Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Stathis, thanks for the considerate reply. It is - of course - your way. I try to spell out some of our disagreements on certain parts of our topic - not necessarily the "Subject" line. You wrote July 29, 2004 8:08 AM (among others): >There is much that we do not understand about the workings of the brain, just as there is much >that we do not understand about, for example, how cancer develops, or the nature of > black holes< Brain, I suppose in the 'broader sense, as the mental complexity including the neuronal mass. In that case there is a difference between this and the physiology of cancer or a hypothetical item widely believed in cosmology. We have to understand the target, using the target itself. This ncessitated the modeling cut of neurology into the 'neurons only' (with "somehow" included). The 'neurons only' model can be studied by the (broader) brain, not beyond some "somehow"s. Let's make no mistake: EM waves don't constitute 'images' (vision) and vibrations are not the "sound", only interpreted as such (by instruments making a percievable format, or the organs of the (broader) brain themselves, including the understanding quale). >it must be part of science.< - the elusive word, identified in almost as many forms as people. You assign a way of thinking to me (untrue) and ask >outside the domain of science? < Which one? And answer in your (loaded) train of thinking the forced conclusion: >This would then by definition be a supernatural explanation.< The 2004AD (physical) laws are not the entirety of nature, so there is no 'supernatural' if something is not 'within'. So: no such claim (for which some 'plausible reason' would be required). - If that is your belief, I accept it as such. Nolo contendere with beliefs. I knew Nagel's work and do have the 'Mind's I', the Hameroff-Penrose article was based on it. It is entertaining and just as false as assigning 'stupidity' to animals that don't talk human (or to people who don't know 'the' language). A bat, or a worm 'feels' batly or wormly and we are the stupid ones who cannot understand it in our humanese ways. The 'tool' of their mind is of smaller number of neurons - like a 1-cylinder engine is not equivalent to an 16-cylinder one. (Can you drive a 16 cylinder Rolls to imitate (perfectly) the workings of a 1-cylinder boat-engine?) Cheers John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: Re: regarding QM and infinite universes > John, > > I not sure whether we actually disagree about the human brain. Truncated
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
John, I not sure whether we actually disagree about the human brain. Of course we can't say that our 2004 understanding of science is the final word on physics, or neuroscience, or anything else! There is much that we do not understand about the workings of the brain, just as there is much that we do not understand about, for example, how cancer develops, or the nature of black holes. But whatever the explanation behind brains, cancer and black holes is, even if we never actually discover it, it must be part of science. Now, do you agree with this last sentence, or do you believe that while cancer and black holes are subject to scientific laws, the human brain/mind works by some other process, outside the domain of science? This would then by definition be a supernatural explanation. I know that some people do in fact claim exactly this, but I have never encountered any plausible reason for such a claim. As for my reference to bats, I was alluding to a paper by philosopher Thomas Nagel, "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?", exploring the nature of qualia. I believe it is available on the net if you search for it, although my copy is in the book by Hofstadter and Denett, "The Mind's I", first published in 1981 but still well worth reading. --Stathis Papaioannou John Mikes wrote: QUOTE- [SP]: I don't claim to know exactly how the human brain works, but I do know (and so do you) that it works as the result of the complex organisation of its constituent parts, (...) [JM]: I know it differently, unless you include into the 'constituent parts' of its COMPLEX ORGANIZATION more than just the flesh. Eg. the qualia of the organization (human) total. Besides for "brain" in such respect I understand more than the tissue filling the cranium. OR (if you wrote with an open mind for wholness-thinking beyond the physics-books): we have to agree that besides those physiological measurements on mostly (electro)chemistry of neuronal functions which are only a so-far detected (and studied) part of its function AND beyond those physical laws you mention as sacrosanct, there is more to be known (included). I want to bank on your subsequent expression: w-hich, like everything else in the universe, interact according to the laws of physics, whatever those laws might be. < -the "whatever", if it means: 'unrestricted to the content of the 2004AD physics books'. My argument is: there was physics before the discovery of electricity or radioactivity and their discovery merged into 'physics' quite well, so I don't consider the 2004 'physics' as finally closed. (If you want to call it still 'physics'). As a matter of fact, I believe that consciousness (or qualia, or subjective experience) is something irreducible,...< According to the 2004 status-quo of those (and only those) laws you mentioned. New discoveries may render them calculable (predictable?) by newly emerging parameters. ... because even if we knew every detail at the finest level of the workings of the brain of a bat, for example, there is still something we would not know: what it actually feels like to be a bat. But it does not follow from this that there is something magical - meaning beyond the laws of physics - about consciousness.< Please, don't substitute our human thinking for a bat-level mind. Such substitution is false. Hameroff and Penrose (JCS ~1992?) substituted the 'bat' by a worm's feeling. I argued how wrong it is to think with our neuronal braincomplexity in terms of the ~1000 neurons of a worm. The complexity of the mind works WITH the material tool (10^11 neurons) and all that our present science is doing is to observe the tool-part and explain the whole (function) by the conclusions drawn therefrom (using the word: somehow for the qualia-jump). It is like explaining the car by the study of the piston and concluding that the piston is the cause of the running of the car. With proper conditioning (modeling, kept inside the adequately chosen boundaries) it may even be mathematically proven(?). -ENDQUOTE _ Searching for that dream home? Try http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au for all your property needs.
