Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by socrat44 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:52 am Being a gnat [relatively] all humans should just accept whatever is possible up
the 61st seconds [t 61st second] after the supposedly Big Bang and not be bothered
with what happen at time t0 and prior.
What is the difference between a mosquito and a human?
===
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:14 pm Scott, do you actually believe that due to the interaction taking place between the photons of light jumping off your computer screen and that of your eyeballs,...

...that trillions of copies of you, me, the earth, and the entire universe just now sprang into existence in the few seconds it took you to read this sentence?

Really???
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm In general, yes.
Please forgive me for belaboring this issue, but I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the MWI.

Let's try to imagine what your "In general, yes" response to my question, actually implies...

First, let's imagine that the following simplistic representation of our universe...

Image

...contains approximately (for rounding-off purposes) a hundred-billion galaxies, with each galaxy containing approximately a hundred-billion sun systems, and with each of those sun systems consisting of its own unique assortment of orbiting (and richly detailed) planets.

Now, inside of just one of those hundred-billion galaxies, in the midst of its hundred-billion sun systems, is an infinitesimal speck of a planet that we call Earth, upon which sits a human named Scott Mayers who believes that trillions of full-blown copies of this galaxy-packed bubble of reality...

Image

...instantaneously spring into existence (branch-off of his universe) as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that take place from him gazing at his little computer screen for a few seconds.

However, if such an absurd situation were actually the case, then it must also be understood that each one of those trillions of instantly created copies of Scott's universe contains a copy of Scott Mayers who is also gazing at a computer screen for a few seconds, thus causing yet another instantaneous branching of new universes off of their universes. And, likewise, each of the trillions of copies of those universes contains a copy of Scott Mayers gazing at their computer screens....and so on, and so on --> ad infinitum.

Now, with the above in mind, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a span of perhaps 10 seconds of just the copies of Scott Mayers gazing at their little computer screens,...

(never mind the almost infinite number of other quantum events taking place, each and every second throughout the rest of each of the universes)

...we would have a situation in which these galaxy-packed bubbles of reality...

Image

...would be replicating so fast and so furiously that these newly created copies of the universe would appear to be the metaphorical equivalent of some kind of effervescing foam, perpetually BLASTING out of a shaken bottle of warm champagne and instantly expanding in all directions in a never-ending EXPLOSION of branching universes.

All of which presents a vision of reality that is so utterly ridiculous that I can't believe that anyone would even consider the plausibility of such nonsense.

I mean, we can't even begin to fathom how the richly detailed reality of just this one universe alone came into existence. Yet here we have humans believing that the entire thing can be randomly duplicated (on an unfathomable scale) faster than you can photo-copy your résumé at Kinkos.

The bottom line is that anyone who thinks that the MWI is a logical alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation, needs to pull their head out of the, perhaps, elegant math set-forth in Everett's thesis written back in the 1950s...

...and take a good hard look at its profoundly absurd implications.

Let me end this lengthy rant by stating that you no doubt probably know that Bryce Dewitt is the theoretical physicist who coined the term "many-worlds" and was an early and avid champion of Everett's Theory.

In an article for the magazine, Physics Today, Dewitt stated the following:
“...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”
Well, as I have stated elsewhere on this forum, I suggest that the only "shock" that should be experienced here is that of "Electroconvulsive Therapy"...

Image

...in an effort to erase this MWI nonsense from the mind of physics.
_______
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Cerveny »

The "strangeness" of quantum mechanics has two main sources. Simply put, it is the speed of time (the rate of growth / condensation of the universe), the lack of time for finer formation and fixation of its structure / constitution - the physical space thus manifests and frozes as Planck's - grainy. Secondly, the interaction ("measuring" of position) of elementary particles also changes this position, so its more precise determination is limited - we only work with probability (of position). A step change in this probability is not possible, which is related to finding of eigenvalues ​​of the respective operators ... with discrete states of the system.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:13 pm There is a literal "ETERNITY" preceding the alleged Big Bang.

