Re: Problem understanding DD's MWI picture
- georgelburgess wrote:
> However, interference or interaction takes place not betweenAs I understand it (and IANAP), the photon's (multiversal) wave function is
> photons but between the wave function (ie the probability amplitude
> for finding photons)at different positions. The wave function isn't
> in any sense equivalent to a photon so I'm not sure how to
> understand FoR's account.
basically the integral over all little-u universes of the photon state. Or
inversely, a photon is a sample (dot-product?) in a particular universe of the
Does that make sense?
>> I was wondering, why does reality "have to be" ultimately, totallyHey all,
>> explained by a SINGLE function ?
> It doesn't "have to be" - the question is, is it? When Wigner
> talked about the "unreasonable effectiveness" of maths in the
> physical sciences ( http://www.dartmout h.edu/~matc/ MathDrama/
> reading/Wigner. html ), he wasn't being prescriptive, merely making > an observation.
>> what if we were to assume that UR can never, nor does not need to be,
>> explained ?
> Then presumably we wouldn't invent science...?
>> I would have to say that the idea that UR is ultimately specified by a
>> small group (singleton
>> set) of equations, rules, functions or combinators ss an untestable
> In an ultimate sense, yes. But it might prove to be a good working
> hypothesis - i.e. an assumption that appears to work "for all
> practical purposes". Suppose that in 1000 years time people have a
> set of equations that appear to describe reality completely and
> accurately, and that has done so for the last 900 years' worth of
> observations. This theory has been used as the basis of all sorts
> of wonderful machines, the warp drive, transporter beam and so on;
> it has enabled them to explore the universe, and everywhere they
> find that the equations work. Now of course they can't prove that
> tomorrow there won't be a contradictory observation that will blow
> the theory out of the water, but until that happens they have
> reasonable grounds for acting as though it's correct. So far it
> appears that the universe works by a set of rules that are the same
> everywhere in our past light cone, at least out to our particle
> horizon. Any variations in physical constants etc would have to be
> very small. This is merely an observation, however, and no one has
> yet managed to come up with a set of rules. But even so, they have
> good reasons to think that maths is the tool to use when looking
> for those rules.
>> Think about it. WHO (or WHAT) could prove the truth of the TOE ?
>> How could a subject conceiving of this type of situation: me theorizing
>> the total theory,
>> arrive at certainty while being englobed in the process-theory it wants to
>> manipulate, prove ?
> Well, you can't arrive at certainty, as far as I know. However this
> shouldn't prevent you theorising, which is what Max Tegmark is
> doing. He has suggested a number of ways in which his Ultimate
> Ensemble Theory could be falsified, which is the best that he (or
> anyone) can do.
>> It is for this reason that i think and find this much more intriguing,
>> that UR is an open
>> pluralizing process - an infinity generator - of logics, perhaps each
>> precised in a separate
> That sounds very similar to Tegmark's U.E.T. If you replace
> "logics" with "mathematical functions" and "universe" with
> "multiverse" , you get exactly his U.E.T., AFAICS.
Yes i think that something like the "openness" suggested by Tegmark's vision is
closer to what i was suggesting..
Ok if we're going to just assume vitam aeternam a vision for the multiverse basically
conformant with the type of physicalist vision that QT or RT or QG gives us,
then where is the work for those generations of physicists, philosophers, for the next
20+ billion years ? Is it all science for Technology ? Are you saying (without knowing it ;-)
that Heidegger's vision about Technos was right ?
It seems that infinity gives us alot of time & spaces to generate variety no?
thanks for your time !