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Interleaving. "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:56 AM: > John Mikes wrote on 28 July 2004: > > QUOTE-(SNIP) > -ENDQUOTE > I am not sure that I understand what you mean, or that you understood what I > meant. I don't claim to know exactly how the human brain works, but I do > know (and so do you) that it works as the result of the complex organisation > of its constituent parts, (...) [JM]: I know it differently, unless you include into the 'constituent parts' of its COMPLEX ORGANIZATION more than just the flesh. Eg. the qualia of the organization (human) total. Besides for "brain" in such respect I understand more than the tissue filling the cranium. OR (if you wrote with an open mind for wholness-thinking beyond the physics-books): we have to agree that besides those physiological measurements on mostly (electro)chemistry of neuronal functions which are only a so-far detected (and studied) part of its function AND beyond those physical laws you mention as sacrosanct, there is more to be known (included). I want to bank on your subsequent expression: >which, like everything else in the universe, > interact according to the laws of physics, whatever those laws might be. < -the "whatever", if it means: 'unrestricted to the content of the 2004AD physics books'. My argument is: there was physics before the discovery of electricity or radioactivity and their discovery merged into 'physics' quite well, so I don't consider the 2004 'physics' as finally closed. (If you want to call it still 'physics'). >As a matter of fact, I believe that consciousness (or qualia, or subjective > experience) is something irreducible,...< According to the 2004 status-quo of those (and only those) laws you mentioned. New discoveries may render them calculable (predictable?) by newly emerging parameters. >... because even if we knew every detail > at the finest level of the workings of the brain of a bat, for example, > there is still something we would not know: what it actually feels like to > be a bat. But it does not follow from this that there is something magical - > meaning beyond the laws of physics - about consciousness.< Please, don't substitute our human thinking for a bat-level mind. Such substitution is false. Hameroff and Penrose (JCS ~1992?) substituted the 'bat' by a worm's feeling. I argued how wrong it is to think with our neuronal braincomplexity in terms of the ~1000 neurons of a worm. The complexity of the mind works WITH the material tool (10^11 neurons) and all that our present science is doing is to observe the tool-part and explain the whole (function) by the conclusions drawn therefrom (using the word: somehow for the qualia-jump). It is like explaining the car by the study of the piston and concluding that the piston is the cause of the running of the car. With proper conditioning (modeling, kept inside the adequately chosen boundaries) it may even be mathematically proven(?). > > Stathis Papaioannou > John Mikes
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
John Mikes wrote on 28 July 2004: QUOTE- You can call this consciousness thing mysterious, but we know it >results entirely from the electrochemical activity in these 10^10 little bags of salty water; start scooping out bits of brain, and you >will eventually end up scooping out the consciousness as well. < Good for you, if "you know it". The little bags of salty water form tools in a complex process (beyond 'physical' concepts) of mentality and if you destroy the tools, the process will suffer. To call it 'mysterious' means: we don't know how it happens. The complexity human extends beyond the qualia covered by 'your' physical laws of past observations within the past (scientrific) set boundaries. A transition from "included" to "not included" cannot be brushed away by "it is mysterious". (Others say: "somehow") Nor can it be exclusively assigned to ONE alternate, the childish ancient belief system of supernatural agencies, saying: if that is 'not', then nothing is. I have no (better) explanation, just feel that such closed-mindedness is wrong. -ENDQUOTE I am not sure that I understand what you mean, or that you understood what I meant. I don't claim to know exactly how the human brain works, but I do know (and so do you) that it works as the result of the complex organisation of its constituent parts, which, like everything else in the universe, interact according to the laws of physics, whatever those laws might be. As a matter of fact, I believe that consciousness (or qualia, or subjective experience) is something irreducible, because even if we knew every detail at the finest level of the workings of the brain of a bat, for example, there is still something we would not know: what it actually feels like to be a bat. But it does not follow from this that there is something magical - meaning beyond the laws of physics - about consciousness. Stathis Papaioannou _ Love Movies? You'll love HomeScreen. Rental DVDs - no late fees! Go to: http://www.ninemsn.homescreen.com.au/account/freetrial/?.promo=9msn_hotmail_ tagline
