45 replies to this topic

[encouraged]

My wife and I used to joke as we went from nation to nation that all you had to do was flip a coin on any one decision for a society and there would be one like that. Driving on the left or right of the road, eating properly with the fork prongs pointing up or down, etc.

Many Worlds developed from quantum states. Is that the only source that it could advance from?

If we were a society that played Farkle all the time and the best players made good money and it was challenging enough to be the game all the smart guys wanted to play, would the Many Worlds have been developed from a study of the many other combinations of dice combinations each being another set of worlds?

Or is there a reason it would only come about through quantum states? If so what is the explanation for that?

[Rlyeh]

Its an interpretation of quantum mechanics, it attempts to explain the unpredictability and randomness in quantum experiments.

http://plato.stanfor.../qm-manyworlds/

[encouraged]

Rlyeh, on 24 August 2011 - 06:01 AM, said:

Its an interpretation of quantum mechanics, it attempts to explain the unpredictability and randomness in quantum experiments.
http://plato.stanfor.../qm-manyworlds/

Hmmm, but that isn't what I'm after--kinda been there, done that. Can the Many Worlds only be derived from quantum mechanics. Could it be derived just as accurately from Farkle? or Jacks? or shuffling a deck of cards?

Edited by encouraged, 24 August 2011 - 04:07 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

Then every time I flip a coin I create another universe? What would be the mechanism for this? The probabilities themselves? There would have to be some law built in to the meta-universe that if two or more possibilities were available in the evolution of a single event, and that event occurred, then all possibilities would evolve by the instantaneous creation of completely identical universes where all these possibilities would occur.

How many events have only one possible outcome? Do all events have only one possible outcome, the one that actually occurred? If I drop a pencil onto the floor, its trajectory and final resting place is the only possible outcome of this particular event. This probability is 100% because it happened.

If I drop it again, its trajectory and final resting place may be different, but for this drop this is the only possible outcome, as well. There may seem to be an infinite possibilities of trajectories and landing places, but for each drop its particular probability is 100% and all other probabilities are 0%.

So, if in our macro-world when some event happens, all other possibilities of it having happened differently are 0. If all other possibilities are 0, and they do not exist in this universe, where do the other possibilities exist to create other universes for them to exist in?

[encouraged]

StarMountainKid, on 24 August 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

Then every time I flip a coin I create another universe? ... where do the other possibilities exist to create other universes for them to exist in?

So, if I throw the six dice of Farkle, the way the dice land is contained in my universe. And each other possible combination of landings is represented in other universes, one combination per universe, for as many as are needed, in already existing universes? And in at least one other universe, I decided not to play Farkle.

And when 15 of my friends and I get together to play bridge we represent all the possible ways of dealing the cards at my table and also at three more tables, as well as, all of that once again for every possible combination of table seating arrangements plus at least one more in which the bridge night didn't occur.

I think I understand why the adult Aborigine asked his son to stop dragging the stick on the ground behind him. There is already enough to be custodian of without adding another Boolean branch or digit to it.

Did I get this right or wrong? Is that how Multiple Worlds works?

That was good in working this out I had to analyze things more and then reread your previous entry and I now understand what you were saying. Likewise above there are singular events. That means we don't need multi words to make them exist!

Okay then, what about the wave collapse is that two events simultaneous or the same reasoning of one event?

Edited by encouraged, 24 August 2011 - 10:45 PM.

[sepulchrave]

encouraged, on 24 August 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

Did I get this right or wrong? Is that how Multiple Worlds works?

No. When you throw the dice classically, if you had complete knowledge of the initial speed, height, spin, shape, etc. of the die and also knowledge of the air currents, etc. then you could theoretically predict the outcome of the die roll exactly.

In quantum mechanics, even if you have theoretically complete knowledge of an object's state you cannot exactly predict the outcome of single measurements.

encouraged, on 24 August 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

Okay then, what about the wave collapse is that two events simultaneous or the same reasoning of one event?

No, that is a singular event.

[encouraged]

sepulchrave, on 25 August 2011 - 02:26 AM, said:

No. When you throw the dice classically, if you had complete knowledge of the initial speed, height, spin, shape, etc. of the die and also knowledge of the air currents, etc. then you could theoretically predict the outcome of the die roll exactly.
In quantum mechanics, even if you have theoretically complete knowledge of an object's state you cannot exactly predict the outcome of single measurements.
No, that is a singular event.

Got it! Thanks!

[Rlyeh]

encouraged, on 24 August 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Hmmm, but that isn't what I'm after--kinda been there, done that. Can the Many Worlds only be derived from quantum mechanics. Could it be derived just as accurately from Farkle? or Jacks? or shuffling a deck of cards?

Coin flipping, card shuffling, dice rolling, etc, are chaotic, various factors determine the outcome. If you could do the same action perfectly over again, the result would be the same.

