Higgs boson?

[Thrasher865]

Within our universe, they make the same predictions (end game). They both attempt to explain how the universal wave function probability gets from many different possibilities to what we experience everyday in our universe. The implications of MWI is irrelevant outside our universe.

You're still not following this. They make completely different predictions. It's not what they're trying to explain, it's how they explain it.

You could not design an experiment that would test for a result that would seemingly indicate both interpretations are true.

 

[Thrasher865]

Ah, Inception-like. Just different levels of reality.

No, not at all. It's just that you cannot see past the cosmological horizon of any "universe."

You completely misread my input. Reread it and see if it makes sense to you. A new arrow of time would happen, but it would be irrelevant to how eternal return would happen in my response.

Okay, no, the universe would not be identical to ours. At least not necessarily. If the universe is infinite, then I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility.

You completely missed the point. There doesn't need to be organized matter. There will be matter there regardless of how simplified. The real point is what happens to that matter when the edge of the "new" universe reaches it? Think of an observer on a mountain (outside the grand "old" universe) looking down upon this phenomenon.

It expands outward as it is pushed by inflation, then.

 

[Thrasher865]

It depends on what you mean by fate? If an observer is looking (from an outside perspective down) at our current universe, more specifically, our current phase space on a continuum of time, then yes, our phase space/universe is determined. But this view does not entail "fate" in the classical sense that we are accustom to.

To your second question, it depends. With respect to our current perspective looking towards the future, I do believe we have control over our own actions. However, if we are looking at our actions from the future within our own phase space, then no, our actions are strictly determined. Phase spaces are constantly in a state of flux (on the move).

I am sure that doesn't makes sense. I have a fairly different view of things. If you have more questions about it, I will gladly answer them.

So I will try to make a leap in logic to what I think you must believe and you correct me if I'm wrong. Our actions/decisions determine which "world" our consciousness flows into, perhaps?

If so, is there a separate consciousness that is active in each world?

 

[Thrasher865]

Eh, I tried to explain it from a different point of view in my latest round of responses. Hopefully, I made some headway here.

No, I've known what you're doing. You're using the rule of simplicity and simply calling it Occam's razor. Either way, I completely and totally disagree with the premise.

There is necessity for collapse. When it collapses, it causes a split from our universe. The different possibilities of collapse drive this process.

Here's my biggest quarrel with MWI. Nothing is based on probability. Say there's a two sided decision to be made. Perhaps a weighted coin or something. The coin is going to land on one side 70% of the time, and on the other side 30% of the time.

Each time you flip the coin, there are two worlds (minimum). One where it lands heads, and one where it lands tails. So how does the offset in probability hold true in our observable universe?

Maybe, but human nature is going to make you lean towards one more than the other (even if it is only ever so slightly).

Yes, and I lean away from MWI. If you want to say the simpler interpretation makes you feel better about it, that's fine. But it does not for an instant give any more validity to the simpler theorem.

 

[Thrasher865]

This could be interesting:

Coming soon: Movies of electrons in motion - Future of Tech on NBCNews.com

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess you don't work with equations on a daily basis? The fact that they "run correctly backwards" means nothing to me. If we know the nature of a systems behavior as we run it forward, then we can reverse the process mathematically and predict where it was at a time in the past.

I would agree with you if we lived on an island in the sun. The fact is, the equations were developed with the (then) present in mind; the phenomena the scientists were trying to explain. Once developed, they worked them backward to predict the past (the Big Bang). They then found cosmological evidence to support such theories. To me, this only proves that time is not unidirectional (forward) in its most true essence. If it was such, the events I just outlined would not have been possible.

From your post, it sounds like you use equations on a daily basis. To get my point, your going to have to attack it from a philosophical standpoint.

I draw zero conclusions based on that. I still believe we have no way of knowing whether time is directional or not.

It shows that it is not unidirectional. Whether it is bidirectional, non-directional, or something we currently can't fathom remains to be seen. Again, it is going to take some conceptualization (I find it easier to visualize it) to get where I am coming from. If you just strictly look at the equations on a piece of paper, your not going get the angle that I am trying to illuminate.

Then I guess I follow growing block universe. I don't know these philosophical terms very well. I do not believe that the past still exists.