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Hal, I understand what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense. However, if you were to accept there are discrete units of time, space, and matter then the answer to the question "what number will you pick?" simply becomes the total number of possible interactions of these discrete units. Also, you can have an infinite number of worlds, and still have large numbers of worlds that aren't computable (of course, I know I'm not really saying anything there that everyone doesn't already know). My thought is that somehow some of these crazy worlds that we think are computable may not in reality be computable, because we are not factoring in the relationship with consciousness in creating the reality. That was sort of the point with the Osama as prez example. What about worlds in which pigs evolved to fly? If this violates fundamental concepts of biochemistry, could such worlds exist? No, the permutations of the solutions to those worlds don't lead to such outcomes. (This is not to say a flying pig could not suddenly appear, but I am referring specifically to an evolutionary process). I think the concept of a MWI that leads to an infinite computational device which can then recreate the whole process ad infinitum is very elegant and self-explanatory. Once the computer reaches infinite processing power, it is removed by definition from the confines of time (which simply records the rate of progress of the processing). Therefore, you are left with a timeless instrument that creates everything in an endlessly repeating cycle. But must the infinite processing machine choose between infinite universes or infinite repetitions? Must it choose among classes of infinite universes it creates? Or does it's infinite capacity allow it to create everything forever (within the range of computability)? I do not understand the math behind infinite sets well enough to answer these questions... Hal Finney wrote: Danny Mayes writes: First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of universes? However, if you start with the idea that the reality we experience is being created by a mechanical/computational process, isn't it more likely that the number of universes is just extremely large?Why should we assume the "creator" (however you choose to define that) has access to infinite resources? Also, everything that makes up our universe appears to have finite characteristics (per QM), so it seems like every possibility within the parameters of the multiverse could be covered by an enormous, but not infinite range of possibility. In some ways, infinity is a more plausible choice than some large number. After all, what number will you pick? A billion? 1.693242 sextillion? 10 to the 10 to the 10... repeated precisely 142,857 times? Any such number would be completely arbitrary. A fundamental theory about the universe should not have such magical constants in it. The only plausible numbers are 0, 1, and infinity. Maybe I'll throw in 2 if I'm feeling generous. Since evidently it takes more than 2 bits of information to create the universe, I think the simplest proposal is that there are no limits. I think we are overlooking something here. It seems like there should be a quanta of probabilty, just as there is (apparently) with time, space, and matter. In other words, once the probability of something happening falls below a certain threshold, it is not realized. Could there be a Planck scale of probability? Does decoherence somehow keep these strange events from occurring on a macro scale? It's possible. The concept of a special Planck scale is not part of QM. It is an incomplete attempt to merge QM with general relativity. Many physicists are coming to view our current attempts along these lines as unpromising. See Lawrence Krauss' interview in the new Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009973A-D518-10FA-89FB83414B7F . We don't really know how it will work out, whether there are these kinds of thresholds for matter or space or energy. But if it does, then I suspect you are right and similar limits could exist for probability as well. Sufficiently improbable events might not occur in the MWI multiverse. (Of course there are other ways to get a multiverse.) Hal Finney -- Danny Mayes Law Office of W. Daniel Mayes 130 Waterloo St., SW P.O. Drawer 2650 Aiken, SC 29802 (803) 648-6642 (803) 648-4049 fax 877-528-5598 toll free [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Danny Mayes writes: > First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality > for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of > universes? However, if you start with the idea that the reality we > experience is being created by a mechanical/computational process, > isn't it more likely that the number of universes is just extremely > large?Why should we assume the "creator" (however you choose to > define that) has access to infinite resources? Also, everything that > makes up our universe appears to have finite characteristics (per QM), > so it seems like every possibility within the parameters of the > multiverse could be covered by an enormous, but not infinite range of > possibility. In some ways, infinity is a more plausible choice than some large number. After all, what number will you pick? A billion? 1.693242 sextillion? 