Higgs boson?

[Thrasher865]

Also, let me add that the mathematics in MWI may seem simpler than those of decoherence or collapse theory, but that involves quite a leap in logic that there are infinitely many separate "worlds" which cannot be summed up in an equation.

I believe that MWI is far more complicated than decoherence or collapse. Either way, let's cut the Occam's Razor junk, because it does not apply at all.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Physics does tend to lead to philosophical questions, but they are not intermingled. They are completely separate subjects. I will talk to you about the philosophical implications of a discovery in physics, if it's related to a specific theory.

That specific question, however, did not interest me. I don't care whether these laws are intrinsic to the universe or they simply explain the behaviors if it's just semantics.

1) Although they are separate subjects, so are biology, chemistry, and physics; yet they are intermingled. Everything is connected.

2) I find the bold part hard to believe. To have so much interest in the natural laws of the universe and not care about their inherent nature is mind-boggling.

As far as I know, the scientific community has never asserted that they know the Big Bang is the beginning of everything. They use that term in science channel documentaries for the layman, because it's where our universe as we know it came from.

For the longest time, we thought our universe was all there was. Thus the beginning of our universe was synonymous with the beginning of everything.

Also, we don't know that the Big Bang arose from an infinitely small point of supersymmetry. We have never observed any anti-particles, and that theory was created to fill holes in our understanding.

I am almost certain that we have observed anti-mesons in the laboratory which decay faster than mesons. Hence the theory of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter at the creation of the universe and the explanation of why there is still matter left in the universe.

Like you said earlier, though, our equations were created to explain observed phenomena.

Created implies invented rather than discovered. Philosophical implications you have no interest in.

I really don't understand what you mean by "there is no direction of time in physics equations." There is no direction to anything in equations.

There is nothing that says that time cannot progress forward on its own, independent of any consciousness observing it. There is also nothing saying that it can't be a non-directional dimension.

Our observations via our perspective indicate that time has a forward direction in a linear direction.

Time is accounted for in our equations. However, there is no forward direction attached to time. It is non-directional.

Just food for thought, if something could break the speed of light, would it move backward through time? I don't know, but that is an intriguing question.

However talking about decoherence. That is essentially another form of wave function collapse. It does not at all imply any truth to the MWI. It is an interpretational collapse, similar to the one I outlined in an earlier post.

It doesn't prove MWI, it's just a prerequisite for it.

My point here was that Occam's razor is a ridiculous argument. Any physicist would agree. Occam's razor is strictly intended to say that you don't add unnecessary processes to a theory. It absolutely does not say that the simpler theory is the correct one.

Obviously not definitively. However, given two theories in which the evidence supports both, if X is mathematically simpler than Y, X is more likely to be correct.

I was not arguing that everything has always existed as it does right now. I was saying that was the simplest theory. So if you wanted to argue Occam's razor in the manner that you were, then that would be the correct theory.

Like I said before, given my thoughts about the nature of time, I believe such a notion is the case.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That the "flow" of time does not exist when it is not observed. It seems logical, but does not have to be true.

It's a philosophical implication of physics. It depends on what you believe the nature of time is.

Another way to think about it: are non-conscious beings aware of the the universe? Does it (the universe) exists? Does time or rather the "flow" of time exist to a rock? See if those thought experiments impact you thought of time.

1) Sorry, not implications. It's just interesting to think about.
2) No. Not necessarily, anyway. I cannot discount it.

1) Such as?
2) If so, life is utterly absurd. Shout-out to Nietzsche.

That was my point. Purely speculative, just like MWI and string theory... String theory at least has implicit evidence.

Both MWI and String Theory have implicit evidence. I'm surprised you acknowledged that string theory had implicit evidence. You seem to have great disdain for implicit evidence for any theory.

There you go again saying "mathematically there is no direction." Do you know what that means?

I guess not. Where am I going wrong?

It is debatable. And nobody has any clue as to whether time moves independent of us, or whether we are observing a fourth dimension, that is in fact non-directional.

