Multiple Universes

Scofflaw

If I were going for a single theory that suggests the Judeo-Christian view of the Universe is entirely false, I would go for a very recent, and rather elegant, piece of work. You'd need a New Scientist subscription (or the current copy of New Scientist) to view the rest of the New Scientist version, but I'll quote the start of the article:

New Scientist wrote:

If you think of yourself as unique, think again. The days when physicists could ignore the concept of parallel universes may have come to an end. If that doesn't send a shudder down your spine, think of it this way: our world is just one of many. You are just one version of many.

David Deutsch at the University of Oxford and colleagues have shown that key equations of quantum mechanics arise from the mathematics of parallel universes. "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science," says Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis. In one parallel universe, at least, it will - whether it does in our one remains to be seen.

The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed 50 years ago by Hugh Everett, a graduate student at Princeton University

A longer, but slightly less technical version, is here.

David Deutsch is one of the founders of quantum computing - the speed of quantum computing is thought to derive from the way that a quantum computer literally uses multiple universes to do its calculations.

This latest research results from a consideration of something called the Born calculations, which can be used to give the probability of indeterminate quantum states collapsing into any particular state on observation. The distribution of states has never been found to match any model, but it turns out that it matches exactly what you'd get if the branching multiple-universe model is true.

It may not be immediately obvious what the theological ramifications of this are, but they are as follows:

In a single linear Universe, every decision you make can be totted up at the end of your life, and you can be saved or condemned according to this life.

In a multiverse that branches for every possible quantum state, there are millions or billions of you. Somewhere, an atheist PDN argues with an evangelical Wicknight. Looked at across all the multiple universes, for any given individual there will almost certainly always be a path where they made all the right decisions to be saved - that is, we should always be able to pick a perfectly Christian PDN, a perfectly Christian Scofflaw, and a perfectly Christian Wicknight, merely by following the right series of branches. Not only that, but those perfect Christians will share common branches with imperfect Christians, and perhaps even with the downright damned - that is, before some particular point, they were the same person.

It therefore becomes necessary, in order to condemn the atheist Scofflaw, to also condemn part of the perfectly Christian Scofflaw, because at one point they were the same person.

Personally, I cannot see how one can reconcile this with the Judeo-Christian worldview, nor can I see how it can be reconciled with the notion of individual salvation. Every single one of us is both saved and unsaved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Every single one of us is both saved and unsaved.

It's an interesting thought, but I believe that you're wrong in saying that it suggests that the binary attribute of saved/unsaved is impossible in a universe of this type, unless you assume that at the "end" of the decision-inducing process (death, or whatever else), that there exists only one heaven into which people will be permitted. There could be an infinite number of heavens, one for each outcome; or there could indeed be a single heaven, but one which permits multiple versions of the same individual; or the event known as the end of time could collapse the person's saved/unsaved wave function and their single, final position in the firmament would then become clear. Imagine what that latter universe could be like -- one's entry to heaven is determined by the results of an infinite summation across all possible variants. Very Buddhist!

But more seriously, I can't imagine any religious people getting too wound up about this one way or the other. The few that would understand it will rationalize it, while the remainder will ignore it. If, in time, it is shown to be accurate, it'll be granted a ritual "meaning" which will then -- mirabile dictu -- be found to be in complete agreement with what the religion claims it has always claimed.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

It's an interesting thought, but I believe that you're wrong in saying that it suggests that the binary attribute of saved/unsaved is impossible in a universe of this type, unless you assume that at the "end" of the decision-inducing process (death, or whatever else), that there exists only one heaven into which people will be permitted. There could be an infinite number of heavens, one for each outcome; or there could indeed be a single heaven, but one which permits multiple versions of the same individual; or the event known as the end of time could collapse the person's saved/unsaved wave function and their single, final position in the firmament would then become clear. Imagine what that latter universe could be like -- one's entry to heaven is determined by the results of an infinite summation across all possible variants. Very Buddhist!

But more seriously, I can't imagine any religious people getting too wound up about this one way or the other. The few that would understand it will rationalize it, while the remainder will ignore it. If, in time, it is shown to be accurate, it'll be granted a ritual "meaning" which will then -- mirabile dictu -- be found to be in complete agreement with what the religion claims it has always claimed.

