The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
hachibu.net
The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#2> 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 out wrong; the Many Worlds hypothesis does not include universes in which universal constants differ.
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#3> 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…
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?
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#4> 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…
I might be conflating this with parallel universes, but what would be an example of this?
If variations of ‘me’ exist in all worlds, am I the universal constant?
Speaking as the center of the universe as far I’m concerned over here :p
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#5> 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…
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?
I'm not sure which Sean Carroll talk you saw, but I think he only mentions the differences between worlds in terms of different "choices"-- and these universal constants don't "choose" to be what they are, right?
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#6> 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.
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#7No.
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#8> 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…
I might be conflating this with parallel universes, but what would be an example of this? If variations of ‘me’ exist in all worlds, am I the universal constant? Speaking as the center of the universe as far I’m concerned over here :p
an example would be the speed of light is different. or the mass of certain particles is different. or the dark matter to normal matter ratios are changed.
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#9> 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…
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?
if you read "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" by Max Tegmark, many worlds falls in the bucket of L3 multiverse. What you're describing is a L4 multiverse (see comments below. seems it's L2, not L4. will leave my mistake in, although i'm sure there is a parallel universe where i did not make this mistake)
Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript
#10> 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 operation, there are trillions of probabilistic quantum events took place in your brain, but your decision to use the for loop was almost certainly fully deterministic, because at this point in time you personally almost always pick for-loops.