No, that's just one of the consequences of it. Scientists don't bother with such trivial silliness.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Printable View
No, that's just one of the consequences of it. Scientists don't bother with such trivial silliness.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Fine-tuning is one minor at best component but it can be complicated a bit by the fact that the bio-info [which is 6x the normal rate of correlation] in the cosmological constant ... had to be there before the process of evolution could occur ... so we can assume that worlds like ours would be similar with slightly different physics [communication still possible]. Also to note, if this was a one time event as they assume here
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/11...revisited.html
We would have to assume a "template" for they bio-info from which all other could be drawn from and the problem of overcoming the condition of some form of intelligent design would get much trickier, Anyways
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...elligence.html
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=68852&page=5
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...number-37.html
Strings unlike the chaotic Quatum World or the rather? .. the mundane physical world, dimensions itself in a torus or torodial plane, a donut shape ... Which leads me back to 496 and transcendental dimensionless numbers and 37 and prime numbers, computer encryption, the [Bible] text, and last but not least, apparent Data in life forms that began as a pre-cursor to evolution ... They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code. A new order in the genetic code hardly ever went through chemical evolution and, seemingly, originally appeared as pure information like arithmetic itself."
I don't think I'm following all of this, but I wonder where you stand on the issue of many worlds. Do you think there are many worlds or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by KillCarneyKlans
I don't want to change your mind on this topic. It is good to discuss issues with people who have different viewpoints.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
My viewpoint is that many worlds was created to put determinism back into QM. I don't think Everett succeeded since he used the wave equation from which uncertainty can be derived. The fine-tuning issue probably was not on Everett's mind, but the many worlds provides a solution for that as well and would be a reason today for people to accept it who are becoming more aware of that issue.
I think the need for many worlds or multiverses in general corresponds to a need to bring back an out-of-date materialistic determinism. It looks like desperation to me. The way it gets presented, especially by people like Yudkowsky, sounds more like proselytizing than scientific argument.
There's not a single shred of evidence for this and your viewpoint is blinded by a bias to confirm your prior beliefs. . MWI interpretation is a direct consequence of taking the wavefunction as a real, objective entity. All of your objections come from assuming the very things that MWI are questioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You haven't read all of Yudkowsky, so, fail. Yudkowsky is trying to present it to laymen, which you are. You object to his rhetoric but you can't follow the technical science from people like Tegemark and Deutsch. You've clearly fortified yourself against believing it regardless. That you've had at least three different people in this thread trying to show you why you're wrong, that you've been given countless links to people that explain it, but continue to not address their relevant claims, is a clear-as-day indication of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I've provided the evidence for my viewpoint. I haven't heard anyone adequately address it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
What does it mean to take "the wavefunction as a real, objective entity"? The wave function is supposedly equivalent to Heisenberg's matrix formulation. So instead of saying the wave function is a real, objective entity, you could say the matrix formulation is a real, objective entity. In either case, what does that mean?
As a result of this thread, I have read enough of the MWI to be convinced that it has "not a single shred of evidence" for its position. It is all spooky magic and weird fantasy. You might as well believe that Santa comes down the chimney. The Copenhagen interpretation makes more sense.
I'll probably read more of Yudkowsky, but at the moment I'm reading Barry Parker's Quantum Legacy. Refreshingly, I haven't seen any reference to many worlds in it. I also was not impressed by either Max Tegmark or David Deutsch. I don't see why Tegmark has to bring up unscientific polls. I find that very suspicious. Deutsch just rambled. I felt he was wasting my time. Of course, that's my opinion, but I stand by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The "countless" links you refer to were actually countable and I did check out each one. That I haven't been convinced is not evidence that there is something wrong with me. It just means that I haven't been convinced.
Your evidence would get you laughed out of any university by any student of QP.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford...s_FAQ.html#faqThe bolded part is what I was referring to:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Quote:
Many-worlds comprises of two assumptions and some consequences. The assumptions are quite modest:
1) The metaphysical assumption: That the wavefunction does not merely encode the all the information about an object, but has an observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object. For a non-relativistic N-particle system the wavefunction is a complex-valued field in a 3-N dimensional space.
2) The physical assumption: The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction. For non-relativistic systems the Schrodinger wave equation is a good approximation to reality. (See "Is many-worlds a relativistic theory?" for how the more general case is handled with quantum field theory or third quantisation.)
