Many Waves, Many Worlds

[LogicRising]

By the way, It's a little troubling if the many worlds theory is true. Here's why:

In at least ONE reality, you were unable to read this message because just as I went to click the "Post comment button", the atoms of my body aligned in such a way that I fell through my chair, down through the floor and into my basement, and continued falling to the center of the earth. Ready? it's about to happen: **goes to click "Post"**

[premed2]

That could never happen to me, I don't have a basement, and for those of me that do, frankly, I don't care.

[LogicRising]

Is it so illogical to think that the fundamental workings of the universe are unordered and uncaused? For example, if we found out that quantum events are discrete and uncaused, we'd be done! We would have proven that everything in the universe is built up from that bedrock; that fundamental principle of the universe that has no cause, nor reason. Should such a bedrock be expected to exist at some level of principle detail or metaphysical abstraction? I think so.

[premed2]

Yes, I agree, but since our previous investigations into the natural world have given way to causal explanations, and through natural selection we have been shaped to seek out causal connections, accepting acausality feels much like falling through one's chair, down through the floor and into the basement, and continuing to fall to the center of the Earth, surviving and discovering that the Earth's core is composed of hot coco.

[rozeboosje]

I think it's simpler than that. Our "classical" notions of "position" and "momentum" evolved into us and were very useful in our everyday experience, but they are not really a fundamental part of nature. The thing is, every time you ask nature a question (i.e. do a measurement) nature gives you an answer. In our normal experience, the answers "make sense". At the QM level, we get probabilistic answers that seem bizarre to us, but nature just goes (more)

[rozeboosje]

"well, you asked for a LOCATION, and all I have is a WAVEFUNCTION so the moment you ask for it I'll give you something that is consistent with the status of the wavefunction, even if it seems bizarre to you thinking, as you do, in terms of location and momentum".

Well said about the uncertainty principle. There aren't many who understand that it is a fundamental aspect of reality, not just something we introduce because we try to measure things.

[premed2]

What interests me, (perhaps where I end up going with all this), is "where" is the "information" for a wave function or the entropy of a black hole stored. Certainly Bohr's complementarity may provide two (or more?) different answers, but is all the info in the universe, such as fundamental constants, and physical laws contained within the "structure" of the universe, or will there come a time when it can be proven that the universe cannot possibly contain all the info that is required (more)

[premed2]

to "run" the universe? While I do not believe this is true, I suspect that I can put together a convincing case that this is the eventual direction in which science is heading.

[rozeboosje]

That would be very interesting indeed. Yes, that is definitly one of those wide open areas... :-)

[einsteinmc2300]

soo.... when's MOS's funeral?

[premed2]

MOS isn't dead, he's just in a parallel universe pretending to be me.

[zebruh]

awesome, premed! i love your style and how you get excited about your subject. I'm hooked again.

[premed2]

:-)

[jchipol]

nods head....thinks about content in video....and food...food, what kind? I'm not sure yet...maybe I'll go somewhere...but where?...I have cookies....but fish sounds good...or maybe celery with peanut butter.

[premed2]

Que? :P

[jogayot]

ha ha, exactly, damn cool. and if you keep thinking in this direction beyond those 10 mins i guess you should have also said that: "and that's also why it's indeterministic within each individual event." each quantum event is like creation from nothing...

[premed2]

I prefer to think of it as a process of evolution, a necessary progression, somewhat a kin to throwing a rock into a lake and watching the ripples expand, but instead of being able to observe the whole wave, we just see one sliver of it and infer the rest.

[jogayot]

but you are assuming rock, lake, ripples... look at it from the ab ovo (vel big bang) point of view. then, it does not seem so weird... then it seems only natural that absolutely random, the simplest (in the kolmogorov sense of complexity and chaitin number) entities should be constituents of reality. as you said the order of determinism only emerges at our scale due to number and spacio-temporal relationship of those "atomic" events.

[premed2]

IF "the view from the top" is correct, then the multiverse is deterministic in an atypical way, and will appear to be probabilistic at a fundamental level as viewed from any particular universe. I'm not familiar with the work of Kolmogorov & Chaitin.

[rozeboosje]

Dang. I want to watch this vid but I wont get the chance to tonight. Post a reply to this comment; it'll serve as a reminder. Sorry.

[premed2]

Please don't sweat it. I'm certain that some of the yous, in other places, already have.

[rozeboosje]

That is as may be but since the me in THIS place has no access to the memories of the mes in THOSE places, that's no good to me, here, now is it. Ok. Lemme go watch it now :P

[DefaultPosition]

One of the best vids I've seen in a while.

[premed2]

Thanks Paul!