Surely not! Are you suggesting they would rationalise it after the event?

Seriously, though, I can see those possible criticisms, but I think the Judeo-Christian model is quite explicit about the singularity of the soul.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Ione's entry to heaven is determined by the results of an infinite summation across all possible variants. Very Buddhist!

Indeed:) I used to spend hours wondering about the reality of alternate worlds. This was promted by over reading Piers Anthony's Sience Fantasy series of Blue Adept books. Religion also played a central role in the series.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

I can see those possible criticisms, but I think the Judeo-Christian model is quite explicit about the singularity of the soul.

The most common variants of christianity today do declare themselves pretty certain of that, but I don't immediately see how that's connected to what you're proposing, or at least, prevented by it. What piece of biblical text do you have in mind here exactly?

Or, what about if each individual starts off as a single conscious entity, then spiritually subdivides at each decision point, ultimately giving rise to an infinite number of souls, each one with its own ultimate destination? I don't believe this is ruled out by the bible, any more than its ruled in.

And the bible is frightfully inconsistent about souls anyway. The OT barely mentions them and says nothing of them existing pre-birth and I believe, post-death too. While the NT has evolved them to something close to the perfect über-beings/forms that Plato wrote about. And the infinite and infinitely durable soul is therefore subject to the infinite payoffs of eternal bliss or eternal damnation which are largely (completely?) absent from the OT, which is filled with stories of purely temporal blisses, deaths and damnation.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

The most common variants of christianity today do declare themselves pretty certain of that, but I don't immediately see how that's connected to what you're proposing, or at least, prevented by it. What piece of biblical text do you have in mind here exactly?

Or, what about if each individual starts off as a single conscious entity, then spiritually subdivides at each decision point, ultimately giving rise to an infinite number of souls, each one with its own ultimate destination? I don't believe this is ruled out by the bible, any more than its ruled in.

And the bible is frightfully inconsistent about souls anyway. The OT barely mentions them and says nothing of them existing pre-birth and I believe, post-death too. While the NT has evolved them to something close to the perfect über-beings/forms that Plato wrote about. And the infinite and infinitely durable soul is therefore subject to the infinite payoffs of eternal bliss or eternal damnation which are largely (completely?) absent from the OT, which is filled with stories of purely temporal blisses, deaths and damnation.

Again, I think that's true - this is simply something that is not covered in the Bible. It's more that the whole emotional content of Judeo-Christian religion is individualistic - it's about you, about your soul, God's plan for you, God's special place for you. That's why Christianity always has a tendency towards predestinationism.

Multiple branching universes immediately rob that idea of individuality of its force, and appealing notion of a Final Judgment of much of its meaning. How meaningful is "there but for the Grace of God go I" when there, indeed, you do go? How meaningful is your personal decision to not give in to temptation if on Judgment Day you'll be standing next to the you who did? What if one of you has denied the Holy Ghost? Why should the you who did everything right, and suffered to do it, in this one life that you know about, be condemned to Hell because millions of your alternate selves whooped it up in the fleshpots?

Indeed, what schadenfreude is to be derived from the idea that your oppressor in this life will be toast in the next, when, for all you know, millions of his alternate selves have been awarded the martyr's crown?

This is not a formal disproof of God, but as I said, something that suggests that the (current) Judeo-Christian view of the Universe, and the believer's personal place in it, are pure codswallop.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Obviously this is highly speculative, but I see two difficulties with this notion. It seems to me that such a theory would require not just 'many' parallel universes but rather an infinite number. For example, if every decision of every one of my ancestors worked out differently in each universe then it would take an absolutely mind-bogglingly high number of universes just to produce a second PDN born to the same parents. Then, of course, you would have to multiply that number by a similar amount to reach the number of universes necessary to accommodate two universes where both PDN and Wicknight exist.

My other difficulty relates to whether the other PDN really would be the same person as me. I have often wondered about this in relation to cloning. A clone might be identical to me in regard to genetic material, but surely my own set of circumstances and memories are an integral part of who I am as a person? If either a clone or a PDN in an alternative universe did exist then would they not be more of a doppelganger than another me?

