Posts: 137
Threads: 3
Joined: December 9, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm
By multiverse are we talking about the Many Worlds interpretation? If so I think it is actually a misconception that there can be no evidence for this. Many Worlds would better be named "decoherence" and decoherence is testable and falsifiable according to several sources I can think of. Example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_i..._testable/
The LessWrong quantum physics sequence does a good job of explaining decoherence if you start from the beginning. Eventually it gets kinda over my head but this interpretation has numerous advantages over any single universe version of QM. Many Worlds is gradually becoming the accepted theory of QM.
What does that mean? It means that there are googols of versions of me out there which (among many more wildly different variations) only differ in the location of a mole on my ass. That's a lot of Me's for God to love. Seems kind of problematic for religion, but then again so did evolution and they dealt with that somehow.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 9, 2015 at 9:31 pm
(This post was last modified: December 9, 2015 at 9:32 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Lesswrong.com huh?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong
From the above article cited Wrote:The content of LessWrong is occasionally articulate, innovative, and thoughtful. However, the community's focused demographic and narrow interests have also produced an insular culture that is heavy with its own peculiar jargon and established ideas - sometimes these ideas might benefit from a better grounding in reality.
Posts: 8715
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 10:04 am
(October 16, 2015 at 9:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Actually a group of hypotheses. Like all valid hypotheses, they attempt to explain observations in a way that is at least potentially testable That was my point in the OP. By their very nature, Multiverse theories exclude that possibility.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
90
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 10:11 am
By their very nature? Really!
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 137
Threads: 3
Joined: December 9, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2015 at 1:30 pm by Amine.)
(December 9, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Evie Wrote: Lesswrong.com huh?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong
I mean.. just posting a rationalwiki link doesn't really discredit anything. LessWrong offers a nice explanation of the multiverse but there are certainly plenty of others.
Sean Carroll writes well about it:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/eter...e/quantum/
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...y-correct/
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...mechanics/
http://www.slideshare.net/seanmcarroll/t...-mechanics (Handy slideshow)
David Deutsch also explains it nicely. I recommend his book The Beginning of Infinity but in this article he specifically looks at the claim that Many Worlds is not testable or falsifiable. It also happens to be a great lesson in epistemology: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1508/1508.02048.pdf
Posts: 1164
Threads: 7
Joined: January 1, 2014
Reputation:
23
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 1:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2015 at 1:37 pm by JuliaL.)
(December 10, 2015 at 10:11 am)Quantum Wrote: By their very nature? Really!
Stop me if you've heard this one before.
(If you have, please point me to the discussion? My search for "infinite random universe" yields mostly Hugh Ross, yecch.)
I invite comments on the following questions.
- Is the contention that the whole general mishmash is infinite and random, (including the universe, the multiverse and everything else) falsifiable?
- If not, then is it necessary that that contention forever be included as a possible Truth in any, including theistic, model of reality?
This speculation came while I was reading about mathematicians' search for order in pi, and their failure to find it.
If localized sections of a random series will show apparent order, e.g. 0102030405, and larger sequences of random digits will show larger runs of such apparent order, wouldn't an infinite, though random, sequence, show large, up to infinite, sequences of apparent, though random, order?
My extrapolation considers a multi-dimensional volume whose sole defining parameters are:
- it is of actual infinite extent
- contains qualities which can exhibit what we see as ordered reality
- the values of those qualities are randomly distributed
The anthropic principle demands that we live in one such apparently ordered sub-volume but there is no way, even in principle, to empirically investigate the extent outside this volume. Samples taken from the probably much greater volume outside are random and yield no useful data. Or the pseudo-ordered volume may be of infinite extent, though, at the moment, our universe does not appear to be so.
Theists think too small.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
Posts: 2985
Threads: 29
Joined: October 26, 2014
Reputation:
31
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 1:36 pm
RW's right that LW has a lot of weird fringe-y stuff on it but this is the kind of thing they often do a good job with, iirc
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
150
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 1:43 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2015 at 1:43 pm by Whateverist.)
(October 17, 2015 at 10:26 am)robvalue Wrote: Is this over now? Did we win?
I guess it confuses some people how the word theory sometimes gets used to mean hypothesis, even regarding some popular scientific hypotheses. No one I know of goes around claiming this stuff is definitely true.
But that is the advantage of god belief! You can maintain absolute certainty without fear of contradiction since everything you believe is entirely independent of the natural world. Ahh must be nice to be dead wrong and yet safe from a conclusive calling out over it. Lucky theist bastards!
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 1:48 pm
(December 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm)Amine Wrote: By multiverse are we talking about the Many Worlds interpretation? If so I think it is actually a misconception that there can be no evidence for this. Many Worlds would better be named "decoherence" and decoherence is testable and falsifiable according to several sources I can think of. Example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_i..._testable/
The LessWrong quantum physics sequence does a good job of explaining decoherence if you start from the beginning. Eventually it gets kinda over my head but this interpretation has numerous advantages over any single universe version of QM. Many Worlds is gradually becoming the accepted theory of QM.
What does that mean? It means that there are googols of versions of me out there which (among many more wildly different variations) only differ in the location of a mole on my ass. That's a lot of Me's for God to love. Seems kind of problematic for religion, but then again so did evolution and they dealt with that somehow.
So what testable predictions does MWI make that other quantum world interpretations do not? That article just dodges the question rather than provide a satisfactory answer. I don't care about "old" and "new" predictions, I just want to know about the unique predictions for each interpretation.
Don't get me wrong: I think MWI is logically the most reasonable interpretation of the quantum world thus far, but I still don't see how it is testable.
Posts: 137
Threads: 3
Joined: December 9, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Empirical Evidence for Multiverse
December 10, 2015 at 1:53 pm
(December 10, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Irrational Wrote: So what testable predictions does MWI make that other quantum world interpretations do not? That article just dodges the question rather than provide a satisfactory answer. I don't care about "old" and "new" predictions, I just want to know about the unique predictions for each interpretation.
Don't get me wrong: I think MWI is logically the most reasonable interpretation of the quantum world thus far, but I still don't see how it is testable.
Testable predictions of MWI? Interference for one. Some details here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pd/configuration...amplitude/
But I would also look at the Carroll and Deutsch links I posted above.
|
