On 28 March 2014 06:02, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural > selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The > example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - >
Yes it does. It might be interesting if someone can come up with something realistic that would work differently in a multiverse (David Deutsch suggests a quantum computer would be such a thing, although I imagine if we managed to create any sufficiently large superposition, that would start to make a single world look a bit shaky, in that whatever the selection / collapse / projection operation is, it would have to act at scales approaching the macroscopic. But as far as I know nothing large has been placed in a superposition as yet, no two slit experiment with VWs...) Of course if it turns out that it's impossible to create a QC, or impossible to place objects larger than a certain size (or mass, or density...) in a superposition, that would be strong evidence for collapse (and we'd be looking for a Penrose style mechanism, I think). So actually that IS something that should differentiate uni- and multi-verse theories - a measurable boundary at which things reliably "become classical". > but then people keep saying that in the multiverse everything happens and > infinitely many times. > > Who are these people? I thought that in the multiverse everything that could be described by the evolution of the wavefunction happens, either once or along a continuum depending on the answer to the open question of whether space-time is quantised? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