Maybe I'm seeing difficulties here where non exist. I freely admit that I am neither a scientist or a mathematician, and indeed it is many years since I studied either subject (I actually left school at the age of 15 - in this universe, at least).

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Obviously this is highly speculative, but I see two difficulties with this notion.

Hmm, no, that's kind of the point of the article. It's not highly speculative - it's, er, ordinarily speculative, in the sense that it's a normal part of physics.

PDN wrote:

It seems to me that such a theory would require not just 'many' parallel universes but rather an infinite number. For example, if every decision of every one of my ancestors worked out differently in each universe then it would take an absolutely mind-bogglingly high number of universes just to produce a second PDN born to the same parents. Then, of course, you would have to multiply that number by a similar amount to reach the number of universes necessary to accommodate two universes where both PDN and Wicknight exist.

Yes - indeed, I believe the strongest counter-argument so far is that it's absolutely contrary to common sense. I don't think there's any problem whatsoever with infinite parallel universes. It's not like you run out of space to put them, as such.

PDN wrote:

My other difficulty relates to whether the other PDN really would be the same person as me. I have often wondered about this in relation to cloning. A clone might be identical to me in regard to genetic material, but surely my own set of circumstances and memories are an integral part of who I am as a person? If either a clone or a PDN in an alternative universe did exist then would they not be more of a doppelganger than another me?

Hmm. Again, no. The Scofflaw that posted this has by now been split into multiple parallel copies, all of whom are equally the Scofflaw who posted this. Indeed, I'm probably shedding copies faster than I'm doing anything else.

These copies are me, in a sense that a clone never will be. Up to the point where they split off, they have been the same me as the one that exists in the universe in which you read this post.

PDN wrote:

Maybe I'm seeing difficulties here where non exist. I freely admit that I am neither a scientist or a mathematician, and indeed it is many years since I studied either subject (I actually left school at the age of 15 - in this universe, at least).

In another universe, I have made a snide remark...in this one, might I ask whether you went back?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

While not having read the article, I'd be skeptical that this forms a sound argument against the Judeo-Christian world view.

First of all, I'd not take this particular piece of mathematics as inherently correct. I know quantum mechanics does sorta have a thing for nifty mathematical tricks turning out to be correct, but until this is substantiated by further work, I don't intend to make any metaphysical judgements on the matter. It *could* just be a nifty mathematical trick.


Secondly, even if it is true, I don't see how simply arguing that it is you, rather than the sum over infinity of you, that gets judged is unreasonable. I wouldn't consider it a case of worming were this to be the case. I mean, what constitutes you? Even if I was identical in all respects to a person but had made a different decision to them under exactly the same circumstance (incidently, a situation which I do not believe can occur) then I'd argue that we are different people.

Dades

Interesting though this is, I'm not sure how potent a weapon it is in the atheist armoury.

Those who would argue against evolution use their ignorance of the minutiae to form baseless arguments. Think of the fuel available to them with this particular field of expertise.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

In another universe, I have made a snide remark...in this one, might I ask whether you went back?

Back to school? No.

I did go to Theological College a few years later (but that probably doesn't count in these environs since it's a 'made up subject'), all the rest of my education has been part time, night classes etc.

Certainly nothing that includes math or science, which is why I'm such a dunce when it comes to those subjects (as indeed I am with horse racing, the latest goings on in reality TV shows or anything else that fails to win my interest).

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

While not having read the article, I'd be skeptical that this forms a sound argument against the Judeo-Christian world view.

First of all, I'd not take this particular piece of mathematics as inherently correct. I know quantum mechanics does sorta have a thing for nifty mathematical tricks turning out to be correct, but until this is substantiated by further work, I don't intend to make any metaphysical judgements on the matter. It *could* just be a nifty mathematical trick.


Secondly, even if it is true, I don't see how simply arguing that it is you, rather than the sum over infinity of you, that gets judged is unreasonable. I wouldn't consider it a case of worming were this to be the case. I mean, what constitutes you? Even if I was identical in all respects to a person but had made a different decision to them under exactly the same circumstance (incidently, a situation which I do not believe can occur) then I'd argue that we are different people.

