On 28 March 2014 06:02, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural > selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The > example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - >
Yes it does. It might be interesting if someone can come up with something realistic that would work differently in a multiverse (David Deutsch suggests a quantum computer would be such a thing, although I imagine if we managed to create any sufficiently large superposition, that would start to make a single world look a bit shaky, in that whatever the selection / collapse / projection operation is, it would have to act at scales approaching the macroscopic. But as far as I know nothing large has been placed in a superposition as yet, no two slit experiment with VWs...) Of course if it turns out that it's impossible to create a QC, or impossible to place objects larger than a certain size (or mass, or density...) in a superposition, that would be strong evidence for collapse (and we'd be looking for a Penrose style mechanism, I think). So actually that IS something that should differentiate uni- and multi-verse theories - a measurable boundary at which things reliably "become classical". > but then people keep saying that in the multiverse everything happens and > infinitely many times. > > Who are these people? I thought that in the multiverse everything that could be described by the evolution of the wavefunction happens, either once or along a continuum depending on the answer to the open question of whether space-time is quantised? -- 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/d/optout.
