Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: What triggers new universes

Expand Messages
  • Sybil de Clark
    I doubt that anyone still views the many-world interpretation in terms of splitting (although I bet that popular shows and articles may still describe it
    Message 1 of 287 , Jan 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I doubt that anyone still views the many-world interpretation in terms of
      "splitting"
      (although I bet that popular shows and articles may still describe it like
      that). I think
      the notion of instantaneous splitting was precisely the most abhorent aspect
      of many worlds
      when it was still a part of the theory (i.e. I vaguely remember reading that
      somewhere). In any case,
      at present, and in David Deutsch's version of many-worlds especially, there
      is no such thing as splitting.
      Universes don't "split", they "differentiate". As far as I understand, you
      have a vast number (possibly an infinity)
      of "universes" that are all similar at first (~ the big bang?), and then
      they naturally become more and more different from each other as quantum
      events take place in them. I put "universes" between quotation marks because
      what Deutsch describes is actually way more subtle than that: you don't
      really have several seperate universes each with its own timeline, with time
      flowing in each one of them. Instead time itself doesn't flow, and it is
      discrete as opposed to continuous. The multiverse is a vast collection of
      instants, that are discrete, i.e. ~ disconnected. So, in this modern version
      of the theory, there just cannot be any splitting.

      On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Silk <silkvain@...> wrote:

      > --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Elliot Temple <curi@... <curi%40curi.us>>
      > wrote:
      >
      > From: Elliot Temple <curi@... <curi%40curi.us>>
      > Subject: Re: What triggers new universes
      > To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com<Fabric-of-Reality%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 10:42 AM
      >
      > >> The idea that someone in the
      > >> middle of Kenya splits into 14 million "parallel" versions of himself
      > >> when the UK Lottery draw is announced is nonsense.
      > >
      > > Yes, because that would be instantaneous (non-local, faster than
      > > light) information flow.
      > >
      > > There shouldn't be any splitting in Kenya until the information
      > > gets there.
      > >
      > > But once it does arrive, surely it's just as good at causing splits
      > > as any other information present in Kenya?
      >
      > I couldn't agree more but that having been said lets not forget that some
      > delight in dealing in nonsense. For when did reason, logic or common sense
      > ever deter the nonsensical?
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Kim Jones
      There is also the singular phenomenon called neuroplasticity which means the brain can change its own constitution when and as it needs to. Not sure whether
      Message 287 of 287 , Sep 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        There is also the singular phenomenon called "neuroplasticity" which means the brain can change its own constitution when and as it needs to. Not sure whether NP exists in creatures other than mammals, but monkeys and humans definitely have it. It's taking a while, but people are starting to wake up to the significance of this. Perhaps induction need not be as slow as all that. Perhaps the real challenge is to educate people with the concept of neuroplasticity in mind; of the brain's specific capability of producing what would appear to be almost Lamarckian adaptations to reality; of the brain's ability to above all LEARN and to do that, it has to be able to change itself continually. What else does that?

        Kim Jones






        On 25/08/2011, at 11:48 PM, John Clark wrote:

        > The Scientific Method is much less error prone than induction but
        > unfortunately it is also much slower and MUCH more difficult to implement;
        > for science you need a very recent invention, you need a brain and a good
        > one that has been properly educated, while insects have been successfully
        > performing induction for many hundreds of millions of years. Neither the
        > Scientific Method nor explanations in general made any impact whatsoever on
        > this planet in its entire 4.5 billion year history until just a few thousand
        > years ago. In fact, unless ET exists (and if he does its very mysterious why
        > that fact isn't obvious) then explanations and the Scientific Method made no
        > impact on this universe in its 13.7 billion year history until very very
        > recently; and yet complex and interesting things, like life and eventually
        > brains, got built.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.