And the point is that whatever "activity" came before the BB, it had plenty of time (in fact, "FOREVER") to acquire the necessary conditions that would allow for the successful manifestation of this singular and isolated phenomenon...

Image

...that we call a universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am Why are you so concern with what is before the Big Bang at all when there is no evidence and reasonable probability to grasp what there is at time t0 and prior?...

...Being a gnat [relatively] all humans should just accept whatever is possible up the 61st seconds [t 61st second] after the supposedly Big Bang and not be bothered with what happen at time t0 and prior.
Setting aside the fact that there is no actual "t0", the real question is, how can you NOT be concerned (or at least curious) about what existed prior to the misconceived "t0"?

And you have the gall to fancy yourself a philosopher?

Image

In light of the fact that you do not seem to have any interest in pursuing (or even thinking about) the answers to the deepest mysteries of reality,...

...I have therefore been authorized to inform you that the "Worldwide Association of Armchair Philosophers" (WAAP) has revoked your membership and demands that you empty your locker and vacate the premises immediately!

However, as a parting gift, please accept this...

Image

...as our way of helping you with your obvious problem.

(P.S., if you happen to run into RCSaunders on your way out, please give him a good slug off that bottle :D)
_______
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 6:13 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:13 pm There is a literal "ETERNITY" preceding the alleged Big Bang.

And the point is that whatever "activity" came before the BB, it had plenty of time (in fact, "FOREVER") to acquire the necessary conditions that would allow for the successful manifestation of this singular and isolated phenomenon...

Image

...that we call a universe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am Why are you so concern with what is before the Big Bang at all when there is no evidence and reasonable probability to grasp what there is at time t0 and prior?...

...Being a gnat [relatively] all humans should just accept whatever is possible up the 61st seconds [t 61st second] after the supposedly Big Bang and not be bothered with what happen at time t0 and prior.
Setting aside the fact that there is no actual "t0", the real question is, how can you NOT be concerned (or at least curious) about what existed prior to the misconceived "t0"?

And you have the gall to fancy yourself a philosopher?

......
_______
I stated why SO concern to the extent of being delusional and jumping to conclusion of reifying whatever you deem exists prior to t0.

I do consider the idea of what is prior to t0 and why people like you are so obsessed with it. My inference is such delusional thoughts has to do with psychology, i.e. driven by the existential crisis.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 6:13 pm Setting aside the fact that there is no actual "t0", the real question is, how can you NOT be concerned (or at least curious) about what existed prior to the misconceived "t0"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:06 am I stated why SO concern to the extent of being delusional and jumping to conclusion of reifying whatever you deem exists prior to t0.
Again, Veritas, there is no "t0".

Do you actually believe that time began approximately 13.8 billion years ago?
_______
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Scott Mayers »

seeds wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:53 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:14 pm Scott, do you actually believe that due to the interaction taking place between the photons of light jumping off your computer screen and that of your eyeballs,...

...that trillions of copies of you, me, the earth, and the entire universe just now sprang into existence in the few seconds it took you to read this sentence?

Really???
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm In general, yes.
Please forgive me for belaboring this issue, but I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the MWI.

....

Let's try to imagine what your "In general, yes" response to my question, actually implies...

First, let's imagine that the following simplistic representation of our universe...
...

...contains approximately (for rounding-off purposes) a hundred-billion galaxies, with each galaxy containing approximately a hundred-billion sun systems, and with each of those sun systems consisting of its own unique assortment of orbiting (and richly detailed) planets.

Now, inside of just one of those hundred-billion galaxies, in the midst of its hundred-billion sun systems, is an infinitesimal speck of a planet that we call Earth, upon which sits a human named Scott Mayers who believes that trillions of full-blown copies of this galaxy-packed bubble of reality...


