21–30 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Level 2 is universes generally like ours but with different physical constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes... . Level 4 includes all abstract mathematical structures, like a universe embedded in a Game of Life simulation.
i guess i got it wrong but it's still L2 != L3
> The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics imagines our universe as one node in an infinitely branching tree of universes where every possible quantum outcome exists in its own universe. And each time a universe branches, it creates a child universe that is slightly different from the parent universe, e.g., universal constants such as gravity and the speed of light might differ. Pretty sure this is flat ou…
right. it's more like copy-on-write than a completely different replica. also, the probability of the outcomes is not the same (ie some worlds may be more equal/present than others). it's questionable if it's one world or a split happens and we have multiple worlds. I would lean toward one world with phenomena that we don't really understand.
Regular quantum mechanics is compatible with the many-worlds interpretation (of course it is), but talk of fundamental constants changing would require new theories that we don't have (not to mention evidence of those theories). That would be something incompatible with quantum mechanics as we know it, within which the fundamental constants are, well, constant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here. Sorry, I guess I misunderstood that part of the hypothesis. Do you have a source, so I can edit my post and correct it?
It seems you're mixing up MWI with a Max Tegmark Level II multiverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes... . Tegmark considered MWI a separate idea from that and used the label "Level III" for it. MWI is just one of multiple multiverse ideas. Most multiverse ideas (like Tegmark's Levels I, II, and IV) are basically what-if ideas without any direct evidence, but MWI specifically happens to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here. Sorry, I guess I misunderstood that part of the hypothesis. Do you have a source, so I can edit my post and correct it?
It seems you're mixing up MWI with a Max Tegmark Level II multiverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes... . Tegmark considered MWI a separate idea from that and used the label "Level III" for it. MWI is just one of multiple multiverse ideas. Most multiverse ideas (like Tegmark's Levels I, II, and IV) are basically what-if ideas without any direct evidence, but MWI specifically happens to b…
Nitpick: The Schrödinger equation predicts unitary time evolution (which is another way of saying that physical systems evolve in a deterministic manner). Interpretations of quantum mechanics exist to make sense of the part of quantum mechanics that doesn't follow unitary time evolution, namely the measurement process.
> According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, your universe branched into many universes the moment you decided to use a for-loop. In this universe you wrote a for-loop, but in another universe you wrote a while-loop. Nonsense. If universes branch into many other universes, they do so when an event on the quantum level needs to be resolved. I presume that during any single decision-making operat…
> According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, your universe branched into many universes the moment you decided to use a for-loop. In this universe you wrote a for-loop, but in another universe you wrote a while-loop. Nonsense. If universes branch into many other universes, they do so when an event on the quantum level needs to be resolved. I presume that during any single decision-making operat…
I was actually delighted to discover that I've matured (ossified?) enough as a programmer that my source code is in fact fairly deterministic: the other day I somehow managed to completely wipe a fairly complex function (100+ LoC) from my repo before I committed it. I did this a week or so after I initially wrote the function. I then rewrote the function from scratch, with very little memory of how I wrote it the fir…
> According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, your universe branched into many universes the moment you decided to use a for-loop. In this universe you wrote a for-loop, but in another universe you wrote a while-loop. Nonsense. If universes branch into many other universes, they do so when an event on the quantum level needs to be resolved. I presume that during any single decision-making operat…
For a similar reason the measurement problem and the question of whether the presence of (conscious) observers makes the wave function collapse should not be misinterpreted as "You can influence reality with your thoughts alone" or "If you believe in something strongly enough, it will happen."