On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King < [email protected]> wrote:
> Something to think about: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! > Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> >>> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all >>> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was >>> proposed. Do >>> >> >> Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or >> we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and >> some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly >> improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that >> are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that >> the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. >> >> you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every >>> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an >>> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every >>> one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially >>> escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new >>> universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion >>> years! Just try to calculate the >>> >> >> The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an >> interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, >> pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant >> equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one >> leaves aside the actual phrase "many worlds", which is misleading). The >> equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, >> or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, >> capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose >> "entanglable" would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, >> I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal >> wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally >> characterised as "parallel universes coming into existence" but that isn't >> a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible >> that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction). >> >> >>> number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest >>> number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not >>> enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire >>> universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use >>> common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And >>> it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied >>> exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up >>> with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that >>> decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. >>> >> >> If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but >> it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of >> them on this very list. Have you read "The Fabric of Reality" by David >> Deutsch? That's what Americans would call "MWI 101" or "The MWI for >> dummies". If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of >> "worlds" which can only ever differentiate, not "split" or "branch" or any >> of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate >> greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain >> physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the >> fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under >> certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR) >> is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the >> continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time >> (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders >> of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI >> violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A >> simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The >> equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have >> trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably >> prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to >> obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2 >> to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator >> is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into >> 2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that >> 99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do >> all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in "our >> universe" (which the MWI claims is a convenient fiction, of course) - but >> how can 2^500 states exist at the same time for the same qubits (which are >> normally atoms, but could in theory be photons, electrons, etc) ? Where is >> the calculation performed? This is a massive parallel computation, carried >> out inside an object that could in theory be the size of a sugar cube. If >> it was carried out using the computational resources of our universe, it >> would need a *lot* of Hubble spheres - around 10^70 of them - to supply >> the resources. >> >> So is QM wrong? Is a quantum computer impossible, or impossible beyond >> some cutoff well below 2^500 qubits? If not, that qc contains 2^500 >> mini-parallel-universes. But if you accept that, what happens when you >> decohere them? Do you 2^500 slightly larger parallel universes, say >> including the scientist who does the measurement? Or if not, why not? The >> onus is on rival theories to explain where the cutoff occurs, and why. >> >> PS >> If for some reason you *haven't* read FOR, go away and do so. Then you >> will be in a position to discuss this topic without relying on a mistaken >> interpretation of the MWI. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > > Kindest Regards, > > Stephen Paul King > > Senior Researcher > > Mobile: (864) 567-3099 > > [email protected] > > http://www.provensecure.us/ > > > “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of > the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately.” > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
