many-worlds fail

Originally posted by twhitehead
I get that. But you seem to be under the impression that the one you are in, is in the same universe as the original and the other is not. This is not the case.

Let's say that neither of the universes are the same as the original. That does not affect my argument at all!

I agreed that the original splits in two, and said that "we are in one but not the other". You say here that you get it. So you will stop claiming that we are in the other, right?

So why are we in this one and not the other? Looks like a probabilistic outcome to me. The people in the other can ask the same question, of course. But the only way that equals a deterministic outcome is by denying any relevance to our own conscious experience.

Surely that would be misguided, since conscious experience is our only source of knowledge!

Originally posted by apathist
Let's say that neither of the universes are the same as the original. That does not affect my argument at all!

I didn't say it did. But it does render many of your sentences incorrect.

So why are we in this one and not the other?
Because it is impossible to be 'in the other'. We are in this one because we labelled it 'this one' because we are in it.

Looks like a probabilistic outcome to me.
Well it isn't. It is related to the anthropic principle only much simpler. In both universes there is someone asking the rather stupid question 'why am I in this one and not the other one?' Its all a matter of perspective. You are seeing yourself as an entity distinct from the universe that has been thrust into a particular universe and then asking why you are there. That is not the case at all. You are part of the universe and as such it is nonsensical to ask why you are there and not in some other universe.

But the only way that equals a deterministic outcome is by denying any relevance to our own conscious experience.
It is somewhat irrelevant to our concious experience. It is not a deterministic outcome, nor a non-deterministic outcome because it isn't an outcome. A die that gives all six numbers when you throw it is neither deterministic nor random. If you put down a paper on the table with all six faces of a die painted on it, you can't say that because the six is asking why it isn't the five, it isn't deterministic and therefore is random. You are making a category error.

Originally posted by apathist
Let's say that neither of the universes are the same as the original. That does not affect my argument at all!

I agreed that the original splits in two, and said that "we are in one but not the other". You say here that you get it. So you will stop claiming that we are in the other, right?

So why are we in this one and not the other? Looks like a pr ...[text shortened]...

Surely that would be misguided, since conscious experience is our only source of knowledge!

since conscious experience is our only source of knowledge!

Says who? This is just not the case.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It seems to me the MMW hypothesis is a very messy universe. I don't think things would be arranged like that unless there was also some pruning procedure that limited the amount of possible outcomes.

Otherwise you have a situation where a duck quacks to his left in one universe and quacks to the right in another and quacks straight ahead in yet another ad nauseum

I am curious to know why you think "pruning" the number of worlds would alleviate the problem of a "very messy universe". How few worlds would you consider reasonable in order to tidy things up and, if that is any number greater than one, why is that less "messy"? Will you feel more relaxed knowing that there are three parallel universes, each with a copy of sonhouse, but feel somewhat stressed out in one with four or five?

Originally posted by apathist
Let's say that neither of the universes are the same as the original. That does not affect my argument at all!

I agreed that the original splits in two, and said that "we are in one but not the other". You say here that you get it. So you will stop claiming that we are in the other, right?

So why are we in this one and not the other? Looks like a pr ...[text shortened]...

Surely that would be misguided, since conscious experience is our only source of knowledge!

2.2 Who am “I”?
“I” am an object, such as the Earth, a cat, etc. “I” is defined at a particular time by a complete (classical) description of the state of my body and of my brain. “I” and “Lev” do not refer to the same things (even though my name is Lev). At the present moment there are many different “Lev”s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another “I”. I have a particular, well defined past: I correspond to a particular “Lev” in 2012, but not to a particular “Lev” in the future: I correspond to a multitude of “Lev”s in 2022. In the framework of the MWI it is meaningless to ask: Which Lev in 2022 will I be? I will correspond to them all. Every time I perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all “Lev”s obtaining all possible results.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

What is wrong with the answer supplied in the very readable Stanford article which you cited earlier? I got some pleasure by reading it through - thanks to you of course - and assume you did as well but it seems to me I could use it to respond very well and fully to your arguments, which is somewhat surprising.

Originally posted by finnegan
I am curious to know why you think "pruning" the number of worlds would alleviate the problem of a "very messy universe". How few worlds would you consider reasonable in order to tidy things up and, if that is any number greater than one, why is that less "messy"? Will you feel more relaxed knowing that there are three parallel universes, each with a copy of sonhouse, but feel somewhat stressed out in one with four or five?

Where does this pruning thing come from? I thought the many worlds deal was just that, perhaps needing a literal infinite number of worlds all collapsing or not, creating untold futures of every possible action going on in the universe. That sounds pretty messy to me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where does this pruning thing come from? I thought the many worlds deal was just that, perhaps needing a literal infinite number of worlds all collapsing or not, creating untold futures of every possible action going on in the universe. That sounds pretty messy to me.

What do you mean by "where does this pruning thing come from?"
This pruning thing comes from your post, to which I replied, and indeed it is quoted in the box above my post; specifically, in your own words: It seems to me the MMW hypothesis is a very messy universe. I don't think things would be arranged like that unless there was also some pruning procedure that limited the amount of possible outcomes. By any normal reading, it would seem that you were proposing a "pruning procedure" to limit the amount of possible outcomes and I was curious to know why you thought that would be particularly helpful.
If there is any remaining ambiguity or doubt or confusion as to where "this pruning thing" comes from, I am not sure that I can help you further. I try my best but sometimes I feel that nobody really and truly understands me...