...instantaneously spring into existence (branch-off of his universe) as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that take place from him gazing at his little computer screen for a few seconds.

However, if such an absurd situation were actually the case, then it must also be understood that each one of those trillions of instantly created copies of Scott's universe contains a copy of Scott Mayers who is also gazing at a computer screen for a few seconds, thus causing yet another instantaneous branching of new universes off of their universes. And, likewise, each of the trillions of copies of those universes contains a copy of Scott Mayers gazing at their computer screens....and so on, and so on --> ad infinitum.

Now, with the above in mind, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a span of perhaps 10 seconds of just the copies of Scott Mayers gazing at their little computer screens,...

(never mind the almost infinite number of other quantum events taking place, each and every second throughout the rest of each of the universes)
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.

And the proof of this is that there EXISTS apparent options AND that where quantum mechanics has shown of the slit experiment, that PROBABILITIES work as predictable outcomes. If we were only one exact universe with no other, then how can ANY 'probability' ever be expressible? For instance, if a fair coin is tossed, there should still only be ONE UNIQUE outcome deterministically for all such tosses everywhere. But this is not the case.

This coin toss is not the greatest example because it CAN be true that if the toss were made EXACTLY as it was in all prior tosses, the coin should be reasonably able to always demonstrate one and only one outcome, right? But this is why the slit experiment matters: it shows an interference pattern that nature itself demonstrates is real. Now, given you accept the Copenhagen interpretation (if you actually understand this), you accept that the probabilities are themselves real but interpret that ONLY one of those probabilies occurs 100% when taken independently. What it implies is that OUR universe is the ONLY one yet requires believing that some 'God' has tossed dice and whichever outcome it noticed, it deemed this one and only one universe as having it.....and RULES OUT those other possibilities!

The distinction at issue is whether the probability is itself a reality or if it only REPRESENTS indirectly the reality of other possibilities. IF the other 'possibilities' are EXCLUDED with certainty, you imply that those other universese are certainly non-existent AND have to believe in some SPECIAL part of nature that does the tossing of dice to decide which reality will exist.

Can you not see that the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation undoes the meaning of the mathematical probability as being the expression of one of many possibilities but implies that there is only ONE UNIQUE probability (100% or 0% only) to which possibility is REAL?

Note that I initially discussed the issue of probability interpretation here and elsewhere before regarding the Monty Hall puzzle and its application through Bell's Theorem. [I may not have completed the extensional comparison to Bell's Theorem on this site though.]

The point is that you have to ask yourself if any probability itself could be functionally useful at predicting anything if the possibilities not taken are deemed NEVER REAL somewhere? If all proposed possibilities that aren't literally taken afterthefact are deemed UNREAL ANYWHERE under the identical conditions, you reduce all statistical probabilities to being nonsense. The Copenhagen interpretation, like the Big Bang, is intentionally favorable to the religious person because it begs that our particular world is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY UNIQUE REALITY ANYWHERE. If this were the actual case, then there is never a need to respect any probability.

For instance, if you WIN the lottery, you'd have to interpret Nature (or some Specific Unique Reality such as some 'God') as assuring you would win regardless but that you perhaps were not yet aware of it until after the draw. The dice-toss of which reality would occur under this delusion would lie permanently indeterminate and so would not demonstrate patterns of probability.

This is also related to the 'Free will" versus "Determinism" argument. The Multi-World possibilities are the only rational explanation and helps close the totality of Universes that exist as 'determinate' but relatively 'indeterminate' PER world perspective. If this is only ONE literal World, we'd be Determined by God/Nature uniquely and so lack free will other than to what some God might opt to reflect upon your prayers. That is, you might appeal to God to make the odds favor you rather than tossing dice where he might do so 'fairly' otherwise.

For one NOT believing in any Superior Being that might be treating us as some game of Solitaire, the only rational interpretation of reality as a whole (Totality) is that it is UNBIASED to favoring any SPECIAL world's existence.