[DefaultPosition]

I like it when people talk about things they have a natural passion for and enjoyment of.

[TheSameDonkey]

I have this issue with the notion of "the observer" in many QM models. It makes it seem as if consciousness has some special universe creating property. I think "the interactor" does the job much better... Of course this leads to relitavism and people don't seem to like relitavists.

[TheSameDonkey]

Good stuff. The EWG model makes for some great scifi, but to my understanding lies beyond testability.

I have heard claims of observed superpositions which leads me to think that an accurate model would be continuos in it's number of universes rather than discrete/quantized. But of course that makes no sense, which I suppose is kind of fitting for QM

[premed2]

It is not currently testable, and may therefore be considered a philosophical issue, much as atoms once were.

The idea of quantized universes is my own. I've never heard of such a seemingly obvious idea, so there's probably a very good reason why its dumb. My uncle is a theoretical physicist, but he's much more knowledgeable in relativity than quantum theory. I've asked him a few questions about energy, time, and space. Frequently his answers are so obvious that I feel dumb. I'll ask Google.

[yellowlabrador]

i'll let you know, Nick Gisburne can sing in my shower any day. thanks for the physics 101 i promote you to professor premed3

[premed2]

(discretely)

Perhaps you should let Nick know. :p

[Bleatmop]

Why on earth would you fill you pot with water?? I could understand cooking spaghetti on it, or even brownies, but why water?!?

[premed2]

Please don't invite me over for spaghetti.

[Bleatmop]

But brownies are ok?

[premed2]

Absolutely!

[CousinoMacul]

Hi!

[premed2]

I said that once to a student I tutor and he said, "yes, does it show?"

Hi! : )

[EquitoErgoSum]

I love the idea that the universe is deterministic, but which universe you end up in, well, that's not. Absolutely everything that can possible happen definitely does happen, but not necessarily to you. Or something.

Please to explain please the idea of a quantized number of universes. That sounds intriguing.

[premed2]

One problem with the many world hypothesis of Everett is how do probabilities arise. An event with a 60% chance of occurring could be imagined as occurring in 60% of all universes created as a result of a quantum event. If this is the case the number of universes/event cannot be infinite. Since everything else in QM seems to be quantized, possibly even time, it follows that the number of universes may be too.

[EquitoErgoSum]

A quantum of time? Hmm I like it.

I'd sort of assumed that there must be as many universes as there are possibilities- that's a BIG number, but not infinite. Your reasoning passes the first test (is it elegant?) and suggests to me that the number of possibilities could be quantized.

Or maybe there *are* an infinite number of universes... there could be if the necessity for them each to be unique was removed. Duplicate universes?

I admit I don't know what I'm talking about btw. That's obvious.

[premed2]

You sound like you DO know what you are talking about.

If there were as many universes as possibilities, and if there are two possibilities—one 60% likely, then there would need to be some explanation as to how this 60/40 split is reflected in the results, or by what other mechanism is this asymmetry resolved.

[EquitoErgoSum]

I like the idea that our concept of "probability" is just a census of the proportion of a finite number of universes in which x happens. It just looks at the same thing from the other direction in time.

If I think about it as multiple universes creating the illusion of probability (and nondeterminism) it makes more sense to me than saying probabilities "creating" universes in a particular proportion, even though they are exactly the same thing.

Anyway, thanks for the mindfuck/physics lesson.

[premed2]

Sure. Btw, thinking about the whole process in reverse, where universes disappear and become probabilities is truly a mindfuck.

[EquitoErgoSum]

Yeah. I'm picturing a sort of foam of a near infinite number of universes cannibalising itself until it reaches a single point that contains all space, time, mass, energy and, crucially, all probability. Every permutation of every possible universe condensed to a point.

Now, you go do the math.

[dewonthegrass]

Do talk more later. : )

I appreciate it, you talking in understandable language about these basic, interesting, but difficult to understand scientific facts.

I've read earlier about the multiverse, and I, personally, think a lot can be said about it, to me it sounds probable.

[premed2]

its a fascinating idea

[gothatfunk]

"not because i am INCREDIBLY brilliant, but just because i'm brilliant..."

lol, jeez i love ya Rich. your sense of humour is legendary.

btw - if MOS finds out you've done this, you're due for a serious hiding!

[premed2]

Haha, MOS has gone on a spiritual quest to the local McDonald's.

[NermalsChannel]

What's up with gisburne? He seems to have disappeared off the internet.

[premed2]

He's still around see: gisburne (.) com, but is understandably hurt over the response to his latest CD in which he covers William Shatner's greatest hits. :p

[DavidRandallCurtis]

great video- 5*/faved

[premed2]

Thanks!