What exactly is debatable? I don't believe the human perspective of time moving forward to the future is debatable. I don't even think time being a function of space is debatable. Other aspects of time, which you brought up, certainly are.

Again, what are your thoughts on time?

 

[PKT_VOL]

But that was my point. Your interpretation of the universe could be completely different than mine, but we wouldn't know it. We only think on the macro level, but as far as the macro level is concerned, there is basically a 99.9999999999999999999% chance that any object is going to be located within a range where we could not observe a difference.

Yes, I did completely make up that probability. The true probability is probably far greater.

Agreed.

The only thing I would add is that micro differences could lead to major implications. Hence the difference between collapse theory and MWI.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Precisely what I'm saying. I don't understand. Are you changing your tune?

How so?

There doesn't have to be an infinite number of universes, and there doesn't have to be a wave function collapse. We can take in the information provided by the universal wave function and create the universe in our minds.

If you want to go the skeptical route, you don't exist. Neither do my fingers or my laptop as I type this.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Sorry, I didn't mean non-linear. I meant... Hell, I don't know what term I meant. We'll call it non-directional, though that doesn't fully explain what I meant.

Obviously time is not "linear." Einstein has said this since general relativity. If two people can experience a different journey through time, that would be non-linear, wouldn't you say? I would.

Again, it depends on your definition of "linear". If we are talking merely a rough shape, I don't believe Einstein said anything to the contrary of time being linear. Time can certainly bend like space given different conditions.

Einstein, like myself, believed all points of the past, present, and future exist simultaneously and are equally real. In philosophy, we call this Eternalism. Eternalism opens up can of philosophical worms.

No, I'm not arguing that they are separate. I'm arguing that time is obviously something different than the 3 observable spatial dimensions. Just because we choose to classify it as a "dimension," doesn't mean it shares anything in common with the spatial dimensions. And that certainly doesn't mean that we can travel forward or backward in time.

I'm fine with everything not in bold.

I don't mean that we, conscious beings can travel forward or backward in time. I am just saying that time can proceed in whichever direction because the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously and all are equally real.

I have long believed, as you do, that time is a non-directional dimension. But, lately I just don't even pretend to know. When you start thinking hard enough about time, it's really hard to say that we know much, if anything, about it.

Any speculations on your part at least?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Also, let me add that the mathematics in MWI may seem simpler than those of decoherence or collapse theory, but that involves quite a leap in logic that there are infinitely many separate "worlds" which cannot be summed up in an equation.

I believe that MWI is far more complicated than decoherence or collapse. Either way, let's cut the Occam's Razor junk, because it does not apply at all.

It depends, are we talking about mathematics or implications?

MWI: mathematically simpler; implications are infinitely more complex (literally)

Collapse Theory: mathematically more complex; implications are simpler

Each have their benefits and faults. Thus far, mathematics takes precedence regardless of how ridiculous the philosophical implications may seem.

 

[Thrasher865]

Our observations via our perspective indicate that time has a forward direction in a linear direction.

Time is accounted for in our equations. However, there is no forward direction attached to time. It is non-directional.

That's my point. There's no way to account for a forward moving time in an equation. Equations define a system at any point in time. Whether or not you can move forward or backward in time, you will always be able to do so mathematically. It in no way implies that time is non-directional, independent of conscious observers. It simply makes more sense to think of it that way.

Just food for thought, if something could break the speed of light, would it move backward through time? I don't know, but that is an intriguing question.

I would argue that this is pointless to talk about if nothing can break the speed of light. If something cannot go that fast, then there is no answer to what it would do if it could. That is the nature of the universe, and THAT actually WOULD be an example of Occam's razor coming into play.

It doesn't prove MWI, it's just a prerequisite for it.

It's completely separate, in my mind. Decoherence is not a prerequisite for MWI. In decoherence, the infinitely many possibilities, or "worlds" wouldn't actually exist. They would be theoretical, essentially.

Obviously not definitively. However, given two theories in which the evidence supports both, if X is mathematically simpler than Y, X is more likely to be correct.