Perhaps I'm not explaining this well - the important point is the branching. Let's call this universe U0. The you in parallel universe U1, which split off from this one 20 minutes ago, shared your timeline up to that point - and the soul is eternal and, as far as I know, indivisible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

If I were going for a single theory that suggests the Judeo-Christian view of the Universe is entirely false, I would go for a very recent, and rather elegant, piece of work.

I've only heard about this latest development (of a 50-year-old idea) today, so forgive me if I'm asking something stupid here but....

Is this really a theory?

First and foremost...is it falisifiable? I don't see how it can be, at first glance.

Also, my first thought on the handful of articles I've seen referencing this today was that these guys have shown mathematically that the multiple-universe model offers a solution to a certain set of problems. This does not necessarily imply that the existence of these problems implies the existence of a multiple-universe model.

Taking a complete layman's analagy, we know that children falling on pavements can end up with skinned knees. However, if your child arrives home with a skinned knee, it doesn't necessarily mean they did fall on the pavement.

These thoughts may be completely off the mark in terms of understanding what these guys have done. As I said...they're just my first impressions from the non- and semi-scientific articles I've seen to date.

showing that B can arise from A does not mean that having B implies A.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Back to school? No.

I did go to Theological College a few years later (but that probably doesn't count in these environs since it's a 'made up subject'), all the rest of my education has been part time, night classes etc.

Pfft. Theology is a complex subject - a bit like studying history, philosophy and classics together.

PDN wrote:

Certainly nothing that includes math or science, which is why I'm such a dunce when it comes to those subjects (as indeed I am with horse racing, the latest goings on in reality TV shows or anything else that fails to win my interest).

Pity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

I've only heard about this latest development (of a 50-year-old idea) today, so forgive me if I'm asking something stupid here but....

Is this really a theory?

First and foremost...is it falisifiable? I don't see how it can be, at first glance.

Also, my first thought on the handful of articles I've seen referencing this today was that these guys have shown mathematically that the multiple-universe model offers a solution to a certain set of problems. This does not necessarily imply that the existence of these problems implies the existence of a multiple-universe model.

Taking a complete layman's analagy, we know that children falling on pavements can end up with skinned knees. However, if your child arrives home with a skinned knee, it doesn't necessarily mean they did fall on the pavement.

These thoughts may be completely off the mark in terms of understanding what these guys have done. As I said...they're just my first impressions from the non- and semi-scientific articles I've seen to date.

showing that B can arise from A does not mean that having B implies A.

Sure. The important thing is that there is currently no other explanation for the working of the Born calculation. Indeed, in a sense, the authors claim there is currently no other real way of explaining the operation of probability.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

Perhaps I'm not explaining this well - the important point is the branching. Let's call this universe U0. The you in parallel universe U1, which split off from this one 20 minutes ago, shared your timeline up to that point - and the soul is eternal and, as far as I know, indivisible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah yes. My apologies. I did indeed misunderstand that.

Son Goku

New Scientist articles are usually a bit dodgy for physics, particularly quantum mechanics. What the article leaves out is that there is and always was only one Quantum Mechanics. The same Quantum Mechanics every theoretical physicist must learn from a standard textbook.
Quantum Mechanics can be cast in several different forms, the most common two being the Dirac formalism and the density matrix formalism. However it is still the same theory with the same predictions. Like evolution being described in Greek or English. However just as English invokes colour more vividly than Greek, the density matrix formalism invokes parallel universes as a good mental picture. However that's only a mental picture, QM neither requires nor states that parallel universe's exist. It is a handy picture for intuiting certain processes in Quantum Computation (it is completely useless in most other fields, e.g. particle physics). There is no multiple universe model, it's simply that some people, Deutsch in particular, believe it is the best way to think about Quantum Mechanics. It is not a prediction of Quantum Mechanics.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

New Scientist articles are usually a bit dodgy for physics, particularly quantum mechanics. What the article leaves out is that there is and always was only one Quantum Mechanics. The same Quantum Mechanics every theoretical physicist must learn from a standard textbook.
Quantum Mechanics can be cast in several different forms, the most common two being the Dirac formalism and the density matrix formalism. However it is still the same theory with the same predictions. Like evolution being described in Greek or English. However just as English invokes colour more vividly than Greek, the density matrix formalism invokes parallel universes as a good mental picture. However that's only a mental picture, QM neither requires nor states that parallel universe's exist. It is a handy picture for intuiting certain processes in Quantum Computation (it is completely useless in most other fields, e.g. particle physics). There is no multiple universe model, it's simply that some people, Deutsch in particular, believe it is the best way to think about Quantum Mechanics. It is not a prediction of Quantum Mechanics.

