On 15 June 2018 at 23:57, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:45:43 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> On 15 June 2018 at 13:27, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On 15 June 2018 at 02:55, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:30:27 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe, >> >> >>> Yasunori >> >> >>> Nomura >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We conclude that the eternally inflating multiverse and many worlds >> >> >>> in >> >> >>> quantum mechanics are the same. Other important implications >> >> >>> include: >> >> >>> global spacetime >> >> >>> can be viewed as a derived concept; the multiverse is a transient >> >> >>> phenomenon during the >> >> >>> world relaxing into a supersymmetric Minkowski state. We also >> >> >>> present >> >> >>> a >> >> >>> theory of “initial >> >> >>> conditions” for the multiverse. By extrapolating our framework to >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> extreme, we arrive at a >> >> >>> picture that the entire multiverse is a fluctuation in the >> >> >>> stationary, >> >> >>> fractal “mega-multiverse,” >> >> >>> in which an infinite sequence of multiverse productions occurs. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "Therefore, we conclude that the multiverse is the same as (or a >> >> >>> specific >> >> >>> manifestation >> >> >>> of ) many worlds in quantum mechanics." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "In eternal inflation, however, one first picks a causal patch; >> >> >>> then >> >> >>> one >> >> >>> looks for observers in it.” Our framework does not follow this >> >> >>> approach. We >> >> >>> instead pick an observer first, and then construct the relevant >> >> >>> spacetime >> >> >>> regions associated with it. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Instead of admitting the existence of the “beginning,” we may >> >> >>> require >> >> >>> that the quantum observer principle is respected for the whole >> >> >>> history >> >> >>> of >> >> >>> spacetime. In this case, the beginning of our multiverse is a >> >> >>> fluctuation of >> >> >>> a larger structure, whose beginning is also a fluctuation of an >> >> >>> even >> >> >>> larger >> >> >>> structure, and this series goes on forever. This leads to the >> >> >>> picture >> >> >>> that >> >> >>> our multiverse arises as a fluctuation in a huge, stationary >> >> >>> “megamultiverse,” which has a fractal structure." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Raphael Bousso >> >> >>> and >> >> >>> Leonard Susskind >> >> >>> >> >> >>> In both the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the >> >> >>> multiverse >> >> >>> of eternal inflation the world is viewed as an unbounded collection >> >> >>> of >> >> >>> parallel universes. >> >> >>> A view that has been expressed in the past by both of us is that >> >> >>> there >> >> >>> is >> >> >>> no need to >> >> >>> add an additional layer of parallelism to the multiverse in order >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> interpret quantum >> >> >>> mechanics. To put it succinctly, the many-worlds and the multiverse >> >> >>> are >> >> >>> the same >> >> >>> thing [1]. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not right. Not even wrong. AG. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Eternal inflation and string theory imply universes created by >> >> > natural >> >> > processes. The jury is out on those. OTOH, the MWI has human beings >> >> > creating >> >> > universes by going into a lab and doing trivial quantum experiments. >> >> > Of >> >> > course they're they same (for idiots). AG >> >> >> >> The MWI does not propose that new universes are created specifically >> >> by certain experiences in the lab. It proposes that this universe >> >> branching is a fundamental natural mechanism -- that it happens for >> >> every quantum-level event that we perceive as random from our branch. >> >> It's an attempt to describe nature by making sense of experimental >> >> results, the same way as string theory and other theories. >> > >> > >> > Call it what you want, it comes to the same thing; universes created by >> > trivial quantum experiments by Joe the Plumber. >> >> You are using emotionally-charged language to convince yourself that >> it is absurd: "universes created" and "Joe the Plumber". >> >> The MWI only proposes that the universe is even bigger than we can >> perceive. > > > Incorrect. AG > >> >> Joe the Plumber, or Dr. Joe the Prestigious Person, or an >> amoeba do not "create universes" in some christian god-like sense. >> They simply find themselves in a certain place, from their first >> person perspective. > > > Another universe comes into existence when Joe the Plumber performs, say, a > spin measurement. If he doesn't do the experiment, that universe would NOT > come into existence. So it is correct to say that under the MWI decisions by > human beings create universes.
One hour ago I had coffee. You are now in universe U, where I had coffee. Hadn't I had coffee this morning, you would now be in universe U', where I didn't have coffee. I guess you could say that I created universe U, but I don't think I will be worshiped has a god any time soon. > If this isn't absurd hubris, I don't know > what is. AG This "hubris" thing is an emotional reaction on your part. Science must be detached from such matters. The only thing that matters is weather empirical observations confirm or refute a theory. As John Clark said, with quantum mechanics there is no hope of finding a non-crazy explanation. The empirical observations surrounding quantum events have refuted all "common sense" theories a long time ago. >> >> >> > This is not only >> > patently absurd, but DIFFERENT in how they come to be compared to >> > NATURAL >> > processes proposed by Eternal Inflation and String Theory. >> >> I have no idea what you mean here, admittedly by my own ignorance. > > > See above comment. In those other theories, universes may come into > existence, but the processes are independent of human decisions. The former > I deem as natural, the latter unnatural. AG >> >> >> Maybe a physicist can intervene. I do know that one must be careful >> with the naturalistic fallacy. What does "natural" mean? > > > See immediately above. AG >> >> >> > Sure, human intuition is often unreliable, particularly in regions far >> > removed from where our senses operate. But nowadays crap theories >> > are rationalized on that very basis! >> >> Not at all. The "crap" (more emotional language) theories are an >> attempt to make sense of experimental results. I do not know if the >> MWI is correct or not, but it is an attempt to explain empirical >> observations in the simplest way possible. >> >> > The world has gone mad, and brilliant >> > physicists like Susskind have succumbed to the disease. AG >> >> >> >> >> >> It is perhaps the size of the multiverse implied by MWI that makes it >> >> hard to believe. It is good to be skeptical of our own "common sense" >> >> on these topics, because human common sense has been wrong many times >> >> before in the history of science. Consider the size of the visible >> >> universe, something that is uncontroversial nowadays, but that would >> >> sound like complete lunacy not so long ago. >> > >> > >> > Lunacy is thinking human beings create universes. At least Eternal >> > Inflation >> > and String Theory don't go to such extravagant, absurd extremes. The >> > mathematics that seems to imply this is analogous to Maxwell's equations >> > implying the existence of advanced waves. AG >> >> >> >> >> >> Telmo. >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> >> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> >> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > >> > -- >> > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