Originally posted by finnegan
What do you mean by [b]"where does this pruning thing come from?"
This pruning thing comes from your post, to which I replied, and indeed it is quoted in the box above my post; specifically, in your own words: It seems to me the MMW hypothesis is a very messy universe. I don't think things would be arranged like that unless there was also some prun ...[text shortened]... p you further. I try my best but sometimes I feel that nobody really and truly understands me...

Ok, forgot that was from me. But you notice it was not from the big guys, Alan Guth, Stephan Hawking and the like. I said UNLESS there was some kind of pruning deal it just looks too messy to me. Every collapse of a wave function leading to a new universe? Infinite and getting more infinite every nanosecond? Just remember, Earth is not the only planet and we are not the only intelligent beings even on our own planet.

Suppose we say there is only one advanced civilization per GALAXY. So here in the Milky way, we are it, gods of creation.

But there is Andromeda, M31, and literally hundreds of billions of other galaxies so in that scenerio, one civilization per galaxy, there would therefore be hundreds of billlions of civilizations in our universe in some stage of development, some caveman level, some approaching god level, some extinct. But that is a lot of splitting of universes.

Originally posted by finnegan
[b] since conscious experience is our only source of knowledge!

Says who? This is just not the case.[/b]

It is self-evident. What makes you think otherwise.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, forgot that was from me. But you notice it was not from the big guys, Alan Guth, Stephan Hawking and the like. I said UNLESS there was some kind of pruning deal it just looks too messy to me. Every collapse of a wave function leading to a new universe? Infinite and getting more infinite every nanosecond? Just remember, Earth is not the only planet and ...[text shortened]... an level, some approaching god level, some extinct. But that is a lot of splitting of universes.

So MWI looks messy to you. Our ability to understand this is not, to my mind, a critical test of the model. In any case, learning how to visualise models of the universe is quite an art form in itself. My favourite is the discovery that knitting is the best way to produce descriptions of some mathematical models. Why does the collapse of a wave form have to be understood in terms of our human behaviour? Sometimes, people offer a metaphor and forget that is all it is. If it becomes an obstacle, then ditch the metaphor, not the theory it tried to clarify. Remember, Einstein included an avoidable constant in his Theory of Relativity because he was unable to tolerate the vision of an expanding universe, and as a result he lost the opportunity to have discovered through pure mathematics what was soon demonstrated by observation (Hubble).

"Critical common-sensism" was how the American philosopher, Peirce, described his approach. In 1877/78, he proposed that Truth is that which the larger community of scientists settles on in the long run, those items of belief which work so well that they become habitually fixed in the chain of signs. It is not "common sense" to expect to understand stuff that has not yet been properly investigated. If we limit our search to ideas that conform to our existing thought structures then we will discover that we have lost our creativity altogether.

Our intelligence does not seem relevant at all, and the presence of other intelligent creatures in the universe also seems incidental to this issue. Are you suggesting that splitting of worlds only arises in the presence of intelligent observors? That is not what I understood (using the term "understood" loosely). I thought one benefit of the MWI was to avoid the demand for observors as a condition of anything taking place at all.

Too many worlds for you? For heaven's sake, how many worlds is too many and how many is not-too-bad-after-all? You have already pointed out that in our world there are many billions of galaxies with potentially billions of civilizations so you have managed to tolerate quite a lot already without needing to include the MWI at all.

Technically, the article we discussed above insists that the MWI entails many worlds but only one universe which embraces them all. You have not even mentioned that there are many other forms of multiverse in the zoo. There may be a universe in which the MWI is false and does not apply and another (our's I imagine) where it is true and does apply. The MWI is only one of many models to accommodate. You will really have to think more flexibly to keep up.

Originally posted by apathist
Let's say that neither of the universes are the same as the original. That does not affect my argument at all!

I agreed that the original splits in two, and said that "we are in one but not the other". You say here that you get it. So you will stop claiming that we are in the other, right?

So why are we in this one and not the other? Looks like a pr ...[text shortened]...

Surely that would be misguided, since conscious experience is our only source of knowledge!

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. First are you still denying that the MWI is coherent? Or are you arguing that it's predictions are identical to the Copenhagen Interpretation's? The answer to the latter is yes, since otherwise it wouldn't be quantum mechanics. From the point of view of any given observer they have a history and there are observers in other worlds which have the same history up until some point when entanglement events caused them to diverge. So I don't see MWI "denying any relevance to our own conscious experience", which in any case is suspiciously similar to an argument to consequence, what it does is explain why our conscious experience is of events with definite outcomes.

Further, I'm not sure I see what the advantage of random outcomes is relative to deterministic ones, why prefer one to the other? This isn't suddenly going to allow libertarian free will or any such thing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just remember, Earth is not the only planet and we are not the only intelligent beings even on our own planet.

The MWI has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or the number of intelligent beings. You are confusing different interpretations. There is another interpretation (a really silly one) that claims that conciousness is required for wave function collapse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The MWI has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or the number of intelligent beings. You are confusing different interpretations. There is another interpretation (a really silly one) that claims that conciousness is required for wave function collapse.

Why is it silly?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Why is it silly?

Because it gives a special place in physics to conciousness for no good reason. It is based on an oversized ego and confusion about what 'observer' means. There is nothing rational about it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Why is it silly?

Why is the ending of Men in Black silly?