I think he's rather more definite than that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

I think he's rather more definite than that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Again:

A growing number of physicists, myself included, are convinced that the thing we call ‘the universe’ — namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains — is not the whole of reality. According to quantum theory — the deepest theory known to physics — our universe is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse, a highly structured continuum containing many universes.

there is only multiple universes if you choose to look at QM that way.
Deustch is similar to John Cramer or David Bohm in that they each talk alot about their own particular interpretation of QM a great deal. At the end of the day QM is QM. The predictions are always the same.
Deutsch, Cramer and Bohm will each get the same results for Hydrogen spectral lines, e.t.c. My problem with all their interpretations is that they are practically useless in that, except in simplified circumstances unique to each interpretation, it's always much better to just think in terms of the maths.

Pompey Magnus

I always liked the Multiple Universe theory. Admittedly I am not well up on the physics of the theory but the basics seem to make sense. Firstly it would explain why the Universe is so finely tuned to allow life to emerge.

Also I have always been baffled at the near impossibility that I have come into existance at all. An exact chain of events over ten billion years since the Big Bang was necessary for me to be born, and had even the slightest variation occured over that time frame I most certainly would never have been born. This vast improbably is explained away by the theory as any possible event is inevitable, such being the nature of infinity.

But it is only a theory, and the idea that new universes come into existance with every possible sub-atomic event seems wasteful in the extreme, but I still like the idea.

Zulu

I think the problem I'd have would be the assumption that we don't have free choice. (ie: if the decision was determined on the universe)
Perhaps, our personal choices are always free, it's everyone elses that differ. Thus for each Zulu, facing different circumstances, always has the freedom to make the right choice, thus "bending" (for want of a different word) all instances of Zulu in the correct direction. (? ie: towards God/or who/whatever)??

...just food for taught

pH

All these universes and I end up stuck in this one, where I haven't won the lotto .

PDN

This may be a stupid question, but in this theory do the parallel universes have to be different from each other?

For a determinist, or indeed a Calvinist, all the parallel universes would be identical.

The Mad Hatter

pH wrote:

All these universes and I end up stuck in this one, where I haven't won the lotto .

Hey, neat! There's an infinite number of universes where you picked the right numbers this week, and an infinite number of universes where the numbers you picked came out!

I like thinking about this...

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote:

This may be a stupid question, but in this theory do the parallel universes have to be different from each other?

For a determinist, or indeed a Calvinist, all the parallel universes would be identical.

I remember reading an explanation about the Multiple Universe theory and it was something along the lines of (Warning: not necessarily the correct physics terminology here) if a subatomic particle has a 50:50 random chance of having an "Up" or "Down" spin then both events occur in parallel universes, one with the Up spin and one with the Down. Similarly with Schrodinger's Cat paradox, whereby two universes will exist in parallel, in one of which the cat is dead and in the other it is alive.

Fallen Seraph

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I always liked the Multiple Universe theory. Admittedly I am not well up on the physics of the theory but the basics seem to make sense. Firstly it would explain why the Universe is so finely tuned to allow life to emerge.

Apologies for being a little off topic, but this particular formulation of the theory wouldn't explain how the universe is so finely tuned because it only deals with collasping wave functions which, as far as I know, don't have alll that much to do with the fundamental constants of the universe. (Which are what appear so finely tuned)

Son Goku

This may be a stupid question, but in this theory do the parallel universes have to be different from each other?

For a determinist, or indeed a Calvinist, all the parallel universes would be identical.

Yes, although they are usually different on the atomic scale.

