point out. I really must read the book to
> understand how this vacuum can be unstable in the absence of time - doesn't
> stability or instability depend on time by implying the possibility or
> otherwise of change? But even accepting this it seems to me that in order
> to reason about the properties of this vacuum (e.g., its instability or
> otherwise) means that the vacuum must exist. Getting what seems like
> extremely close to non-existence is still a million miles (actually an
> infinite distance) from actual non-existence, because what defines the
> distinction between non-existence and existence is not anything to do with
> being extremely minimal. An extremely small number, say 10 to the -100000,
> is extremely minimal, but still not zero, and still an infinite distance,
> in a sense, from zero.
> Krauss's argument may satisfy the cosmologist's desire to see the cause of
> the universe reduced to something extremely simple, but it does not satisfy
> the wondering child or philosopher who is thunderstruck by the strangeness
> of there being any existence at all, however simple or rudimentary its
> origins. It's wrong to say such a child or philosopher is caught in a
> pointless mind loop trying asking how something that does not even have the
> potential to produce anything can, nevertheless, produce something. Of
> course that is absurd. The question in my mind as a wondering child was
> never 'How did the nothing that must have come before the universe produce
> the universe?' It was my mind chasing the chain of causation of things and
> realizing that, whatever that chain looked like, I could never trace it all
> the way back to absolute nothing - so why this mysterious beingness? The
> fact is it's beyond reason. Call it a gift or a miracle and you're as close
> to it as anything. God is no answer, mind you - he's just another spurious
> bottom turtle. God, laws of quantum mechanics: it's just different attempts
> to stop the rot of infinite regress, hammer in a wedge somewhere and say
> "Because".  Why do the law of quantum physics exist? Because. Why does God,
> the UD, the Buddhist void exist? Because.
> As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there
> being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being
> is not a countable way of being. It's the absence of being - obviously - so
> can't be presented as one among a myriad of possible configurations of the
> universe.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to