On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:26:16 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> >> Everett wrote his paper in 1952 and Tegmark presented his claims many >> decades later. The only thing they have in common is the claim of many >> universes, >> > > *I've read Tegmark and you haven't and I can tell you that Tegmark > agrees with everything Everett wrote back in 1957 (not 1952) and so do I. > Tegmark then goes even further than Everett, probably a little too far I > think.* > > > >> > >> as I have stated many times, the concept of multiple worlds arises in >> different contexts, >> > > *I know, one came from trying to understand quantum weirdness, another > from string theory, and yet another from inflation theory. On the surface > the 3 don't seem to have anything to do with each other but as I have > stated many times the fact that all 3 came up with something very similar > gives strength to the argument; why you think that makes the case for a > multiverse weaker is beyond me. * >
The weak case for the MWI stands on its own; nothing to do with string theory. In the latter, if you believe it, there are some number, possibly infinite, of possible universes, and they are all "natural"; that is, produced by nature. In MWI, as the Joe the Plumber example shows, the creations seem unnatural, contrived, implausible. AG > > >> >> >>> *Forget measurement! Measurement has nothing to do with the MWI,* >> >> >> > >> It surely does, except that the word "measurement" is a no-no for MWI >> enthusiasts. >> > > *Many Worlds has no need to explain what a measurement or a observation > is, it only needs to explain what a change or a difference is, and that is > a far easier task. * > But in effect in MWI there ARE measurements regardless of what you want to call them. AG > > >> > >> For example, in MWI we have an SG device and an electron going through >> its magnetic field and registering UP or DN. >> > > *When an electron encounters a * > *Stern Gerlach magnet the laws of physics do not forbid the electron > turning left, and the laws of physics do not forbid the electron turning* > * right either, what is not forbidden is mandatory * > Why mandatory? Because Everett and Tegmark say so? If the math says so, prove it. AG > *therefore the electron does both. Going left is different from going > right so the universe splits. The only reason you see the electron do one > and only one thing is that you are part of the universe so you split just > like everything else; there is nothing special about you, the fact that you > are conscious has nothing to do with it.* > > *If that is not what happens, if the universe doesn't split when the laws > of physics allows 2 different things to happen then the Schrodinger Wave > Equation as it is currently written is incorrect and > additional mathematical terms would have to be added, * > The problem with adding terms to the SWE is that it would, I think, amount to asserting the existence of a local hidden variable. AG *including ones that represent consciousness. * > How many times do I have to remind you that consciousness has nothing to do with it, and have explained why? AG > *Even if this could be done (and I can't imagine how) there would be no > point in doing so because at the end of the calculation the > additional mathematical baggage would not produce a different answer than > the one the unmodified equation we use now does. Both would give answers > that we know from experiment to be true but one is much simpler than the > other. So use the simpler one! I like Occam's razor, quantum mechanics is > complicated enough as it is so I see no point in introducing more > mathematics if the additional math is just wheels within wheels that ends > up doing nothing.* > > >> > >> as I explained several times, consciousness is NOT involved in >> "collapsing" the wf, >> > > *How can a observation be made if nothing it doing the observing, and how > can something observe a thing but not be conscious of it? Well let''s see > maybe there is a way, there could be a very simple machine that punches a > hole in a tape if it detects a electron going left after interacting with > a SG magnet but doesn't punch a hole if the electron goes right. > Consciousness would not be involved with that because the machine would be > much too simple for that, you could say the important thing is not > consciousness but merely the fact that a record was made of the > interaction. That would be fine but you can't make a record without making > a change in something, a hole in a tape is different from a tape with no > hole, and so were right back to Many Worlds.* > I think you misunderstand. If the detector acts like a person in a which-way experiment, it destroys the interference and no consciousness is involved. If the detector is set up to to record the outcomes on the screen, interference exists and again no consciousness involved. I don't see that MW is involved unless you insist that all outcomes must manifest themselves. What is the proof of your assertion? AG > > > >> If Joe the Plumber (who gained fame in a recent presidential election in >> some well publicized interviews) goes into a lab and does a simple double >> slit experiment with a SINGLE outcome and then leaves the casino, there is >> a cascading, metastasizing numbers of universes which in time can EXCEED >> that large number, indeed any larger number. > > > *I freely admit that 10^500 is a smaller number than infinity, but I do > not admit that Joe the Plumber has the ability to discern an 10^500 > different versions of reality. * > It's not a question of discerning anything. I was simply pointing out that JTP were allowed to go on and on, and even if he wasn't allowed to do that in OUR universe, eventually the number could exceed 10^500. AG > *And by the way, the only reason string theory came up with 10^500 and not > a infinite number is because it assumes that neither space nor time is > continuous, but nobody knows if that assumption is valid.* > True, but if space, say, is not continuous, how is motion possible? How does a moving object traverse "the existential voids of nothingness" (distinguishable from a perfect vacuum) in the gaps where space would be non existent in a discrete model? AG > > > >> Moreover, these universes have the SAME fundamental constants and differ >> only in the outcome attained in each universe. String theory posits >> DIFFERENT fundamental constants for its claim of 10^500 universes in the >> Landscape. > > > If string theory posits universes with different > laws of physics it certainly posits universes with the same laws of > physics, and the same would be true of the Eternal Inflation Multiverse. > And if the Multiverse is infinite and number of atoms in your body is > finite then there is a finite number of ways those atoms can be arranged, > so if you ventured far enough into it you would eventually meet your > identical copy, Max Tegmark has calculated that distance and its > 10^10^28 > meters. If you went > 10^10^92 meters away (a number with more zeros than the number of atoms in > the observable universe) you'd reach a region identical to a 100 light year > radius sphere that is centered on you right now, and if you went > 10^10^128 meters > you'd reach a region of the Multiverse that is identical to the > observable universe we're in right now. People have been talking about > a infinite universe for centuries but the implications of it turn out to be > very much like > Everett > 's > Multiverse > . > > http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf > TY. Will try to get to it. AG Does Tegmark take into account different orders of infinity in his calculations? Even if time is infinite and supposing the number of possible universes is uncountable (apriori possible if space and time are continuous), IMO there is no guarantee of any repeats. If we represent the possible universes by numbers on the real line, and any number of new universes erupting randomly under any theory per second, how do you know that the real line would be "covered" by such a process? AG > > > >> Not my comment. It's what Bruce wrote. Same for the next comment you >> reproduced. AG >> > > *Sorry. In the endless cascade of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes > of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes that we always see around here > when threads get long its easy to get attribution wrong. * > > * John K Clark* > > > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