Again though it is not a theory or an actual prediction of Quantum Mechanics, it is a certain groups preferred way of looking at the mathematics.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Again:

A growing number of physicists, myself included, are convinced that the thing we call ‘the universe’ — namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains — is not the whole of reality. According to quantum theory — the deepest theory known to physics — our universe is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse, a highly structured continuum containing many universes.

there is only multiple universes if you choose to look at QM that way.
Deustch is similar to John Cramer or David Bohm in that they each talk alot about their own particular interpretation of QM a great deal. At the end of the day QM is QM. The predictions are always the same.
Deutsch, Cramer and Bohm will each get the same results for Hydrogen spectral lines, e.t.c. My problem with all their interpretations is that they are practically useless in that, except in simplified circumstances unique to each interpretation, it's always much better to just think in terms of the maths.

Hmm. That, too, is a particular interpretive position - that one should not look for physical realities behind the models behind the maths. What I am saying is that Deutsch clearly regards there as being a physical reality behind this. The question of whether it is the correct interpretation is a separate question - but if no other model fits the maths, that can be seen as falsifiable evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

All these universes and I end up stuck in this one, where I haven't won the lotto .

You are not alone.

Pompey Magnus

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Apologies for being a little off topic, but this particular formulation of the theory wouldn't explain how the universe is so finely tuned because it only deals with collasping wave functions which, as far as I know, don't have alll that much to do with the fundamental constants of the universe. (Which are what appear so finely tuned)

Good spot there. There is a similar theory to this which I was thinking about which deals with the existance of an infinite number of universes or mulitiverses which are created independently, and statistically there will exist an infinite number of universes which are slightly different to this one, though these aren't created from a split of any single universe as suggested here.

pH

Asiaprod wrote:

You are not alone.

Arrg .. you're stuck in this one too?

Gegerty

Parallel means they never meet. So the decisions we make do not cause us to cross over into other universes/branches.

Pompey Magnus

pH wrote:

All these universes and I end up stuck in this one, where I haven't won the lotto .

Ah but you won the biggest lottery of them all, you won the sperm race 9 months before you were born beating hundreds of millions of other competitors.

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

Arrg .. you're stuck in this one too?

Yes, and I'm the Buddhist:(

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

That, too, is a particular interpretive position - that one should not look for physical realities behind the models behind the maths.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying you shouldn't look for the physical reality behind the maths. What would be the point in physics as an intellectual interest otherwise?

What I am saying is that since all interpretations are interpretations, they should be proposed as such. What Deutsch, Cramer and Bohm claim is that there is some particular advantage to each of their interpretations which regular "Hilbert Space" or Vanilla QM doesn't offer. Since the different interpretations can't, by definition, give different predictions, what people usually claim is that they make Quantum Mechanical results easier to intuit. However outside very specific simplified circumstances unique to each interpretation, they are usually (and even their proponents will admit this) to hard to follow.

For instance Bohm's interpretation is good for particle's in a potential, but the hydrogen atom or multiple particle scattering can't be understood as the formalism becomes to cumbersome.

Similarly the many-worlds interpretation is good for simple Quantum Computers and light emission/absorption, but massively cumbersome in other situations.

Regular QM has always been the easiest to follow.

Scofflaw wrote:

The question of whether it is the correct interpretation is a separate question - but if no other model fits the maths, that can be seen as falsifiable evidence.

All the interpretations are just transformations of QM into another framework. All other forms of QM fit the evidence, since there is only one QM, simply transposed into different frameworks.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying you shouldn't look for the physical reality behind the maths. what would be the point in physics as an intellectual interest otherwise?

Phew! Still, given we're talking about a crossover between quantum mechanics and theology, the chances of us achieving less than perfect clarity are pretty high.

Son Goku wrote:

What I am saying is that since all interpretations are interpretations, they should be proposed as such. What Deutsch, Cramer and Bohm claim is that there is some particular advantage to each of their interpretations which regular "Hilbert Space" or Vanilla QM doesn't offer. Since the different interpretations can't, by definition, give different predictions, what people usually claim is that they make Quantum Mechanical results easier to intuit. However outside very specific simplified circumstances unique to each interpretation, they are usually (and even their proponents will admit this) to hard to follow.

