On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:08:36 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 at 07:57, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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. 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. >
*The single event outcome in this world is certain. We measure it. Those in the other worlds are speculative at best, and DO give human beings the power to create worlds. By choosing to do this or that quantum experiment, worlds are created! I'll ask you the same question I asked Clark, which he has yet to answer. If you find mathematics to be the Gospel for truth, why don't we observe advanced waves predicted by Maxwell's equations? AG * > > -- > 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 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.
