Occam must be holding his head. -- Russ
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Robert Howard <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Particle decay is easy to explain if you assume a multiverse. And when you > do, the “free will” disappears. > > > > A multiverse theory today is difficult to swallow for the same reasons that > the heliocentric theory, evolution, and relativity were difficult to > swallow: > > > > (1) We haven’t evolved to sense these theories in action. We don’t > sense the Earth moving, species evolving, space warping, or time dilating. > We have to use our minds. > > (2) These theories diminish our ego’s desire to feel unique and > special. We’re NOT the center of the universe. We’re NOT so different than > other animals. We HAVEN’T been here forever. > > (3) Such large numbers make us feel small. A few heavenly bodies vs. > 10e21stars in the visible universe. 6000 years old vs. 14 billion years. 100 > types of animals on the Arc vs. millions. > > > > In a multiverse, we cannot sense the OTHER copies of ourselves in other > parallel universe. We cannot sense our bodies and consciousness splitting > each time any quantum particle splits into a finite set of states. If it > WERE true, then we’d not be very special. Having 10e80 elementary particles > in the universe is quite a big number. Now raise that to the power 10e60 > Planck time units since the universe began, and raise it again to the > average number of states each particle can have, and we end up with numbers > far beyond our comfort zone. Interesting though, we seem to be more > comfortable with an “infinite” number of family of curves generated by f(x) > = c * x than we do with a large, but finite number of curves generated by > the grand equation of the universe. > > > > But many people do have the ability to make a hypothetical assumption. > Suppose our conscious bodies do split with the universe every time any > particle changes state. The multiverse theory says that if a particle CAN > switch to N possible “next” states, then the particle DOES switch to ALL > those states simultaneously – each in its unique universe, which then > resembles a big static deterministic probability decision > tree<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_Trees>. > There’s a Pauli-exclusion-like principle here where no two universes can > have the same exact total state. > > > > So suppose we are at time T0 in the diagram below observing an elementary > particle. It can decay or not decay. In the multiverse, it does both. We at > T1 in universe (a) say, “Hmm, why did it ‘choose’ to decay this time?” Our > counterparts in T1 universe (b) say “Hmm, why didn’t ‘choose’ to decay this > time?” Both equally confused because neither see the other part of the > elephant. Once a particle decays, it pretty much stays that way forever so > our observation experiment is deemed “done”. It’s only when it doesn’t decay > that we continue observing. > > > > Assuming we’re the only ones in a single universe (because we “feel” it so) > leads to a paradox. We never understand why particles decay? We project > “intelligence” and “free will” and “choice” into these particles just like > we projected “femininity” into Luna before we understood astrophysics. > > > > But when we make the leap of faith and, with our minds, step out of all the > universes looking in on them all at once; only then do the particles becomes > predictable, mundane deterministic machines that splits every M Planck time > units. The bigger the M; the long the half-life! > > > > Notice that this diagram easily predicts that we would observe an > unpredictable decay at any point in time, but statistically observe an > exponential decay with a half-life over any length of time. The half-life is > equal to the length of any one arrow. > > One big problem I have with my own hypothesis is that it leads us to think > that each particle might have some type of counter inside it that, like an > alarm clock, that ticks up to some amount of time and then splits. But there > are other ways to resolve this… (later). > > > > Robert Howard > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson > *Sent:* Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:55 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] particles have free will > > > > This is the sort of thing that drives behaviorists to be tower murderers. > > > > *"It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then > elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable > commodity."* > > > > First, what kind of a syllogism is this? > > > > Second, valuable to whom? For what? > > > > Third, assertions of free will in anything .... even humans --are not > consistant with materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that everything > that is real consists of matter *and its relations. * > > > > Beyond materialism is only madness. > > > > Free will is just a legal doctrine that allows us to kill people when they > do something we dont like. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([email protected]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Robert Holmes <[email protected]> > > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> > > *Sent:* 4/18/2009 8:28:20 AM > > *Subject:* [FRIAM] particles have free will > > > > According to Conway (Game of Life inventor), particles have free-will. See > http://kk.org/ct2/2009/03/particles-have-free-will.php for a summary and > http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf for the paper. > > > > Seems that every time I turn Netlogo off, I'm committing murder.... > > > > Robert > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
<<image003.gif>>
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
