David Lewis, Saul Kripke and the field of Modal Logic [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/] would like a word with you.Agayek said:
Multiverse Question
- Thread starter TheRundownRabbit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now I not might not know a lot about quantum mechanics, but I do know a lot about proof, and I know that having a proof, in and of itself, does not necessarily even suffice (never mind being necessary) to state the truth of the thing as an ontological absolute. The reason is simple - the proof system might prove things that are not logically inconsistent but that are nonetheless in contradiction to other established facts (or facts that are yet to come). This is the problem of Theory Change.KarmaTheAlligator said:
A massive body of relevant and confirmed theorems makes it "more likely" that the mathematical system used to describe the physical system is correct, but when one stumbles across counterexamples, the status of your previous proofs (as legitimately proofs as they were when you proved them) as correctly describing the world is apt to be revised. Sometimes changes in even a completely separate aspect of theorising can impact the premises used in other proofs that will then need to be reformulated.
I would think the laws of physics would stop travel between Multiverses. Namely the laws of Thermodynamics because the Universe is a closed system, and travel between would require a gain/loss in the total amount of energy contained in that system.
What makes you think we're the "alphaverse"? There is no reason why we would be the prime universe. In fact the theory doesn't have a prime universe it started off at the Big Bang, and divided from there.Owen Robertson said:
Yes, but there is also a universe where he doesn't, and that's the one where you are posting this topic. In some other universe there is a you who is posting the question 'how did my alternate universe self manage to come join us?' In the moment that the universe splits, one has to go one way and one goes the other. You are only aware of this reality, but the other you is aware of the other one, but ne'er the twain shall meet.
If there are several parallel universes where the me did the opposite to what I did, probabilities would be that I would be already dead.
The problem there is your assumption that the number of extra dimensions is infinite. The best scientific theories put the number at either <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory>10, 11, or 26. The idea that there are an infinite number of universes where every eventually must statically exist is an invention of science-fiction.Haseo21 said:
3 things:Grouchy Imp said:
1. There's a difference between a dimension as you're using it and a parallel universe (sometimes erroneously referred to as an "alternate dimension", which is why you're confused).
2. The concept of "many worlds" (though untested) is certainly a valid one in legitimate science, it's been around for like 50 years as a serious attempt to explain quantum chance and waveform collapse. I don't know of any science fiction featuring parallel universes that predates Everett's actual formulation, but I'd be fine with being proven wrong here.
3. Even if it were science fiction originally, this doesn't somehow prevent it from being a serious concept worth further study. Some examples of things that were sci fi before they were science: spaceflight, satellites, computers, lasers, robots, the internet, planes, submarines, loads more...
Well, like all of my outrageous thoughts and speculations...it all started while I was drinking. I was watching that one episode of Futurama with the boxes and there was a bunch of empty beer cans next too me and I was like "soo duz dis mean that another me fron a different universal er whatever will come to this universem and bring me more liquor?!" (The spelling errors in that are on purpose)kinggamecat said:
Hahah, yer pretty funny. Interesting though though ^^ Liquor and futurama leads to such a profound question heheh, weird how things like that work out isn't it? ^^Haseo21 said:
Maybe this time travelling version of you just didn't teleport right next you HOWEVER in another parallel universe you did encounter the time travelling you. How hard is it to get? Just try to think this universe is the mosy "normal" or plainest universe out there.
1) Yeah, you're right. I realised that after posting, but by then I'd already put it out there.FluxCapacitor said:
2) My problem with the Many Worlds theory stems from it's almost total unworkability. The idea that every possible interaction is played out somewhere; well let's just look at that shall we? At it's most basic level MW (not CoD) assumes that if a coin is flipped and lands heads, in another universe it lands tails. but if this theory is correct it must be correct for every single particle and atom in the universe. That means each and every interaction must be played out between every molecule in the universe. This means that each nanosecond will produce billions of alternate universes from the possible interactions of just a few atoms. Now think how many atoms there are in the your little finger, your body, the building you're sat in, your town, country, world, solar system, galaxy, the universe. For the MW theory to be correct, within .00001 seconds of the Big Bang there would have been a number of parallel universes so close to infinite that they could reach out and touch it. And each particle of each of those universes would be spawning billions of possible universes every second as well. And each of those, and so on and so on. There's no way that amount of energy and mass could exist without ripping apart the fabric of each universe it spawned.
3) That's true, but equally just because something is science-fiction that doesn't stop it from being total scientific quackery. Hell, just look at how often time-travel is brought up.
Technically it all exists in the same, or relatively identical, physical space. And yes, you are correct in the number of "alternate universes" that this theory entails.Grouchy Imp said:
The reason it is OK is that the MWI (many worlds interpretation) posits that the quantum wave function which describes our universe (exactly like a quantum wave function describes the possible positions of a particle) results in different states being decoherent. That means that the different "solutions" (experienced univereses) are out of phase and cannot interact with each other. So while there are a nearly infinite number of universes which the master wave function describe as occupying the same space, any observer inside the wave function sees only one universe.
So for any observer, be it a particle or conscious being, there is effectively only a mundane amount of matter in the universe. So we need not worry about the universe spontaneously collapsing into one gigantic black hole.