I warned early on that when I argue FOR multiworld theories, as with steady state, that these are CLASS theories, not necessarily the PARTICULAR interpretations that I would hold, ...especially if I am not fully informed of the particular claims.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:14 pmI'm sorry, Scott, but what you are proposing about theScott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am First off, a multi-world universe would have DISCRETE universes, not universes that DEPEND upon any particular world. As such, you are falsely interpreting that those universes are CONNECTED literally to ours rather than as separate worlds that happen to MAP to each subtle differences. Our world does not literally SPLIT into different worlds, they already exist independently. So...

...given the possibility that in this world I might turn right versus left in a simple binary set of possibilities does not mean that at the point of these options I split into two worlds. Rather, both of those classes of world types exist as identical copies except for the points of divergent options taken."pre-existence"of"identical copies"of our universe, is even more ridiculous than what is implied in the standard take on theMWI, wherein it is alleged that a"single"universe...

(andnotpre-existing "identical/parallel" universes)

...splits-off into "branches" of itself (as is clearly depicted in the following illustration)...

In which case, you seem to be mistakenly combining two completely different multi-world (multiverse) theories into some kind of hybrid theory that misrepresents Everett'sMWI.

I hold that Totality is not biased to favor

*special*realities. If you ONLY interpret this world as absolutely unique, you lose any meaning to how any probability can actually distribute the odds in reality without some real universe elsewhere to cover each of those possibilities. That is, if you have a real probability of 1/3 for something to occur, each possibility of the three has to be distributed '

*fairly*' or the weight of each is indeterminate without resolution. The Everett (class) interpretions assert that these probabilities cannot exist if the possibilities are not coinciding with something real. As such, EACH possibility in the probability has to exist or it is just an illusion.

Taking the deterministic interpretation, either this world is determined or incomplete. The non-multiworld interpretations (note how I'm wording the complementary views collectively) ...hold a permanent state of "indeterminacy" in THIS world and assumes that THIS is the only world. They interpret that the probabilities "COLLAPSE" into only one unique reality as though this supposedly unique world is run by some Being that SPECIALLY defines our world and is thus a type of 'religious' interpretation. That Einstein said, "God does not toss dice" and Shrodinger's cat thought experiments expresses, IF the Copenhagen interpetation is true, the cat IS both alive and dead but then 'collapses' into a SPECIFIC reality upon opening the box. That was meant to ridicule the interpretation. BUT it CAN make sense that the cat is both dead and alive in a collection of universes, reconserving 'determinism' by recognizing that each universe is distinct.

It is a misunderstanding on your part to assume that the 'split' of the film strip example literally means that our universe 'splits'. In fact, looking back in time, the same 'split' occurs. That is, for every future that remains fixed, there are also multiple possible origins. So, as I tried to explain, each world is 'distinct' with at least ONE possible difference between all the others.

They are not 'identical'. They are separated by AT LEAST one 'quantized' difference.Anyway, with that being said, if you are going to stick to your own take on the situation, then I must ask you to explain when and how did these"identical copies"of the universe come into existence?

I mean, are you actually imagining that an infinite number of these "identical" (yet "discrete") universes came into existence (all-at-once) at precisely the same moment in an initial and shared inception point sometime in the past?

If given digits 0-9, we have 10 possible ways to express each digit of a number in positional notation.

So if given say some

*special*(arbitrary) number like "789", for a three digit selection, there are 1000 possibilities (10 x 10 x 10). I just randomly thought of this number. But with respect to nature that we assume is non-biased, if we were to randomly pick a number between 1/1000, each possibility has to represent a probability that has 'equal weight' to be able to say that 789 has 1/1000 probability to be selected. If nature were absolutely unique, the 'weights' would be indeterminate such that if you tossed a coin a hundred times, you might get an average of 78/100 to be heads, 2/100 for the same at a different time, etc in a way that you could never demonstrate an average of 1/2 as we expect. Of course we could have just as probable 0% heads (100% tails) in some million tosses.

The only real stat that you'd have to accept none if you interpret our world as so 'special'. The reason for those favoring the Copenhagen intepretation relates to the same cause of the support of the Big Bang over the Steady State interpretations: religion and its political ramifications. The 'weirdness' interpretions help the religious to

*save*the magic of some God as giving us humans 'free will' while only

*appearing*to have determinism with respect to nature apart from ourselves.

Let's say that we have a three-point universe with P0, P1, and P2 as possible points.

Totality would interpret these as having 6 possible 'ordered' worlds:

**P0, P1, P2**

P0, P2, P1

P1, P0, P2

P1, P2, P0

P2, P0, P1

P2, P1, P0

P0, P2, P1

P1, P0, P2

P1, P2, P0

P2, P0, P1

P2, P1, P0

You CAN also order the above worlds by the rule, "Swap two adjacent points at a time". This example above happens to have this rule by default of how I listed it. It is hard to make the less usual order of swapping the first and last positions using only three. But we can also interpret these as cycles whereby you repeat this pattern over and over as though P0, P1, P2 are in a circle. Then any 'swap' occurs no matter what to any different possiblity. Each line that represents a world, can be numbered as uniquely distinct so that you can arbtrarily assign a number to each world.

**1. P0, P1, P2**

2. P0, P2, P1

3. P1, P0, P2

4. P1, P2, P0

5. P2, P0, P1

6. P2, P1, P0

2. P0, P2, P1

3. P1, P0, P2

4. P1, P2, P0

5. P2, P0, P1

6. P2, P1, P0

Now we can represent these on a die. This is to tie this example to Einstein's quote. That is, each odd is weighted EQUALLY as a die and so the Copenhagen interpretation means that some 'toss' is made by Nature in a SPECIAL way (as a world of some religious God would define uniquely).

The PROOF that there ARE other worlds relates to the fact that you CAN induce patterns that suggest equivalent weights of distinct possibilities. If the 'possibilities' that do not occur in one toss do not exist elsewhere (including the present world), then those would no longer be 'possible' (able to pose) and be 0% probability.

If you extend the above example by imagining everything in space as reduced to points in space. Then every POSSIBLITY of arrangements of points act as distinct worlds. Then the set of pairs of these as having ordered patterns also, such as "swapping only two points at a time per adjacency, can exist. That is, we can also order the prior ordered sets into a set of ordered sets.

There will be a world with only one point. If this point references some absolute reality of many, then for as many absolute realities, there would be a world for each of these. Then, there is a set of worlds that have two points and combines each absolute to any other (including itself). Then, her is another set of worlds with three points. This process goes on infinitely and covers all possible worlds.

We have a 'sense' of ORDER to the chaotic set of all possible worlds because we happen to only be ABLE to perceive pattern where patterns exist. As such, it makes sense why all possiblities can exist but not be 'probable' with respect to one possible story.

Niel Bohr responded to Einstein's charge: "Stop telling God what to do." But this missed the point. Einstein was arguing that science should remain silent if we discover something 'weird' rather than affirming its 'weirdness' as God-works-in-mysterious-ways type of POSITION. If we propose a senseless interpretation of reality just because it is SOME explanation rather than none, it is best to NOT draw any conclusive interpretation. The many-worlds explanation retains determinism and closure by providing real places for probabilities that EXIST.