Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: Differentiation of multiple universes - how?

Expand Messages
• If you look back in the archives, you ll see a thread I started a few months ago titled Where do all the universes live ? How many dimensions are needed?
Message 1 of 10 , Apr 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
If you look back in the archives, you'll see a thread I started a few
months ago titled "Where do all the universes 'live'? How many
dimensions are needed?" with a similar goal in mind. I tried to get at
whether, if you treat each universe as a point in a large-dimensional
space, the universes could be arranged along a single line (perhaps with
a distance metric like the one you're looking for that would make that
line truly a "dimension", or perhaps not) or whether there are
uncountably many, and so they have to be arranged (at least) in a plane.
Some folks, notably Charles Goodwin, believed an infinite number of
dimensions are needed, whether or not there is any meaning assigned to
those dimensions. I still believe (intuitively, I can't quite support
it yet) that only one extra dimension is needed.

-- Gary

jzellis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post to this list, so forgive me if this is
> something which has been discussed before. Also, forgive me if I
> appear remarkably stupid; I am a columnist and freelance writer, and
> my knowledge of quantum physics is certainly not at a postgraduate
> level.
>
> The idea of multiple universes fascinates me, but there is something
> I'm curious about, and I hope someone here can enlighten me.
>
> Assuming that there are an infinite number of universes co-existing
> within the framework of a multiverse...in what way do you
> quantitatively describe the difference between one universe and
> another?
>
> Perhaps a better way of putting it: I am sitting in my chair. My
> computer is two feet away from me. My dog is running around about
> fifteen feet away from me. The event of Federico Garcia Lorca
> writing "Lament For Ignacio Sanchez Mejias", to pick a random
> example, is sixty years and several thousand miles away from me
> (since Lorca wrote the poem in Spain and I am in Las Vegas, Nevada,
> USA). These things all lie at different places along measurable axes
> of dimension: space and time.
>
> Yet, the way I understand the multiverse theory, all of these
> universes exist simultaneously. And yet, it seems fairly obvious to
> me that there must be *some* sort of axis of difference; it would be
> fairly obvious if this were not the case. So my question is: how
> would you measure this difference? One would assume that you'd have
> to have a way of describing the difference between Universe A and
> Universe Z; or am I missing the whole point?
>
> One idea I had (based on childhood musings) was that these universes
> sort of lie on an infinite number of multiple timelines. So would
> this axis of difference be, essentially, another dimension of time:
> not a forwards/backwards measurement, but something more akin to a
> measurement of probability? Does that make sense to anyone else? :-)
>
> This has been bothering me since I read Deutsch's book. I'm hoping
> someone has an answer for me, as I can't seem to come up with one on
> my own!
• ... Neither is mine. I m just a simple mathematician. But we re all here to kick around ideas and have fun, so jump on in. ... In another Universe (assuming
Message 2 of 10 , Apr 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jzellis [mailto:jzellis@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:42 AM
> To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Differentiation of multiple universes - how?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post to this list, so forgive me if this is
> something which has been discussed before. Also, forgive me if I
> appear remarkably stupid; I am a columnist and freelance writer, and
> my knowledge of quantum physics is certainly not at a postgraduate
> level.

Neither is mine. I'm just a simple mathematician. But we're all here to
kick around ideas and have fun, so jump on in.

> Perhaps a better way of putting it: I am sitting in my chair. My
> computer is two feet away from me. My dog is running around about
> fifteen feet away from me. The event of Federico Garcia Lorca
> writing "Lament For Ignacio Sanchez Mejias", to pick a random
> example, is sixty years and several thousand miles away from me
> (since Lorca wrote the poem in Spain and I am in Las Vegas, Nevada,
> USA). These things all lie at different places along measurable axes
> of dimension: space and time.

In another Universe (assuming I understand correctly) Lorca didn't write
that poem because he was killed in WWI. In yet another Universe, he wasn't
murdered by Nationalists at the start of the Spanish Civil War but was,
instead, the leader of the Revolution. In another Universe, he was never
even born.

> Yet, the way I understand the multiverse theory, all of these
> universes exist simultaneously. And yet, it seems fairly obvious to
> me that there must be *some* sort of axis of difference; it would be
> fairly obvious if this were not the case. So my question is: how
> would you measure this difference? One would assume that you'd have
> to have a way of describing the difference between Universe A and
> Universe Z; or am I missing the whole point?

The idea of a 'dimension' has a fairly simple meaning to the average person
and an only slightly more complex meaning to a mathematician. But, to a
physicist, it's a bit more complex because it (usually) has to describe
something. But the quantum guys have come up with such things as
'strangeness', 'color', 'charm', 'flavor' etc. to describe sub-nuclear
particle characteristics that have no real analog in the macroscopic World
and they're really no different from any other dimension.