For instance Bohm's interpretation is good for particle's in a potential, but the hydrogen atom or multiple particle scattering can't be understood as the formalism becomes to cumbersome.

Similarly the many-worlds interpretation is good for simple Quantum Computers and light emission/absorption, but massively cumbersome in other situations.

Regular QM has always been the easiest to follow.

All the interpretations are just transformations of QM into another framework. All other forms of QM fit the evidence, since there is only one QM, simply transposed into different frameworks.

Yes, I can see what you're saying. Your initial comment seemed much more dismissive of possible physical reality. While each of the frameworks offers, as you say, advantages only under certain circumstances, we are still left with the possibility that one of them represents actual reality (and we are also left, of course, with the possibility that reality depends on how you look at it).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Phew! Still, given we're talking about a crossover between quantum mechanics and theology, the chances of us achieving less than perfect clarity are pretty high.



Yes, I can see what you're saying. Your initial comment seemed much more dismissive of possible physical reality. While each of the frameworks offers, as you say, advantages only under certain circumstances, we are still left with the possibility that one of them represents actual reality (and we are also left, of course, with the possibility that reality depends on how you look at it).

cordially,
Scofflaw

I should also point out a few other things, since people might find them of interest.

First ,the strengths of the Many-Worlds interpretation. It and the Copenhagen interpretation are still the only interpretations that can function equally well as interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory (which is Quantum Mechanics + Special Relativity). Most other interpretations can't make any sense of Quantum Field Theory. It is also probably one of the easiest to grasp.

Second, it is immensely useful in Quantum Computing. Deutsch most important work, the first interesting quantum algorithm, only came about because of his work on Many Worlds. Which shows that these extra ways of looking at and appreciating QM have practical benefits.

Third and this is very important, all the interpretations centre around one issue. That is the measurement problem, which concerns the fifth of QM‘s five axioms. On other issues QM is easy to interpret once you get the hang of it and what the maths means is directly transparent. Something that is often not explained is that maths in theoretical physics doesn't function like maths in other areas. It isn't there to only calculate quantities, it is also descriptive. For instance Maxwell's equations don't just provide models which match experiment and can be solved on a computer. If that's all they did, I can tell you, far less people would do physics. The point of Maxwell's equations is that the actually tell you something about what kind of object an electromagnetic field is. There is more mathematical properties than just numbers and values. That's why there is no questions about what the maths really means, because the maths is a descriptive language.
What makes QM different to all other physical theories is that one section of its mathematical structure (its fifth axiom), has no native descriptive content. The interpretations are basically attempts to give this axiom descriptive content consistent with the other four axioms.
However questions about the fifth axiom only come up when you work in Quantum Computation (the power of Quantum Computers comes from the fifth axiom) and what is called Foundational QM, which is literally the study of the fifth axiom(So you can imagine the fifth axiom comes up quite a bit). In other areas of physics, such as particle physics, you don't really need it in such detail so this kind of stuff rarely comes up.

Fourth, since I've introduced the necessary concepts I can explain the point behind this $1,000,000 maths problem: Yang-Mills problem.
As I've already said QM has five axioms. However QM doesn't work with special relativity. In order to make it work with special relativity you have to add six extra axioms, bringing the total to eleven. QM with these extra six axioms is called Quantum Field Theory. The problem is nobody has ever proven that these six extra axioms don't contradict each other, although it has been proven they don't contradict the original five. As such Quantum Field Theory remains shaky logically, even though it matches experiment. If you can prove they don't contradict each other you win a million.

Absolutely nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism or theism, but there you go.

stevejazzx

Isn't anyone going to quote, emm I think it's Feynman,

if you think you know anything about quantum mechanics then you don't know anything about quantum mechanics

Yeah well QM is extremely interesting, I've just seen a documentary with a bit about branes and gravity or 'gravitons' leaking from branes into higher dimensional space explaining why gravity is such a weak force...and qunatum computing is absolutely fascinating calcuting a far greater density of algortihm...the problem with it is that it is still in its infancy and so using it as an argument against religon is a bit premature...it does however appear to hint at things to come...

aidan24326

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Also I have always been baffled at the near impossibility that I have come into existance at all. An exact chain of events over ten billion years since the Big Bang was necessary for me to be born, and had even the slightest variation occured over that time frame I most certainly would never have been born. This vast improbably is explained away by the theory as any possible event is inevitable, such being the nature of infinity

Yes but while you and I are here there is a very very large set of possible humans that aren't and never will be. So I guess somebody had to be, that it is you and I who 'got lucky' is really of significance only in our own minds.

humanji

If there are an infinite number of universes with infinite possibilities, does that mean there's a universe where they've proven that the multiverse idea is wrong and that only one universe exists? And if so, does one cancel out the other?