The rest of the theory is just working out consequences of the above assumptions. Measurements and observations by a subject on an object are modelled by applying the wave equation to the joint subject-object system. Some consequences are:
1) That each measurement causes a decomposition or decoherence of the universal wavefunction into non-interacting and mostly non- interfering branches, histories or worlds. (See "What is decoherence?") The histories form a branching tree which encompasses all the possible outcomes of each interaction. (See "Why do worlds split?" and "When do worlds split?") Every historical what-if compatible with the initial conditions and physical law is realised.
2) That the conventional statistical Born interpretation of the amplitudes in quantum theory is derived from within the theory rather than having to be assumed as an additional axiom. (See "How do probabilities emerge within many-worlds?")
Many-worlds is a re-formulation of quantum theory [1], published in 1957 by Dr Hugh Everett III [2], which treats the process of observation or measurement entirely within the wave-mechanics of quantum theory, rather than an input as additional assumption, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett considered the wavefunction a real object. Many-worlds is a return to the classical, pre-quantum view of the universe in which all the mathematical entities of a physical theory are real. For example the electromagnetic fields of James Clark Maxwell or the atoms of Dalton were considered as real objects in classical physics. Everett treats the wavefunction in a similar fashion. Everett also assumed that the wavefunction obeyed the same wave equation during observation or measurement as at all other times. This is the central assumption of many-worlds: that the wave equation is obeyed universally and at all times.
Everett discovered that the new, simpler theory - which he named the "relative state" formulation - predicts that interactions between two (or more) macrosystems typically split the joint system into a superposition of products of relative states. The states of the macrosystems are, after the subsystems have jointly interacted, henceforth correlated with, or dependent upon, each other. Each element of the superposition - each a product of subsystem states - evolves independently of the other elements in the superposition. The states of the macrosystems are, by becoming correlated or entangled with each other, impossible to understand in isolation from each other and must be viewed as one composite system. It is no longer possible to speak the state of one (sub)system in isolation from the other (sub)systems. Instead we are forced to deal with the states of subsystems relative to each other. Specifying the state of one subsystem leads to a unique specification of the state (the "relative state") of the other subsystems. (See "What is a relative state?")
If one of the systems is an observer and the interaction an observation then the effect of the observation is to split the observer into a number of copies, each copy observing just one of the possible results of a measurement and unaware of the other results and all its observer- copies. Interactions between systems and their environments, including communication between different observers in the same world, transmits the correlations that induce local splitting or decoherence into non- interfering branches of the universal wavefunction. Thus the entire world is split, quite rapidly, into a host of mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.
According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.
Sure you have. I'm sure you'll be explaining why quantum computing is bunk now.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It's not about you not being convinced, it's about you clearly not understanding and continually misrepresenting the theory every time you present "evidence" against it, despite three different posters trying to correct you, and despite the majority of physicists being against you, including the one you were reading and "citing" as evidence against MW. Your bias is as clear as the nose on your face. That you continually refuse to recognize it IS evidence that there's something wrong with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Right, he's just engaging in disingenuous trolling, which is why I quit talking to him. He hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about, and I'm sure he has read none of the literature that I've linked. His objections to MWI would be laughed out of the house even by those who doubt MWI. His objections are just stupid (and disingenuous, a polite world I'll substitute for what they really are.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Meanwhile, science and the philosophy of science march on! To those who doubt how embedded MWI is in the literature, just visit the Phil Sci Archive, which I've already linked. Here is a rather technical paper I've just started, but it looks darned good. It's how Schrodinger himself may actually have hit upon the Many Worlds before Everett and in a way even clearer than Everett did.
Maybe I ought to introduce YesNo to the Block World, and see what that does to his precious free will and God bothering. There's a nice new paper just in on the Block World at the Phil Sci archive. Can't wait to read it! :D
Today at space.com, the multiverse -- with four other multiverses in addition to Many Worlds! :yikes:
Sorry I'm dropping off the map here, as one poster said earlier I believe ... I only need to go back a few 100 years to find find seperate cultures who knew little or nothing of each other ... I know but what about MW&U's?
Still seems to me like mind/body question ... but instead of Descartes doing it, it's the universe ... in the QW once you become the observer the probablities are spelled out for you
Scientists formulating these theories also have to deal with infinities [where probabilities can't exist if all or no probabilities exist] and finite structures within the greater structure of the universe that can have probabilities computed against them ... this usually involves the components of the universe called time and space ... matter and energy, that's a different matter, but not entirely, anyways
It's a convenient way for scientists to formulate ideas to explain things ... but testing it in a real other sense is still a few light years away.
Can any theory really compute the possibilities of alien life, diverse enviroments, dimensions and consciousness, etc ... I'll give you this one, you put together some solid arguments.
Seeya .all.. I'll miss you ... I just can't be here as much ... I'll be in the background radiation .. keep up the good work!