> One idea I had (based on childhood musings) was that these universes
> sort of lie on an infinite number of multiple timelines. So would
> this axis of difference be, essentially, another dimension of time:

It really doesn't have to be and, probably, isn't. A 'dimension' is really
nothing more than a measurement that is independent of any other measurement
(knowing length and depth doesn't allow you to do any calculation that would
give you information about height)

> not a forwards/backwards measurement, but something more akin to a
> measurement of probability? Does that make sense to anyone else? :-)
>
> This has been bothering me since I read Deutsch's book. I'm hoping
> someone has an answer for me, as I can't seem to come up with one on
> my own!
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Ellis

I'm not sure if anyone has 'an' answer (as in, a singular answer <g>) I'm
not even sure if one as yet exists. But I'd be willing to bet that you
won't lack for good thoughts on the subject around here.

Doug
• Let me try to answer. 100 years ago some peoples derived (nobody knows how) some physical equations. These equations describe any object in terms of its
Message 3 of 10 , Apr 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Let me try to answer. 100 years ago some peoples derived (nobody knows how) some physical equations. These equations describe any object in terms of its psi-function. Nobody knows what is psi-function, though it was experimentally proved in 1930s or even in 1920s (I am not sure now, without sources at hand) that some mathematical operations leads us from psi-function to another value that - as it was and is put usually - predicts the probability of this or that behavior of the object, e.g. being it here or in another place at given moment.

These equations were quite exact for any practical or theoretical purposes, they has been numerously verified and proven experimentally. Today anyone trust in these equations. But there was and is a problem: as soon as we pay attention to something, we see one and only one picture rather than a cloud of probabilities including all possible pictures. Why excellently working equations are so principally contradicting to the picture of world that we perceive?

Majority of physicists answers: there is something in math. The equations simply drop all the rest of possibilities and shorten to the only seen picture every time when somebody makes an observation.

Minority, started with Hugh Everett in 1955, answer otherwise: all possibilities are real, all exist. Each time after any observation the universe splits into infinite worlds where the pairs Observer1 - Picture1, Observer2 - Picture2, etc, are mutually unobservable, non-communicating and unaware. This is MWI.

My minority within previous minority tries to restore original Hugh Everett's final concept. There is no splitting at all. The world exists in the quantum state, state of all possibilities simultaneously. What gives math is the possibility to modify quantum equations so that they describe the true multireality as a superposition of pairs RealityN-ObserverN. Usually scientists make methodological mistake in applying Ockam Razor principle to this fact. They say: observer is a human being as well as Heiger counter, and any other device. It is, from the point of my minority view, unnecessary. All we knows from experiments is that Human Obsever cannot see multireality. While the Heiger counter, as well as any other device, as well as the physical body of Observer may be thoroughly described in quantum (=polireality) terms. What cannot be described in multiterms is our Self exclusively.

So, if not a physicist of today, then a demon or physicist of tomorrow will dispose equations that can calculate Self. Self becomes no more that math effect of quantum equations. Phrase "due to QM equations, photon in this experiment can fly through left slice with probability 0.3 or through right slice with probability 0.7" is equivalent (but, for my minority, much more Ockamian and hence close to truth) to phrase "QM equations predicts that this state of photon gives birth to 0.3 x INFINITY Selves that see left-slice picture and to 0.7 x INFINITY Selves that see right-slice picture". Self becomes - or will become - a calculable entity, while entity of non-material nature. And we don't need to solve problems like Free Will. Everyone perceive Free Will. I wish to do this rather than that and I do it. Is my Free Will to be a member in a future physical equation so that physicist would be satisfied in his inquiry HOW my Free Will influenced atoms of my brain or body to realize my decision? But MEMBER of physical equation means entity of physical world which our Selves evidently aren't. They are (for my minority), so to say, spirits or senses of superpositions which may be derived mathematically from any quantum equation. Thus we save a border and principal difference between physical and spiritual worlds.

We all are people, and it is, of course, not very inspiring to accept the philosophy of world where our Self, our Free Will, and the very picture of unitarian world that we perceive (at least when we are in standard state of conscience) are no more than (principally, calculable) quality of feature of a new Absolute - Quantum Equations. To think that all my decisions as well as all decisions of everyone in the Universe are no more than, so to say, by-product of math symbols predicted (in superpositional terms) as early as in Big Bang. But the Razor is the Razor. When you eliminate one by one all unnecessary entities, you finally get this rest, and it explains all.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... From: Gary Oberbrunner ... Ahem, I don t *believe* that an infinite number of dimensions are needed. In fact I m not even sure that
Message 4 of 10 , May 1 4:29 AM
• 0 Attachment
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Oberbrunner" <garyo@...>

> If you look back in the archives, you'll see a thread I started a few
> months ago titled "Where do all the universes 'live'? How many
> dimensions are needed?" with a similar goal in mind. I tried to get at
> whether, if you treat each universe as a point in a large-dimensional
> space, the universes could be arranged along a single line (perhaps with
> a distance metric like the one you're looking for that would make that
> line truly a "dimension", or perhaps not) or whether there are
> uncountably many, and so they have to be arranged (at least) in a plane.
> Some folks, notably Charles Goodwin, believed an infinite number of
> dimensions are needed, whether or not there is any meaning assigned to
> those dimensions. I still believe (intuitively, I can't quite support
> it yet) that only one extra dimension is needed.