You are completely misunderstanding the Occam's razor principle. It in no way ever argues to support one viable theory over another. It simply states that if you have explained the universe through MWI, you wouldn't then attempt to add another, unnecessary concept to the theory.

Occam's razor should NEVER be used to argue between two separate, self-sustaining theories.

Like I said before, given my thoughts about the nature of time, I believe such a notion is the case.

Fair enough. I will just disagree with you there.

 

[Thrasher865]

It's a philosophical implication of physics. It depends on what you believe the nature of time is.

Another way to think about it: are non-conscious beings aware of the the universe? Does it (the universe) exists? Does time or rather the "flow" of time exist to a rock? See if those thought experiments impact you thought of time.

They don't. And I wouldn't call them thought experiments.

Yes, I tend to believe that the "arrow of time" permeates all the known universe, and other, separate arrows permeate their respective universes.

1) Such as?
2) If so, life is utterly absurd. Shout-out to Nietzsche.

1) Just think about it. Nothing in particular. Sorry, but you know how sometimes you have thoughts going on in your head that you know there's no way you will ever be able to put into words? It's one of those deals, lol.
2) Life is absurd. Life is not special. Life is certainly not unique. I didn't say I believed in it. I just said I cannot discount it. Just like I cannot discount an intelligent creator. But I certainly don't believe in that, either.

Both MWI and String Theory have implicit evidence. I'm surprised you acknowledged that string theory had implicit evidence. You seem to have great disdain for implicit evidence for any theory.

MWI has no implicit evidence. If it did, it would likely be a theory, rather than an interpretation. You know.... like "collapse theory."

I guess not. Where am I going wrong?

Tried to explain earlier. Hard to really explain in words, and I'm sometimes not good at that. Just because you can run an equation forward or backward does not at all mean that you have removed that constraint from the universe.

I mean you can calculate information about the trajectory of a projectile from final rest back to any point in the air, given enough information about its landing. Does that necessarily mean you can observe backward motion of a projectile? No.

Of course, since that example is based on time. It neither proves, nor disproves either of our points. Just something to think about.

What exactly is debatable? I don't believe the human perspective of time moving forward to the future is debatable. I don't even think time being a function of space is debatable. Other aspects of time, which you brought up, certainly are.

Again, what are your thoughts on time?

I have told you. I don't have any thoughts on time. Pretty confident in the space time continuum. I do know that time cannot exist without space. Does that mean their is a continuum? I don't know. Once again, all these are definitions created by man. I guess I can see where you're coming from with your philosophy question.

Like I've been saying, just because we call it a dimension, doesn't mean anything. It is not a spatial dimension, so every point along an "arrow of time" does not necessarily have to be accessible or eternally existing.

I do not know this, but it's what makes the most sense to me.

 

[Thrasher865]

Agreed.

The only thing I would add is that micro differences could lead to major implications. Hence the difference between collapse theory and MWI.

We're still on different pages. My point is that there are no "micro differences." Those are simply perceptual. Yet, they make no difference, because the wave function is evolving universally for everyone. Our perception of it at one instant in no way changes how it will evolve to the next instant.

So we could all be seeing the same wave function, and interpreting it in our minds. These perceived "micro differences" lead to no further implications. If there are some that I'm excluding, please point them out and I will attempt to explain them.

My point is, if this is the case, then I will employ Occam's razor, as you have been so apt to do. If these observed micro differences in no way affect the world as we know it, then "many worlds" would be unnecessary, in theory, so we must eliminate that from our theory.

 

[Thrasher865]

How so?

Because that's what I've been saying. The only thing that matters is how we interpret the universe individually. You are the one that likes to deal in absolutes. And yet, you have no problem with an infinite number of worlds?

That would mean every time there is the tiniest interaction between anything in the known universe, a separate world is created. What triggers these worlds?

The whole concept seems absurd to me. And yet, I keep it around as a possibility, simply because I believe there are a lot of absurd concepts that accurately describe the nature of our universe. I think MWI is even more absurd, though.