This made me laugh. Those are contradictory statements. This is what makes time and the study of time absolutely fascinating. The more you think about it, the more intrigued you become.

Eternalism is nuts. That was what I believed until about 2 or 3 years ago, when I started seriously reading about quantum mechanics and cosmology. I think it's because I liked to believe the most crazy out there stuff. It's like ghosts and the supernatural. You WANT to believe it's true, your brain just won't let you.

Quantum mechanics is nuts as well. Neither quantum mechanics nor Eternalism can be understood or believed in the conventional sense. When you really start to think outside the box (pardon the cliche), Eternalism starts to make more sense. Eventually, it will seem obviously more logical than the other two philosophical schools of time. The problem is getting your mind to get out of it's constricting empiricalistic box and conceptualize without such restrictions.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No there is lots of probability involved. The thing is, when the wave function evolves from t=0 to some other time in the near future, the new and old forms of the wave function are probabilities of the location of every bit of matter in the universe.

To calculate probabilities from all the known probabilities at t=0, you are only going to get 1 universal wave function. It's not like if you were going to calculate the location of everything at time t. If you are calculating the probability of the location of all matter, there is only 1 answer.

Does that make sense? I'm having difficulty explaining it.

No, not at all. If the universal wave function involves probability, which both us seemingly concede, then there is quite a bit of pure randomness associated with it.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this.

Well, then let me just say, you're doing it wrong. In quantum physics, the more complex theory is the better theory more often than not. Occam's razor shouldn't even enter the discussion. You go with the theory that provides the most evidence. At this point, it's kind of a wash.

The sad thing is that this is the truth. Quantum physics thrives on irrational complexity.

 

[PKT_VOL]

How do the two not harmonize?

The reason was right below:

One within the universal wave function cannot possibly analyze itself. It would be akin to saying that the universe wave function interpreting itself. Very Inception-like. Then again, I believe in different levels of reality similar to Inception. I just want to point out what the implications of what you are saying.

Okay, explain to me why this is not possible.

Pretty simple. Pure information cannot analyze itself. It is strictly information. Analysis takes structure.

If something were absolute, it would not be infinite. Sorry for the confusion.

Still confused...:huh:

I don't follow you there. Relative to what? Infinite is infinite...

There are no absolutes including "infinity". Everything is relative. There would be a finite amount of other worlds. It would be a number impossible to comprehend, but it would not be infinite.

Why? Most think about the split itself. And most believe that it is created by some nature. So what is this nature of creation of new worlds?

Right. What I am referring to is the ontological status of these other worlds with relation to time and their specific interaction with our universe.

Yes.... I don't see the problem. We are only bits of information as well. Maybe there is something supernatural going on, but I don't think so. The universal wave function is one entity. But, that doesn't mean that smaller systems within the greater whole couldn't act independently. They still would not be separated from the greater system.

I don't disagree with anything you said above. However, it does not mesh with the idea that everything is just merely information. I don't disagree with that notion either. I am just saying the two have issues of congruence.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It doesn't "go" anywhere. The universe just continues to evolve. I've made it clear to you that I don't believe time is similar in nature to a spatial dimension.

I understand. I am trying to point out that the two concepts are contradictory.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to collapse. Like I've been saying, the collapse could be interpretative.

Collapse has to happen. If not you would see all possibilities simultaneously.

So since everything interprets things at different times, it results in a slightly different collapse for each person?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You're still not following this. They make completely different predictions. It's not what they're trying to explain, it's how they explain it.

We will never know the "true" how of the universe so I tend to reject that notion as an absolute. We have theories to predict outcomes based on incoming information. The "how" or "different predictions" you cite are only relative to (our perception of) that level of reality. If that makes sense.

You could not design an experiment that would test for a result that would seemingly indicate both interpretations are true.

That is a matter of logic. If they both have predictive power that cannot be refuted, then neither is falsifiable.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No, not at all. It's just that you cannot see past the cosmological horizon of any "universe."

If you are looking down upon the "old" universe from a different dimension, then yes, It would be Inception-like. You are correct only in the sense if you are within a cosmological horizon. If you are not, it will appear differently.

Okay, no, the universe would not be identical to ours. At least not necessarily. If the universe is infinite, then I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Key phrase. Not necessarily, but possible. Btw...I am not talking from an infinite angle either. I am talking about the influx of the "new" and "old" universal wave function being the same. Such an event would create an identical universe.

