Trying to Understand Many-Worlds Interpretation Better

[professor]

When I first heard of the Multiverse, I thought, "These guys are supposed to be smart?"

Anyone who comes up with something different than the Creation view get airtime (and an honorary degree?).
This one sounds like it was invented by a resident of the drug culture who never came up for air.
It also show desperation.

Hey Whateverist- so far, not only is this place unique- each of us are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Substitute "you" with "doppelganger".

That would probably work better, sure, but even that would be loose, as in MWI a persons very history could be vastly different from your own - different looks, different opinions - we're talking about an incomprehensible amount of diversions here. This is why I, and others, feel that MWI is a product of probabilities, trivially true, if true at all. It wouldn't actually imply any of the things that people so often connect to it. Why invoke MWI at all, if we're going to immediately water it down, and what can be said of that which cannot be articulated without butchery?

Hey Proff....perhaps in one of the many worlds...your doomsday prediction came true. Cling to that, might change your perspective.

[Cyberman]

I don't know that any of these multiverse effects are possible above the quantum level, as in particles occupy all quantum states simultaneously until one state becomes 'real', with every other one 'existing' virtually. Or something. I'd like to think that they can happen in the macro world; I find the idea of quantum immortality particularly appealing.

The Multi Universe was invented as another scheme to justify the belief that this place is not unique. Good luck on that one.

Have you ever considered sticking to things you actually have an understanding of?

Rhetorical question.

For instance: finger painting, making stool, and blowing bubbles from your nose. There you go, prof, a day's solid agenda for you.

[Heywood]

That would probably work better, sure, but even that would be loose, as in MWI a persons very history could be vastly different from your own - different looks, different opinions - we're talking about an incomprehensible amount of diversions here. This is why I, and others, feel that MWI is a product of probabilities, trivially true, if true at all. It wouldn't actually imply any of the things that people so often connect to it. Why invoke MWI at all, if we're going to immediately water it down, and what can be said of that which cannot be articulated without butchery?

Hey Proff....perhaps in one of the many worlds...your doomsday prediction came true. Cling to that, might change your perspective.

Many worlds works by splitting one universe into two:



At the point of a split, the two doppelgangers share the same exact history.

[The Grand Nudger]

-And yet there are other "doppelgangers" who split earlier, or will later - and all of these other doppelgangers and doppelganger events making up the course of their lives such that even at the very moment of a split the two are discrete entities (else we don't have many worlds to begin with), furthering from each other with every passing moment, every additional split. That's just by taking the asymetric interpretation...of the interpretation. Other interpretations of the interpretation complicate things further.

Does either of our position satisfy the conditions for self, or even doppelganger? I'd say no...it's just that there aren't appropriate words to convey the MWI....and that would be expected, I suppose. Might be why MWI is successful as a collection of numbers - but often fails as a narrative.

There are other reasons that this may be the case...but it would be a massive digression.

I think the best description of MWI is that all possibilities are actualities. Thinking any further into it, particularly with regards to some narrative about a self, or versions of a self- invites fuzzy logic.

[Heywood]

-And yet there are other "doppelgangers" who split earlier, or will later - and all of these other doppelgangers and doppelganger events making up the course of their lives such that even at the very moment of a split the two are discrete entities (else we don't have many worlds to begin with), furthering from each other with every passing moment, every additional split. That's just by taking the asymetric interpretation...of the interpretation. Other interpretations of the interpretation complicate things further.

Does either of our position satisfy the conditions for self, or even doppelganger? I'd say no...it's just that there aren't appropriate words to convey the MWI....and that would be expected, I suppose.

Anytime there is a split, the two resulting doppelgangers share the exact same history. There are other doppelgangers in other branches with discrete histories but for the two at the split....their histories are exactly the same.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and a moment later? Hell, the moment of the proposed split -itself- is a difference between two "selves". The very notion of two selves is going to be difficult to convey, don't you think?

[Alex K]

Rhythm, Heywood

Your explanation makes it sound as if there already are all these preexisting copies of myself in parallel, who then experience different things. Looking at the Schroedinger equation, it really appears to be more like a forking, which prompts me to write what I write concerning the fate of individuals.

Edit: sorry, didnt see your follow up posts. Still, I don't get your problem with this view: sure, there are many copies from earlier splits, and they drift away and stop interfering with each other quite literally. Still, if I identify myself now at this point in time, I would know that later, there are copies of my state at that point with different time evolution. No?

He may, but that wasn't one of them. In MWI there is no continuity of self (or anything, the entire bit is predicate on the exact opposite). To say that in one world "you" die and in another "you" live is a gross miscommunication. Someone dies, someone lives...but it isn't "you" in any world other than this one. MWI, again, isn't my thing....but it deserves to be laid out in specifics if it's going to be discussed.

...

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, a forking works. All possible forking works better.
(I wonder how many jokes we could get out of this..if we really put our minds to it?)

[Heywood]

Keep in mind, the crowd we have here..........contains some magical thinkers.

Many worlds allow for "magic universes". Suppose there is a man that some call Tim who claims to be a sorcerer. Tim points his finger at a bush. In most universe nothing happens to the bush. In a few universes by shear happenstance of quantum randomness....the bush explodes. Now suppose in the universe where the bush explodes....Tim points his finger at a rock. In most universes nothing happens. In a few universes by the shear happenstance of quantum randomness....the rock explodes.

Many worlds allows for universes to exist that for all intents and purposes contain wizards and sorcerers with "magical" powers.

Many worlds and quantum randomness can explain anything.

---

Rhythm, Heywood

Your explanation makes it sound as if there already are all these preexisting copies of myself in parallel, who then experience different things. Looking at the equation, it really appears to be more like a forking, which prompts me to write what I write concerning the fate of individuals.

Thinking about many worlds can drive you forking insane.