If you want to go the skeptical route, you don't exist. Neither do my fingers or my laptop as I type this.

Exactly. None of it exists physically. I thought we had already come to that conclusion. I guess not. Maybe that is not the way of thinking for MWI followers.

The wave function is simply a vast array of information. There is no "matter" to it.

 

[Thrasher865]

Again, it depends on your definition of "linear". If we are talking merely a rough shape, I don't believe Einstein said anything to the contrary of time being linear. Time can certainly bend like space given different conditions.

Einstein, like myself, believed all points of the past, present, and future exist simultaneously and are equally real. In philosophy, we call this Eternalism. Eternalism opens up can of philosophical worms.

Like any good theory. I don't necessarily believe that, though.

I'm fine with everything not in bold.

I don't mean that we, conscious beings can travel forward or backward in time. I am just saying that time can proceed in whichever direction because the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously and all are equally real.


Any speculations on your part at least?

I don't believe that everything is eternal in its current state. I believe that there is a flow of time intrinsic to the universe, independent of observers.

 

[Thrasher865]

It depends, are we talking about mathematics or implications?

MWI: mathematically simpler; implications are infinitely more complex (literally)

Collapse Theory: mathematically more complex; implications are simpler

Each have their benefits and faults. Thus far, mathematics takes precedence regardless of how ridiculous the philosophical implications may seem.

I am saying there are huge gaps in the MWI that cannot be explained, at least hasn't yet been explained, mathematically. If you were to construct such a beast of an equation, it would be far more complex than anything collapse theory has put forth.

It's irrelevant, though, because as I've said, Occam's razor is not the proper tool to use in this argument. The simpler theory is not always, and in fact rarely is, the correct one.

 

[Thrasher865]

Before you try to use Occam's razor as evidence of MWI, read this:

What is Occam's Razor?

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!"

Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with, we used Occam's razor to separate theories that would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories that make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory.

This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment and observation were unnecessary. The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule of thumb, but some people quote it as if it were an axiom of physics, which it is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.".

And then a quote from Einstein (supposedly):

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

The pithiness of this quote disguises the fact that no one knows whether Einstein actually said it (this version comes from the Reader's Digest, 1977 [US: July, UK: October?). It may well be a precis of the last few pages of his "The Meaning of Relativity" (5th edition), in which he writes of his unified field theory: "In my opinion the theory here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory that is at all possible. But this does not mean that Nature might not obey a more complex theory. More complex theories have frequently been proposed. . . In my view, such more complicated systems and their combinations should be considered only if there exist physical-empirical reasons to do so."

 

[Thrasher865]

Now, here's something I like thinking about.

Let's say our universe is a closed universe. Let's also assume that it's infinitely large, but it doesn't have to be. It's large on a scale that we would never be able to comprehend, anyway. I realize the concepts of a closed universe and an infinitely large universe don't mesh well

Now, for now, let's only think about what we perceive as our "universe." There's more to it, but we'll get to that. Eventually, "our universe," on a time scale so large as we cannot even imagine, will devolve into nothing. This is due to a combination of inflation and the second law of thermodynamics.

At this point, within our known universe, everything is essentially nothing. At this point, a new period of inflation pops up. This is another Big Bang. The inflation drives the universe to expand at the same rates ours did. It expands so fast, that they cannot see past their "cosmological horizon," just as we cannot currently see past ours. So eventually life evolves within this universe, but they assume that everything within their cosmological horizon is the extent of the universe.

The great part is that after a period of time approximately that which our universe has existed and has reached a similar scale, this closed universe would geometrically appear flat, just as ours does.

This would be global, eternal inflation, and I kind of like this theory.

 

[Thrasher865]

Oh, yeah, and you were asking about my thoughts on the arrow of time. I think this is essentially what the link I provided the other day was dealing with, though, admittedly, I didn't read it that thoroughly. I was simply looking for a source, since I was at work and didn't have any books on hand.