It expands outward as it is pushed by inflation, then.

At the speed of light? That would cause atoms to collide. Temperature would increase and would entropy decrease. Interesting implications with that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So I will try to make a leap in logic to what I think you must believe and you correct me if I'm wrong. Our actions/decisions determine which "world" our consciousness flows into, perhaps?

If so, is there a separate consciousness that is active in each world?

Consciousness is irrelevant. This is fundamentally physical.

I think it is easiest to try and visualize it, then work backward to conceptualization.

This one is a very basic model of what I believe ultimate reality would entail. The middle would be the present. The left would be the past. The right would be the future. Each "arm" on the left or right is a different phase space. As you can see, there are nine (3 x 3) different phase spaces which would correctly incorporate the current slice of space-time, otherwise known as the present. Each phase space can have their own natural laws.

As you can see, there are many different possibilities of the past producing the present and many different possibilities of the future from the present. Our actions in the present can change the course of a phase space through our slice (the present) to a future slice of space-time.

Oh, and under Eternalism, all these different phase spaces exists simultaneously.

So with this model in mind, you can see how the future is indeterminate based upon the present. However, if one was to just look at an individual phase space as a whole (from the beginning of time to the end), then the implications would be different. Imagine a straw (the entire phase space). If you are at the end of the straw, looking back though time towards the beginning, it would seem as though our actions were determined. In fact, they are within a phase space. The interaction between a particular phase space and a slice of time is the only thing keeping us from being completely determined outcomes. I guess such a complex interaction is more commonly dubbed as "free will".

Here is another picture to help:

Each dot represents a slice of space-time. Under MWI, the split would be into a different space-time slice. The connection of these splices through time is what makes up a particular phase space. You can imagine a line connecting the dots in an array of different ways.

I hope this helps.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No, I've known what you're doing. You're using the rule of simplicity and simply calling it Occam's razor. Either way, I completely and totally disagree with the premise.

Your mixing two different dialogues, this one is about time.

Here's my biggest quarrel with MWI. Nothing is based on probability. Say there's a two sided decision to be made. Perhaps a weighted coin or something. The coin is going to land on one side 70% of the time, and on the other side 30% of the time.

Each time you flip the coin, there are two worlds (minimum). One where it lands heads, and one where it lands tails. So how does the offset in probability hold true in our observable universe?

It is just assumed that probability is even. I am not sure that it would really matter if there was any uneven split in probability unless it was crazy lopsided.

Yes, and I lean away from MWI. If you want to say the simpler interpretation makes you feel better about it, that's fine. But it does not for an instant give any more validity to the simpler theorem.

Not scientifically, no.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This could be interesting:

Coming soon: Movies of electrons in motion - Future of Tech on NBCNews.com

It would be cool. However, I think it would be very hard to know if you ever got the calculations and real time adjustment to be truly correct.

 

[Thrasher865]

I would agree with you if we lived on an island in the sun. The fact is, the equations were developed with the (then) present in mind; the phenomena the scientists were trying to explain. Once developed, they worked them backward to predict the past (the Big Bang). They then found cosmological evidence to support such theories. To me, this only proves that time is not unidirectional (forward) in its most true essence. If it was such, the events I just outlined would not have been possible.

From your post, it sounds like you use equations on a daily basis. To get my point, your going to have to attack it from a philosophical standpoint.

That actually makes sense to you in your mind? I guess I won't convince you otherwise, then.

That means nothing. WTF was that bit about an island on the sun?

The bolded part is ridiculous.

The events in the present do not affect the events in the past. You can only use information about events in the present, velocity, direction, etc. to predict the state of things in the past. This doesn't mean a thing.

It shows that it is not unidirectional. Whether it is bidirectional, non-directional, or something we currently can't fathom remains to be seen. Again, it is going to take some conceptualization (I find it easier to visualize it) to get where I am coming from. If you just strictly look at the equations on a piece of paper, your not going get the angle that I am trying to illuminate.

No, there's nothing philosophical about it. The equations don't show that time is not unidirections (sorry for the double negative).

This made me laugh. Those are contradictory statements. This is what makes time and the study of time absolutely fascinating. The more you think about it, the more intrigued you become.