Ahem, I don't *believe* that an infinite number of dimensions are needed. In
fact I'm not even sure that three are needed; it's just a question of which
events (or Planck cells) have access to which others. (Although infinite
dimensions certainly seems one good way of thinking about it, as an aid to
visualisation.)

Charles
• ... [Gordon]The whole concept of Dimension has not be question and really when looking at it is like a house of card with many Paradox s even Einstein did not
Message 5 of 10 , May 1 9:06 AM
• 0 Attachment
Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
>
> If you look back in the archives, you'll see a thread I started a few
> months ago titled "Where do all the universes 'live'? How many
> dimensions are needed?" with a similar goal in mind. I tried to get at
> whether, if you treat each universe as a point in a large-dimensional
> space, the universes could be arranged along a single line (perhaps with
> a distance metric like the one you're looking for that would make that
> line truly a "dimension", or perhaps not) or whether there are
> uncountably many, and so they have to be arranged (at least) in a plane.
> Some folks, notably Charles Goodwin, believed an infinite number of
> dimensions are needed, whether or not there is any meaning assigned to
> those dimensions. I still believe (intuitively, I can't quite support
> it yet) that only one extra dimension is needed.
>
> -- Gary
>
[Gordon]The whole concept of Dimension has not be question and really
when looking at it is like a house of card with many Paradox's even
Einstein did not take this idea on to begin with I personally think that
Minkowski jump in to quickly,I would say that D is an Abstraction
however most just blindly follow it creating higher one and questioning
whether low one exist and what the mean is.
Also we creat all these other abstract spaces some are good maps however
they are really coherent.Find me a 2D object also why have many
Philosophy of D and no explaination as how they fix together like
degrees of freedom ect.....It hard than you think?

> jzellis wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is my first post to this list, so forgive me if this is
> > something which has been discussed before. Also, forgive me if I
> > appear remarkably stupid; I am a columnist and freelance writer, and
> > my knowledge of quantum physics is certainly not at a postgraduate
> > level.
> >
> > The idea of multiple universes fascinates me, but there is something
> > I'm curious about, and I hope someone here can enlighten me.
> >
> > Assuming that there are an infinite number of universes co-existing
> > within the framework of a multiverse...in what way do you
> > quantitatively describe the difference between one universe and
> > another?
> >
> > Perhaps a better way of putting it: I am sitting in my chair. My
> > computer is two feet away from me. My dog is running around about
> > fifteen feet away from me. The event of Federico Garcia Lorca
> > writing "Lament For Ignacio Sanchez Mejias", to pick a random
> > example, is sixty years and several thousand miles away from me
> > (since Lorca wrote the poem in Spain and I am in Las Vegas, Nevada,
> > USA). These things all lie at different places along measurable axes
> > of dimension: space and time.
> >
> > Yet, the way I understand the multiverse theory, all of these
> > universes exist simultaneously. And yet, it seems fairly obvious to
> > me that there must be *some* sort of axis of difference; it would be
> > fairly obvious if this were not the case. So my question is: how
> > would you measure this difference? One would assume that you'd have
> > to have a way of describing the difference between Universe A and
> > Universe Z; or am I missing the whole point?
> >
> > One idea I had (based on childhood musings) was that these universes
> > sort of lie on an infinite number of multiple timelines. So would
> > this axis of difference be, essentially, another dimension of time:
> > not a forwards/backwards measurement, but something more akin to a
> > measurement of probability? Does that make sense to anyone else? :-)
> >
> > This has been bothering me since I read Deutsch's book. I'm hoping
> > someone has an answer for me, as I can't seem to come up with one on
> > my own!
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
• ... I did a web search for Planck cells, which I m not familiar with (hardly surprisingly), but I couldn t find a basic explanation. But I m interested in what
Message 6 of 10 , May 1 5:11 PM
• 0 Attachment
--- In Fabric-of-Reality@y..., "Charles Goodwin" <charles@e...> wrote:

> Ahem, I don't *believe* that an infinite number of dimensions are
> needed. In fact I'm not even sure that three are needed; it's just
> a question of which events (or Planck cells) have access to which
> others.