[encouraged]

============

Okay, I'm going to try something out with the Many-Worlds Theory (in an attempt to disprove it or at least make its likelihood so improbable that it may as well be disproven):

I am a point who has decided to go for a walk in spherical space. My next move could result in being:
. a horizontal (x) move in any direction within the infinite choices contained by a 360 degree circle
. a vertical (y) move in any direction within the infinite choices contained by a 360 degree circle
. a move in depth (z) in any direction within the infinite choices contained by a 360 degree circle
. any distance (d) along a line of infinite other points
. taken at any moment (t) in infinite time in which I choose

I am only one point of an infinite number of Cartesian points that are making the same decision of which next step I should take. And doing so in a Multi-Universe of points having to do the same.

The Many-Worlds Theory, as I understand it, provides a new world for each possibility of this single decision of which way I might decide to go and since, as a point, I could be doing this forever, the magnitude of infinities is unfathomable just for little ole me.

============

If I, John, make a decision to do my homework or to enjoy U-M longer that is a decision that causes a split and the creation of two new worlds, one for each decision. Being a being with some intelligence and the will to decide, I choose to stay on U-M. Now before I had to make that decision for the sake of this posting, I already knew which decision I would make, since I don't desire to leave this posting incomplete. (I could not see an intelligent being deciding to pursue a proof and then abandon it in the middle of attempting to prove it. Nor can I see a universe with a John doing the same thing as I, however typing any different key than that which constructs the words I need to make in order to make these points.)

The two new worlds would have to be created prior to the decision, else I would decide and remember deciding both the decisions that caused the creation of two worlds, and I only remember making one decision. So, the world, galaxy, universe and multi-verse in which I live does not split because of making a decision, but still could split in preparation to a decision. But like StarMountainKid has taught me, the decision to continue in U-M is a 100% likelihood decision, and the decision to do homework is a 0% decision, i.e. no new world necessary!

As well, all those worlds would have to share in some of the responses one of those worlds made, else we are the immortal branch of the decision tree, which would be so exceedingly unlikely in the mega-infinities that have gone before us, that it can't occur. And as one of those worlds with other-world-like responses, I don't see people at work deciding not to complete their work--in the volumes required by such a theory--which in the Many-Worlds Theory is a valid choice, but contradicts why anyone would begin such a work. Who would desire to leave it incomplete?

To me these are sufficient reasons to prove the Many-Worlds Theory as having impossible to achieve properties.

============

I rather enjoyed that little study. So, tell me where I goofed, because anyone could have thought those through, although I haven't heard that they have.

Edited by encouraged, 25 August 2011 - 08:02 PM.

[Rlyeh]

I don't think it works that way.

[sepulchrave]

Rlyeh, on 26 August 2011 - 05:19 AM, said:

I don't think it works that way.

As I understand it, encouraged is correct. With the basic type of Many-Worlds Theory just the random thermal motion of a cup of water would produce trillions and trillions of essentially identical alternat Universes. There is no way of rigorously identifying a "significant" decision at the Quantum level, so every wave function collapse would produce one or more alternate Universes.

This is one of the reasons why the Many-Worlds Theory is not considered viable by most physicists today.

[Rlyeh]

sepulchrave, on 26 August 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

As I understand it, encouraged is correct. With the basic type of Many-Worlds Theory just the random thermal motion of a cup of water would produce trillions and trillions of essentially identical alternat Universes. There is no way of rigorously identifying a "significant" decision at the Quantum level, so every wave function collapse would produce one or more alternate Universes.

This is one of the reasons why the Many-Worlds Theory is not considered viable by most physicists today.

By "I don't think it works that way" I was refering to his idea that mental decisions cause the worlds to split.

Edited by Rlyeh, 26 August 2011 - 04:46 PM.

[encouraged]

Rlyeh, on 26 August 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

By "I don't think it works that way" I was referring to his idea that mental decisions cause the worlds to split.

Ah, so, you are saying it is actually taking the action that causes the slit! I like that better! I fact I think I thought of that but was unable to keep up with myself--slow hunt and peck--because I had thought out the decision comes before the action therefore the person prior to the slit would have to decide both ways and when split both of them would remember deciding on both ways.

Thanks for pointing that out--a bit of a speed bump when I got to the typing it in part. I have got to install that Dragon 11 voice software so my typing keeps up.

In fact as I think further on it the creation of a Universe is an action that would create every combination of possible universes. So, the least little decision has the same huge magnitudes of infinities and a big decision.

And each creation of one other universe will create another infinite set of universes, infinitum!

Guys, I just can't see our world fitting into this model.

Edited by encouraged, 26 August 2011 - 09:24 PM.

[Rlyeh]

encouraged, on 26 August 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

Ah, so, you are saying it is actually taking the action that causes the slit!

No, I saying it takes a measurement of the quantum state. I thought that was already described in the link?

Edited by Rlyeh, 27 August 2011 - 06:53 AM.

[encouraged]

Rlyeh, on 27 August 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:

No, I saying it takes a measurement of the quantum state. I thought that was already described in the link?

The observer! Got it!