10 to the 10 to the 10... repeated precisely 142,857 times? Any such number would be completely arbitrary. A fundamental theory about the universe should not have such magical constants in it. The only plausible numbers are 0, 1, and infinity. Maybe I'll throw in 2 if I'm feeling generous. Since evidently it takes more than 2 bits of information to create the universe, I think the simplest proposal is that there are no limits. > I think we are overlooking something here. It seems like there should > be a quanta of probabilty, just as there is (apparently) with time, > space, and matter. In other words, once the probability of something > happening falls below a certain threshold, it is not realized. Could > there be a Planck scale of probability? Does decoherence somehow keep > these strange events from occurring on a macro scale? It's possible. The concept of a special Planck scale is not part of QM. It is an incomplete attempt to merge QM with general relativity. Many physicists are coming to view our current attempts along these lines as unpromising. See Lawrence Krauss' interview in the new Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009973A-D518-10FA-89FB83414B7F . We don't really know how it will work out, whether there are these kinds of thresholds for matter or space or energy. But if it does, then I suspect you are right and similar limits could exist for probability as well. Sufficiently improbable events might not occur in the MWI multiverse. (Of course there are other ways to get a multiverse.) Hal Finney
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Stathis: 1. Bin Laden's US presidency indeed occurred already: in THIS universe, in Danny's post, which - discounted certain physical parameters - is an occurrence. It happened twice: in your mind again, when you wrote about it. The condition he put on the 'applicable'(?) model: >>...in which the participants were conscious actors on the stage of reality,...<< is a restriction to HIS conditions, not to question his 'reality'... 2. Infinite universe: good fantasy. What is beyond the infinite? Ask G. Cantor. Big numbers don't make infinity. >You can call this consciousness thing mysterious, but we know it >results entirely from the electrochemical activity in these 10^10 >little bags of salty water; start scooping out bits of brain, and you >will eventually end up scooping out the consciousness as well. < Good for you, if "you know it". The little bags of salty water form tools in a complex process (beyond 'physical' concepts) of mentality and if you destroy the tools, the process will suffer. To call it 'mysterious' means: we don't know how it happens. The complexity human extends beyond the qualia covered by 'your' physical laws of past observations within the past (scientrific) set boundaries. A transition from "included" to "not included" cannot be brushed away by "it is mysterious". (Others say: "somehow") Nor can it be exclusively assigned to ONE alternate, the childish ancient belief system of supernatural agencies, saying: if that is 'not', then nothing is. I have no (better) explanation, just feel that such closed-mindedness is wrong. John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:02 AM Subject: Re: regarding QM and infinite universes > > Danny Mayes wrote: > > QUOTE- > I think there are many things that never happen in even an infinite > universe, for reasons that are hard to put into words, and certainly not > expressable in terms of math. For instance, I do not believe there will > ever exist, anywhere in the multiverse, a reality in which Osama Bin Laden > is elected president of the United States in 2004, and is carried into the > White House on the shoulders of a boisterous, enthusiatic public. QM does > not overtake other physical laws, including difficult to define laws of > psychology. A computer could simulate such an event without granting the > actors in the simulation consciousness, but for it to actually happen in a > universe in which the participants were conscious actors on the stage of > reality, such an event would require countless millions of people to not > only do something totally illogical, but vehemently against everything they > would wish for or desire. > -ENDQUOTE > > I don't see how you could possibly justify the above statements without > invoking supernatural causes. The MWI of QM implies that Bin Laden will in > fact become US president in some worlds, albeit of very small measure; this > is what the laws of physics actually state in this model, and if the model > is correct, the only way it could NOT happen this way is if the deity > intervenes and temporarily suspends the laws of physics. As for psychology, > although the complexity of the human brain makes a complete mathematical > model for practical purposes impossible, the same is true of any other > complex system where chaotic effects are significant, such as the weather. > It is simple enough to understand the brain very generally in mathematical > terms: there are 10^10 neurones, each of which can either be "on" or "off", > so there are 2^(10^10) possible brain states, and thus a similar number of > possible mental states (actually much fewer than this, because most > configurations will be nonsense, but the principle is clear). It is an > empirical observation that when large numbers of neurones are connected up > and organised in this way, the system has this emergent quality which we > call "consciousness". You can call this consciousness thing mysterious, but > we know it results entirely from the electrochemical activity in these 10^10 > little bags of salty water; start scooping out bits of brain, and you will > eventually end up scooping out the consciousness as well. There's nothing > magical or contrary to the laws of physics about it. > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > _ > ½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer: > http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=225&referr al=Hotmail_tagline_July04&URL=http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;96819 05;p?http://www.foxtel.com.au/2231.htm >