So, during this period of inflation, an arrow of time begins, as we have created essentially a "new universe" even though it is just a local point of inflation in a much larger universe. But as the universe ages trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years to the point that it returns to a homogeneous universe with zero entropy. At this point, time ceases. But other points of inflation, elsewhere in the universe, are experiencing their own Big Bangs, and starting their own arrows of time.

Now the philosophical part. How can a period of inflation begin in a region of the universe with zero entropy, if there is no flow of time? Wouldn't you need to somehow advance time to a point where the inflation could start?

Well, I don't know. But that lends a bit of validity to the notion that time is simply an observance of the conscious mind. Maybe time itself still exists, but an observer wouldn't interpret it moving forward during this period of zero entropy. It wouldn't matter, of course, because there could be no observer in a zero entropy system.

Is time a local phenomenon, where each point in the universe, depending on the level of entropy, time is evolving at a different rate? Similar or even related to Einstein's relativity, where time moves at a different rate due to the effects of gravity.

Maybe it has to do more with entropy than gravity. As a point in space with more mass is going to have higher entropy. Hmmm.... Now my mind is wandering off. Trying to figure out if that's true.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That's my point. There's no way to account for a forward moving time in an equation. Equations define a system at any point in time. Whether or not you can move forward or backward in time, you will always be able to do so mathematically. It in no way implies that time is non-directional, independent of conscious observers. It simply makes more sense to think of it that way.

It depends on how you look at things. If you put no faith in your own perspective and compete faith in the equations which dictate the natural laws of the universe, then time is either non-directional or bi-directional depending on how you interpret the equations. I put no faith in my own perspective.

I would argue that this is pointless to talk about if nothing can break the speed of light. If something cannot go that fast, then there is no answer to what it would do if it could. That is the nature of the universe, and THAT actually WOULD be an example of Occam's razor coming into play.

I wouldn't say that. I don't think it's impossible. Thus, it becomes a viable question.

Food for thought:

Faster than light particles found, claim scientists | Science | The Guardian

It's completely separate, in my mind. Decoherence is not a prerequisite for MWI. In decoherence, the infinitely many possibilities, or "worlds" wouldn't actually exist. They would be theoretical, essentially.

They are separate. I did not say otherwise. I just said that MWI needs decoherence to explain the apparent collapse of the universal wave function into classical physics.

You are completely misunderstanding the Occam's razor principle. It in no way ever argues to support one viable theory over another. It simply states that if you have explained the universe through MWI, you wouldn't then attempt to add another, unnecessary concept to the theory.

Occam's razor should NEVER be used to argue between two separate, self-sustaining theories.

I never said that it should. I said that from a logical stand point, it makes MWI (mathematically speaking) more reasonable. Not that it is true, or should be excepted as fact over collapse theory.

 

[PKT_VOL]

They don't. And I wouldn't call them thought experiments.

Yes, I tend to believe that the "arrow of time" permeates all the known universe, and other, separate arrows permeate their respective universes.

From those questions and your answers, it shows that the flow of time is a human perspective. Thus, the "arrow of time" is also nothing more than a mere illusion.

1) Just think about it. Nothing in particular. Sorry, but you know how sometimes you have thoughts going on in your head that you know there's no way you will ever be able to put into words? It's one of those deals, lol.
2) Life is absurd. Life is not special. Life is certainly not unique. I didn't say I believed in it. I just said I cannot discount it. Just like I cannot discount an intelligent creator. But I certainly don't believe in that, either.

1) Lol. Been there, done that.
2) Agreed on all points.

MWI has no implicit evidence. If it did, it would likely be a theory, rather than an interpretation. You know.... like "collapse theory."

Lol, I see what you did there. Both sides have implicit evidence and neither side has explicit evidence. Thus, you have your interpretations.

It does seem collapse theory has a bit more "magic" with it though, in my opinion. MWI does sometimes seem like the cheap way out.

Tried to explain earlier. Hard to really explain in words, and I'm sometimes not good at that. Just because you can run an equation forward or backward does not at all mean that you have removed that constraint from the universe.

