On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 at 07:57, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:45:43 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> On 15 June 2018 at 13:27, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:33:53 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On 15 June 2018 at 02:55, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:15:59 PM UTC, [email protected] >> 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. If this isn't absurd hubris, I > don't know what is. AG > >> >> > 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 >> > I think you have it the wrong way around with the MWI: it does NOT give consciousness a special privilege. Every possible outcome of a quantum event is equally real under MWI, whereas according to collapse interpretations only the single outcome that you, with your special powers, observe is realised.
-- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