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Danny Mayes wrote: QUOTE- I think there are many things that never happen in even an infinite universe, for reasons that are hard to put into words, and certainly not expressable in terms of math. For instance, I do not believe there will ever exist, anywhere in the multiverse, a reality in which Osama Bin Laden is elected president of the United States in 2004, and is carried into the White House on the shoulders of a boisterous, enthusiatic public. QM does not overtake other physical laws, including difficult to define laws of psychology. A computer could simulate such an event without granting the actors in the simulation consciousness, but for it to actually happen in a universe in which the participants were conscious actors on the stage of reality, such an event would require countless millions of people to not only do something totally illogical, but vehemently against everything they would wish for or desire. -ENDQUOTE I don't see how you could possibly justify the above statements without invoking supernatural causes. The MWI of QM implies that Bin Laden will in fact become US president in some worlds, albeit of very small measure; this is what the laws of physics actually state in this model, and if the model is correct, the only way it could NOT happen this way is if the deity intervenes and temporarily suspends the laws of physics. As for psychology, although the complexity of the human brain makes a complete mathematical model for practical purposes impossible, the same is true of any other complex system where chaotic effects are significant, such as the weather. It is simple enough to understand the brain very generally in mathematical terms: there are 10^10 neurones, each of which can either be "on" or "off", so there are 2^(10^10) possible brain states, and thus a similar number of possible mental states (actually much fewer than this, because most configurations will be nonsense, but the principle is clear). It is an empirical observation that when large numbers of neurones are connected up and organised in this way, the system has this emergent quality which we call "consciousness". You can call this consciousness thing mysterious, but we know it results entirely from the electrochemical activity in these 10^10 little bags of salty water; start scooping out bits of brain, and you will eventually end up scooping out the consciousness as well. There's nothing magical or contrary to the laws of physics about it. Stathis Papaioannou _ ½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer: http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=225&referral=Hotmail_tagline_July04&URL=http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;9681905;p?http://www.foxtel.com.au/2231.htm
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
So far, no-one has been able to tell me what happens to the probability of bizarre quantum events occurring as t->infinity in a finite, eternally expanding universe, which incidentally seems more likely than the Tipler scenario. Stathis Papaioannou I think there are many things that never happen in even an infinite universe, for reasons that are hard to put into words, and certainly not expressable in terms of math. For instance, I do not believe there will ever exist, anywhere in the multiverse, a reality in which Osama Bin Laden is elected president of the United States in 2004, and is carried into the White House on the shoulders of a boisterous, enthusiatic public. QM does not overtake other physical laws, including difficult to define laws of psychology. A computer could simulate such an event without granting the actors in the simulation consciousness, but for it to actually happen in a universe in which the participants were conscious actors on the stage of reality, such an event would require countless millions of people to not only do something totally illogical, but vehemently against everything they would wish for or desire. I assume if the probability of bizarre quantum events descreases at all over time, then these events may never occur even given infinity? Why should the probability of these events change? Is it based on a theory that the laws of physics are not constant, or they are only local? Also, I assume that if you accept the MWI, regardless of whether "our universe" is expanding forever, you accept there are countless universes (or better described as countless permutations of "our universe") that appear identical to us right now, that will actually contract into a big crunch, making the issue of whether any one particular universe is going to expand forever or collapse pointless? Danny Mayes
RE: regarding QM and infinite universes
You don't need an infinite number of universes, or even an infinite number
of states in the one universe (if there is only one universe) to have
something approaching immortality. If you limit yourself to the information
theoretically containable in even something as small as a human-sized
object, it would be many orders of magnitude greater than the amount of
information processed by a human brain in a single lifetime. I think it
would be relatively straightforward to calculate how many orders of
magnitude using the Beckenstein Bound - perhaps someone could comment. If
you allow for the potential information content in the whole visible
universe, I'm sure that would be plenty of lifetimes for every human that
has ever lived. The problem is not the number of possible lifetimes squeezed
into the universe, but whether these possibilities will actually be
realised.