I mean you can calculate information about the trajectory of a projectile from final rest back to any point in the air, given enough information about its landing. Does that necessarily mean you can observe backward motion of a projectile? No.

Of course, since that example is based on time. It neither proves, nor disproves either of our points. Just something to think about.

It just means that we, the human perspective, cannot travel backwards or forwards for that matter in time. To us, we can only experience Presentism. Does that mean time does not move forward? Or move at all? That time does not exist?

Simply put, I think the mathematical model of time supports Eternalism. Thus, the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously.

Btw, you can see the projectile go backwards when recorded. On the film, the past, present (while filming), and the immediate future is all on tape. Depending on how you interpret it, time can seemingly move in either direction. Nice analogy to Eternalism.

I have told you. I don't have any thoughts on time. Pretty confident in the space time continuum. I do know that time cannot exist without space. Does that mean their is a continuum? I don't know. Once again, all these are definitions created by man. I guess I can see where you're coming from with your philosophy question.

Like I've been saying, just because we call it a dimension, doesn't mean anything. It is not a spatial dimension, so every point along an "arrow of time" does not necessarily have to be accessible or eternally existing.

I do not know this, but it's what makes the most sense to me.

In your opinion, although you say you don't know, do you believe time most resembles Presentism, Eternalism, or Growing Block Universe?

 

[Thrasher865]

It depends on how you look at things. If you put no faith in your own perspective and compete faith in the equations which dictate the natural laws of the universe, then time is either non-directional or bi-directional depending on how you interpret the equations. I put no faith in my own perspective.

Once again I say, just because you can move either direction in an equation does not say anything. Is there an equation that suggests time is non-directional?

I wouldn't say that. I don't think it's impossible. Thus, it becomes a viable question.

Food for thought:

Faster than light particles found, claim scientists | Science | The Guardian

Study rejects faster than light particle finding | Reuters

They are separate. I did not say otherwise. I just said that MWI needs decoherence to explain the apparent collapse of the universal wave function into classical physics.

If I understand completely, the "collapse" would be the many different worlds, would it not? I don't see where decoherence is necessary.

I never said that it should. I said that from a logical stand point, it makes MWI (mathematically speaking) more reasonable. Not that it is true, or should be excepted as fact over collapse theory.

No. It doesn't even do that. To use Occam's razor to suggest preference for any one theory over another, other than two theories that are completely identical other than one detail, is ridiculous. Mathematical or otherwise...

I've had a few glasses of wine, so I'll look over this in the morning and make sure it makes sense.

Also I'll get to your other posts.

 

[PKT_VOL]

We're still on different pages. My point is that there are no "micro differences." Those are simply perceptual. Yet, they make no difference, because the wave function is evolving universally for everyone. Our perception of it at one instant in no way changes how it will evolve to the next instant.

Wait, what exactly are we talking about? If we are talking about perceptions, then I agree with you but only from a human aspect. If you are talking about no differences on a probability level of quantum mechanics of the universal wave function, then I am not sure we agree. Decoherence doesn't allow for the proper coherence of the universal wave function to come to light. There will never be clarity on that issue. So I am not sure how there can be "no micro differences" on the front, if that's what you meant.

So we could all be seeing the same wave function, and interpreting it in our minds.

This I agree with. Again, from the human perspective.

These perceived "micro differences" lead to no further implications. If there are some that I'm excluding, please point them out and I will attempt to explain them.

The problem with this is that we use very scientific equipment to measure the outcome of our controlled experiment. It's not exactly our faulty human perspective at work.

My point is, if this is the case, then I will employ Occam's razor, as you have been so apt to do. If these observed micro differences in no way affect the world as we know it, then "many worlds" would be unnecessary, in theory, so we must eliminate that from our theory.

On an implications level, collapse theory is absolutely more simple than MWI. You would be correct to use Occam's razor in support of collapse theory. However, I look at the core issue, the mathematics, instead of the implications. Implications are just symptoms of the issue at hand.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Because that's what I've been saying. The only thing that matters is how we interpret the universe individually.