I'm dizzy and need to sit down

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if it is true, then yeah there probably is.. but all that means is that they got their calculations wrong

Myksyk

Quick question ... is it proposed that the infinity of other worlds includes all 'imaginable' worlds? Or do those universes have to obey the laws of physics (I understand these may differ from universe to universe)? I guess I'm asking does infinity have to include everything imaginable or can it still be circumscribed in someway ... i.e. infinite in one or more directions but not ALL directions?!!

This would mean, perhaps, that within certain infinities, there is still no room for a world, for example, where oompa loompas walk upside down on chocolate clouds while vermicious Knids paint the sky polka dot blue with the innards of willy wonka?

Dades

Myksyk wrote:

This would mean, perhaps, that within certain infinities, there is still no room for a world, for example, where oompa loompas walk upside down on chocolate clouds while vermicious Knids paint the sky polka dot blue with the innards of willy wonka?

Only marginally more preposterous than some of the stuff we're told happened in this universe, I would think.

Fallen Seraph

As is my understanding: the answer is no.

This theory only proposes that any time that anything could go one way or another on a quantum level that it goes both ways. Which means that the fundamental laws of phyics are still the same.

If the laws of physics permit oompa loompas too walk upside down on chocolate clouds while vermicious Knids paint the sky polka dot blue with the innards of willy wonka, then this would happen. But it wouldn't if it couldn't. Simply.

The same with humanji's proposed paradox. If it can't be proven in this universe it can't be proven in any other.

But I'm not convinced that this means quite what everyone is touting it as. Is anyone in a position to elaborate on what effect the collapsing of a quantum state has on your average decision making process? I'd be surprised if anyone knew. And if I were to have a guess at it I'd say that our cognitive processes behave classically, which leaves me rather unconvinced that even if the theory is true that I'm both sitting here discussing quantum physics in this universe and actually working, like I should be, in another.

Zillah

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Similarly with Schrodinger's Cat paradox, whereby two universes will exist in parallel, in one of which the cat is dead and in the other it is alive.

Not quite. The Schrodinger's Cat experiment is a demonstration of an uncollapsed quantum state. Once it collapses we get two universes from it, one with a dead cat, one with a not dead cat. But that happens at the end and is not the purpose of the experiment.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Not quite. The Schrodinger's Cat experiment is a demonstration of an uncollapsed quantum state. Once it collapses we get two universes from it, one with a dead cat, one with a not dead cat. But that happens at the end and is not the purpose of the experiment.

The idea that new universes might be an accidental byproduct of physics experiments is not one that would sit well with Creationists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Myksyk wrote:

This would mean, perhaps, that within certain infinities, there is still no room for a world, for example, where oompa loompas walk upside down on chocolate clouds while vermicious Knids paint the sky polka dot blue with the innards of willy wonka?

Now that's exactly the kind of universe I'd like to live in ...

Zillah wrote:

Not quite. The Schrodinger's Cat experiment is a demonstration of an uncollapsed quantum state. Once it collapses we get two universes from it, one with a dead cat, one with a not dead cat.

... but with my luck I know I'd end up in the universe with the dead cat.

Dades

pH wrote:

... but with my luck I know I'd end up in the universe with the dead cat.

And better off for it, I say.

Zillah

pH wrote:

... but with my luck I know I'd end up in the universe with the dead cat.

You could eat it. Right now there is a pH somewhere starving to death in a post apocalyptic earth just wishing he could have even a dead cat to eat.

Oh, and somewhere, somehow, there's a pH who's monitor explodes in his face the instant he stops reading this post.

I love this game. BAM!