Well when I said I believed in Presentism, you said that does not allow for an arrow of time. I'm not sure that's true. I believe we follow the arrow of time. The past no longer exists. The future does not exist yet.

I wouldn't rule out either of the other two, but I lean toward what I just described.

Quantum mechanics is nuts as well. Neither quantum mechanics nor Eternalism can be understood or believed in the conventional sense. When you really start to think outside the box (pardon the cliche), Eternalism starts to make more sense. Eventually, it will seem obviously more logical than the other two philosophical schools of time. The problem is getting your mind to get out of it's constricting empiricalistic box and conceptualize without such restrictions.

Disagree. My mind is out of the box. It makes sense, I just don't believe it. Bolded part is just plain wrong.

I've gathered that you like to believe the more out there theories, simply for the sake of curiosity.

 

[Thrasher865]

No, not at all. If the universal wave function involves probability, which both us seemingly concede, then there is quite a bit of pure randomness associated with it.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this.

Nope. You obviously don't understand the mathematics behind it, and it would be very difficult for me to explain it over the board.

 

[Thrasher865]

The reason was right below:


Pretty simple. Pure information cannot analyze itself. It is strictly information. Analysis takes structure.

Define "structure."

Like a computer defragmenting its own hard drive. One system may analyze another system on the hard drive, but they are all part of the same cluster of information on the hard disk.

And what separates these? What provides the structure? That's right, more information. There are no physical borders between any bits of information on a hard disk.

Still confused...:huh:

Can't help you then. It's pretty simple.

There are no absolutes including "infinity". Everything is relative. There would be a finite amount of other worlds. It would be a number impossible to comprehend, but it would not be infinite.

If you say so. Most MWI followers believe in infinitely many worlds.

I don't disagree with anything you said above. However, it does not mesh with the idea that everything is just merely information. I don't disagree with that notion either. I am just saying the two have issues of congruence.

Why not? See above. Information provides structure.

 

[Thrasher865]

Collapse has to happen. If not you would see all possibilities simultaneously.

So since everything interprets things at different times, it results in a slightly different collapse for each person?

It's an interpretational collapse. There is no collapse. You don't see all possibilities simultaneously, but they do exist. We simply interpret the information.

Yes, we would all interpret a slightly different collapse, but as I've mentioned ad nauseum, the differences would not be perceivable, because they would be limited to a quantum level. The differences in location we are talking about for anything the size of an atom or bigger would be negligible, due to the interference of the wave function.

 

[Thrasher865]

We will never know the "true" how of the universe so I tend to reject that notion as an absolute. We have theories to predict outcomes based on incoming information. The "how" or "different predictions" you cite are only relative to (our perception of) that level of reality. If that makes sense.



That is a matter of logic. If they both have predictive power that cannot be refuted, then neither is falsifiable.

Exactly, they are relative. But they are still different. Occam's razor does not apply.

 

[Thrasher865]

If you are looking down upon the "old" universe from a different dimension, then yes, It would be Inception-like. You are correct only in the sense if you are within a cosmological horizon. If you are not, it will appear differently.

You've lost me. I never mentioned anything about another dimension. It's within the same dimensions.

Key phrase. Not necessarily, but possible. Btw...I am not talking from an infinite angle either. I am talking about the influx of the "new" and "old" universal wave function being the same. Such an event would create an identical universe.

No. I don't buy this in the absence of an infinitely many "universes."

At the speed of light? That would cause atoms to collide. Temperature would increase and would entropy decrease. Interesting implications with that.

Such as? This would be billions of light-years away from any sort of organized matter.

 

[Thrasher865]

It is just assumed that probability is even. I am not sure that it would really matter if there was any uneven split in probability unless it was crazy lopsided.

How would it not matter? The entire universe is determined by probabilities, and you're saying they are all equal?

Not scientifically, no.

Exactly. So, what are you saying? This is a scientific discussion.

 

[Thrasher865]

Consciousness is irrelevant. This is fundamentally physical.

I would argue that consciousness is anything but irrelevant. If you want to talk purely physical, that's fine, but you're leaving out a huge chunk of the theory that must be explained.

As for the rest of the explanation, I pretty much gathered that from the first post. I was more interested in how it affected/was affected by consciousness.