On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Everett wrote his paper in 1952 and Tegmark presented his claims many > decades later. The only thing they have in common is the claim of many > universes, >
*I've read Tegmark and you haven't and I can tell you that Tegmark agrees with everything Everett wrote back in 1957 (not 1952) and so do I. Tegmark then goes even further than Everett, probably a little too far I think.* > > > as I have stated many times, the concept of multiple worlds arises in > different contexts, > *I know, one came from trying to understand quantum weirdness, another from string theory, and yet another from inflation theory. On the surface the 3 don't seem to have anything to do with each other but as I have stated many times the fact that all 3 came up with something very similar gives strength to the argument; why you think that makes the case for a multiverse weaker is beyond me. * > >> >> *Forget measurement! Measurement has nothing to do with the MWI,* > > > > > It surely does, except that the word "measurement" is a no-no for MWI > enthusiasts. > *Many Worlds has no need to explain what a measurement or a observation is, it only needs to explain what a change or a difference is, and that is a far easier task. * > > > For example, in MWI we have an SG device and an electron going through its > magnetic field and registering UP or DN. > *When an electron encounters a * *Stern Gerlach magnet the laws of physics do not forbid the electron turning left, and the laws of physics do not forbid the electron turning right either, what is not forbidden is mandatory therefore the electron does both. Going left is different from going right so the universe splits. The only reason you see the electron do one and only one thing is that you are part of the universe so you split just like everything else; there is nothing special about you, the fact that you are conscious has nothing to do with it.* *If that is not what happens, if the universe doesn't split when the laws of physics allows 2 different things to happen then the Schrodinger Wave Equation as it is currently written is incorrect and additional mathematical terms would have to be added, including ones that represent consciousness. Even if this could be done (and I can't imagine how) there would be no point in doing so because at the end of the calculation the additional mathematical baggage would not produce a different answer than the one the unmodified equation we use now does. Both would give answers that we know from experiment to be true but one is much simpler than the other. So use the simpler one! I like Occam's razor, quantum mechanics is complicated enough as it is so I see no point in introducing more mathematics if the additional math is just wheels within wheels that ends up doing nothing.* > > > as I explained several times, consciousness is NOT involved in > "collapsing" the wf, > *How can a observation be made if nothing it doing the observing, and how can something observe a thing but not be conscious of it? Well let''s see maybe there is a way, there could be a very simple machine that punches a hole in a tape if it detects a electron going left after interacting with a SG magnet but doesn't punch a hole if the electron goes right. Consciousness would not be involved with that because the machine would be much too simple for that, you could say the important thing is not consciousness but merely the fact that a record was made of the interaction. That would be fine but you can't make a record without making a change in something, a hole in a tape is different from a tape with no hole, and so were right back to Many Worlds.* > > If Joe the Plumber (who gained fame in a recent presidential election in > some well publicized interviews) goes into a lab and does a simple double > slit experiment with a SINGLE outcome and then leaves the casino, there is > a cascading, metastasizing numbers of universes which in time can EXCEED > that large number, indeed any larger number. *I freely admit that 10^500 is a smaller number than infinity, but I do not admit that Joe the Plumber has the ability to discern an 10^500 different versions of reality. And by the way, the only reason string theory came up with 10^500 and not a infinite number is because it assumes that neither space nor time is continuous, but nobody knows if that assumption is valid.* > > Moreover, these universes have the SAME fundamental constants and differ > only in the outcome attained in each universe. String theory posits > DIFFERENT fundamental constants for its claim of 10^500 universes in the > Landscape. If string theory posits universes with different laws of physics it certainly posits universes with the same laws of physics, and the same would be true of the Eternal Inflation Multiverse. And if the Multiverse is infinite and number of atoms in your body is finite then there is a finite number of ways those atoms can be arranged, so if you ventured far enough into it you would eventually meet your identical copy, Max Tegmark has calculated that distance and its 10^10^28 meters. If you went 10^10^92 meters away (a number with more zeros than the number of atoms in the observable universe) you'd reach a region identical to a 100 light year radius sphere that is centered on you right now, and if you went 10^10^128 meters you'd reach a region of the Multiverse that is identical to the observable universe we're in right now. People have been talking about a infinite universe for centuries but the implications of it turn out to be very much like Everett 's Multiverse . http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf > > Not my comment. It's what Bruce wrote. Same for the next comment you > reproduced. AG > *Sorry. In the endless cascade of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes that we always see around here when threads get long its easy to get attribution wrong. * * John K Clark* -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