I did a web search for Planck cells, which I'm not familiar with
(hardly surprisingly), but I couldn't find a basic explanation.

But I'm interested in what you mean by "which events have access to
which others". I assume by "event" you mean what I mean, which
is "things that happen in space-time", like my cat or the Treaty of
Versailles or the Big Bang.

So some events don't have access to others? Could you explain this
further, or post a web link that might bring me up to speed?

It sounds like my paradigm of distance and dimension isn't the
correct one. This sounds more like object-oriented programming, in
which some bits of the program (the user interface, for example)
don't interact with others (the file system interface) because they
don't need to.

Is that a more apt way of putting it?

Joshua Ellis
• My 2c worth is that the difference between two universes is an informational difference, measurable in bits. The Multiverse itself, of course is an infinite
Message 7 of 10 , May 2 8:53 PM
• 0 Attachment
My 2c worth is that the difference between two "universes" is an
informational difference, measurable in bits.

The Multiverse itself, of course is an infinite dimensional Hilbert
space. It is not clear what the embedding space of the ensemble of all
universes is, however.

Cheers

jzellis wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post to this list, so forgive me if this is
> something which has been discussed before. Also, forgive me if I
> appear remarkably stupid; I am a columnist and freelance writer, and
> my knowledge of quantum physics is certainly not at a postgraduate
> level.
>
> The idea of multiple universes fascinates me, but there is something
> I'm curious about, and I hope someone here can enlighten me.
>
> Assuming that there are an infinite number of universes co-existing
> within the framework of a multiverse...in what way do you
> quantitatively describe the difference between one universe and
> another?
>
> Perhaps a better way of putting it: I am sitting in my chair. My
> computer is two feet away from me. My dog is running around about
> fifteen feet away from me. The event of Federico Garcia Lorca
> writing "Lament For Ignacio Sanchez Mejias", to pick a random
> example, is sixty years and several thousand miles away from me
> (since Lorca wrote the poem in Spain and I am in Las Vegas, Nevada,
> USA). These things all lie at different places along measurable axes
> of dimension: space and time.
>
> Yet, the way I understand the multiverse theory, all of these
> universes exist simultaneously. And yet, it seems fairly obvious to
> me that there must be *some* sort of axis of difference; it would be
> fairly obvious if this were not the case. So my question is: how
> would you measure this difference? One would assume that you'd have
> to have a way of describing the difference between Universe A and
> Universe Z; or am I missing the whole point?
>
> One idea I had (based on childhood musings) was that these universes
> sort of lie on an infinite number of multiple timelines. So would
> this axis of difference be, essentially, another dimension of time:
> not a forwards/backwards measurement, but something more akin to a
> measurement of probability? Does that make sense to anyone else? :-)
>
> This has been bothering me since I read Deutsch's book. I'm hoping
> someone has an answer for me, as I can't seem to come up with one on
> my own!
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Ellis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia R.Standish@...
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
• jzellis wrote on 30/04/02 7:41 PM: [...] ... [...] Let s say we want to know the distance between universe A and universe B. First thing to
Message 8 of 10 , May 3 7:54 AM
• 0 Attachment
jzellis <jzellis@...> wrote on 30/04/02 7:41 PM:

[...]
> Assuming that there are an infinite number of universes co-existing
> within the framework of a multiverse...in what way do you
> quantitatively describe the difference between one universe and
> another?
[...]

Let's say we want to know the distance between universe A and universe B.

First thing to do is to produce a table that has every particle's distance from every
particle in universe A. Same thing for universe B.

Then we calculate a table that has the difference between every number in table A
and every number in table B.

Now we produce a table that contains all subsets of the previous table.

Then we delete those subsets that in any way treat the particles unequally.

Then, for every subset left, we calculate the sum of its elements. The smallest
sum is the distance.

In other words: first we align the universes, then we substract the aligned
universes.

Just a thought. Not an answer.

Aki
• ... Here at this point I was thinking about ordinary distance in ordinary space. That s because I got confused. So let s forget that and say distance between
Message 9 of 10 , May 5 2:47 AM
• 0 Attachment
Aki Tasa <jskogste@...> wrote on 03/05/02 5:54 PM:

> Let's say we want to know the distance between universe A and universe B.
>
> First thing to do is to produce a table that has every particle's distance from every
> particle in universe A.

Here at this point I was thinking about ordinary distance in ordinary space. That's
because I got confused.

So let's forget that and say distance between two universes is the sum of the
numbers in the string of numbers that is the difference of the two strings of
numbers describing the universes, aligned as well as possible.

What if there are two different ways to align the universes, is the result an
interference effect or a "non-local entanglement" effect?

Aki
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.