Of course I believe this on a philosophical level. However, this has no implications on ultimate reality (the universal wave function); unless you believe it is automatically connected to our minds in some way (some people believe that our minds are connected to some central entity, and that is where our reality {although still subjective for the individual})

You are the one that likes to deal in absolutes. And yet, you have no problem with an infinite number of worlds?

I hate absolutes, as I have stated before. Everything is relative.

That would mean every time there is the tiniest interaction between anything in the known universe, a separate world is created. What triggers these worlds?

I don't view it like that; I view it as if they already exist in a different phase space.

The whole concept seems absurd to me. And yet, I keep it around as a possibility, simply because I believe there are a lot of absurd concepts that accurately describe the nature of our universe. I think MWI is even more absurd, though.

I think we are on the same page here except I would substitute collapse theory for MWI in your last sentence.

Exactly. None of it exists physically. I thought we had already come to that conclusion. I guess not. Maybe that is not the way of thinking for MWI followers.

The wave function is simply a vast array of information. There is no "matter" to it.

I am not sure I follow. Are you stating the external world doesn't exist? I am not sure you can say that the universal wave function (or something like that) does not exist while simultaneously believing the external world (anything outside your mind) exist.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Like any good theory. I don't necessarily believe that, though.


I don't believe that everything is eternal in its current state. I believe that there is a flow of time intrinsic to the universe, independent of observers.

Interesting. Why?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am saying there are huge gaps in the MWI that cannot be explained, at least hasn't yet been explained, mathematically. If you were to construct such a beast of an equation, it would be far more complex than anything collapse theory has put forth.

It's irrelevant, though, because as I've said, Occam's razor is not the proper tool to use in this argument. The simpler theory is not always, and in fact rarely is, the correct one.

Collapse theory will always be wayyyyy more complex mathematically than MWI.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Before you try to use Occam's razor as evidence of MWI, read this:

What is Occam's Razor?



And then a quote from Einstein (supposedly):

That backs up my proposal. The only thing we would disagree on is the relative simplicity, mathematically speaking, of MWI vs collapse theory.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Now, here's something I like thinking about.

Let's say our universe is a closed universe. Let's also assume that it's infinitely large, but it doesn't have to be. It's large on a scale that we would never be able to comprehend, anyway. I realize the concepts of a closed universe and an infinitely large universe don't mesh well

Now, for now, let's only think about what we perceive as our "universe." There's more to it, but we'll get to that. Eventually, "our universe," on a time scale so large as we cannot even imagine, will devolve into nothing. This is due to a combination of inflation and the second law of thermodynamics.

At this point, within our known universe, everything is essentially nothing. At this point, a new period of inflation pops up. This is another Big Bang. The inflation drives the universe to expand at the same rates ours did. It expands so fast, that they cannot see past their "cosmological horizon," just as we cannot currently see past ours. So eventually life evolves within this universe, but they assume that everything within their cosmological horizon is the extent of the universe.

The great part is that after a period of time approximately that which our universe has existed and has reached a similar scale, this closed universe would geometrically appear flat, just as ours does.

This would be global, eternal inflation, and I kind of like this theory.

Entirely possible. Would the Big Bang/Inflation be like a true Big Bang or a random influx of inflation? I would imagine a Big Bang because you say another universe. How would the Big Bang originate? A random influx of the current universal wave function? I guess the new Big Bang would have the same universal wave function albeit a different starting condition and information. Or would the "random influx of the current universal wave function" cause an EXACT duplicate of our Big Bang, thus an EXACT duplicate of our universe? If so, eternal return happens, just in a different way than Big Bang/Big Crunch or phase space initiated eternal return; Nietzsche would be happily vindicated.

Btw...what would happen a human (although I know not possible given your hypothetical, but then again, its a hypothetical so I might as well add my own flavor to it) that is wondering in a defined space of the "old" universe. He is relatively close to the spot of the "new" Big Bang. What happens during inflation when the parameters/perimeters of the "new" universe reach him?