In a many worlds interpretation of QM, all possibilities WILL be realised in
some universe. If the universe is unique but infinite in extent (and hence
contains an infinite amount of information), all possibilities will be
realised provided that it is homogeneous but non-repeating. If all possible
computations are implemented by virtue of their platonic existence, without
the need for a "real" physical universe at all, then again all possibilities
will be realised and we are immortal in this virtual heaven. If the universe
collapses in such a way as to allow an infinite number of computations in a
finite amount of time, as per Tipler, then potentially we will experience
immortality, although I have not been able to understand how the
quantisation of time would allow such a thing.
In a recent post ("All possible worlds in a single world cosmology?") I
wondered about this question in a more pessimistic situation: one universe,
containing a finite amount of matter/energy/information, expanding and
cooling forever. As discussed above, even this model contains the
possibility of near-immortality; certainly the possibility of at least every
possible future our current limited minds could conceive. As you suggested,
even single word interpretations of QM allow for extremely improbable
events, such as the Earth quantum tunnelling to another star. I don't accept
your notion of a minimal quantum of probability; there seems no reason to
postulate such a thing. Given infinite time, such improbable events MUST
occur - provided that the probability statys constant or increases per unit
time. But if the probability decreases with time, then, even given eternity,
it is NOT certain that the given improbable-but-not-impossible event will
occur, so that immortality is not guaranteed. Bummer!
So far, no-one has been able to tell me what happens to the probability of
bizarre quantum events occurring as t->infinity in a finite, eternally
expanding universe, which incidentally seems more likely than the Tipler
scenario.
Stathis Papaioannou
From: Danny Mayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: regarding QM and infinite universes
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:54:33 -0400
I posted this today on the Fabric of Reality Yahoo Group, but would like to
get responses to it over here as well.
First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality
for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of
universes? However, if you start with the idea that the reality we
experience is being created by a mechanical/computational process,
isn't it more likely that the number of universes is just extremely
large?Why should we assume the "creator" (however you choose to
define that) has access to infinite resources? Also, everything that
makes up our universe appears to have finite characteristics (per QM),
so it seems like every possibility within the parameters of the
multiverse could be covered by an enormous, but not infinite range of
possibility.
My understanding of QM is that it describes possibilities (even if
vanishingly small) of bizarre things occurring in our everyday world.
For instance, I once read a book in which the author calculated the
possibility(incredibly small obviously) that our planet would suddenly
appear in orbit, fully intact, around another star. He argued that QM
allows for this possibility.
I think we are overlooking something here. It seems like there should
be a quanta of probabilty, just as there is (apparently) with time,
space, and matter. In other words, once the probability of something
happening falls below a certain threshold, it is not realized. Could
there be a Planck scale of probability? Does decoherence somehow keep
these strange events from occurring on a macro scale?
Also, it seems to me that the violation of other physical laws comes
into play in preventing many scenarios from taking place. For
instance, with quantum immortality, I understand the concept that if
there are infinite copies of me, there will always be one more
universe in which I survive an