Note that Totality CAN have nonsense worlds too...ones that interpret each and every point as continuously infinite, as you were advancing. But OF all possible worlds, only those that have a distinct consistent set of patterns that fit with finite probabilities would 'materialize'. So, for instance, there should be a 'world' where I turned 'up' given only the choices 'left' or 'right'. But our particular experiences do not permit this possibility locally. As such, while they exist, they differ from the set of worlds that DO have consistent only patterns. The ones of which probabilities FIT to our world must mean that those worlds exist.

Another example: A story is finitely written. But we can add still alter such prior stories to become another novel one. That is, imagine keeping the whole story the same of some book but you only ADD new chapters to the next editions. The old story still exists but is CLOSED. Thus, the relative Universe of the original story has ENDED. But because we can alter this old one, the new one represents a continuation of the old story as a novel possibility realized.

Reality does this too if the Multi-world interpretation is real. For instance, IF there exists a quantum set of distinct possibilities that enables Shrodinger's cat to be alive or dead distinctly, the 'story' of discovering a cat as dead from the perspective of the cat is nonexistent EXCEPT where that 'story' has possible outcomes. From the cat's perspective, if it died by probability in one world, the worlds where it did not die becomes the reality with respect to the cat's perspective as an addition to some story we write that becomes the more complete 'story'.

Does this help? If not, would you want to digress into something like the Monty Hall problem as a model of the issues regarding statistical interpretations?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:55 pm
seeds wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 6:13 pm Setting aside the fact that there is no actual "t0", the real question is, how can you NOT be concerned (or at least curious) about what existed prior to the misconceived "t0"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:06 am I stated why SO concern to the extent of being delusional and jumping to conclusion of reifying whatever you deem exists prior to t0.
Again, Veritas, there is no "t0".

Do you actually believe that time began approximately 13.8 billion years ago?
_______
What is the most reliable source of knowledge is the top-down approach based on whatever is observable empirically as polished with philosophy-proper.
As such scientists start with the most realistic as observed, verified and justified then infer therefrom downward to its possible origin to as far as the evidences can support them.

Scientists do NOT claim any precise time t0 [moment] of a starting time for the origin of the universe but merely 13.8 billion years ago up to the 61st seconds of a supposedly Big Bang. I agree with this inference. For this inferred speculation, they only give it a very low confidence level since this cannot be repeated for testing.

1. But in your case, it is implied you believe in t0, i.e. the starting point your intelligent creator began to create the universe and time.
2. As such you imply your intelligent creator existed prior to t0.

My question is why are you so concern with these points re 1 & 2.
Will your conclusion [illusory and delusional] of an intelligent creator of any help to mankind at all?
My inference is your concern is merely psychological within your self to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by seeds »

Scott 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.
I'm sorry, Scott, but what you are proposing about the "pre-existence" of "identical copies" of our universe, is even more ridiculous than what is implied in the standard take on the MWI, wherein it is alleged that a "single" universe...

(and not pre-existing "identical/parallel" universes)

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

Image

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's MWI.

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?

And if not all-at-once in an initial inception point, and if not via the "branching" method proposed in the MWI, then, again, when (and how) did these "identical copies" of the universe come into existence?

And not only is there that question,...

...but you also seem to be implying that in the billions of years it took for each of these independent (discrete) universes to produce a hundred-billion galaxies, with each galaxy filled with their own separate allotment of billions of suns and planets,...

...again, you seem to be implying that the almost infinite (and independent) assortment of infinitesimal quantum phenomena (and quantum events) that went into creating those discrete universes, somehow managed to precisely mirror each other in every possible way imaginable at what, by necessity,...

(based on their absolute "identicalness")

...would have to be at the Planck scale of their makeup.

Does that seem even remotely plausible to you?

For example, do you actually believe that if you, Scott Mayers, were to set up a double slit experiment in our universe where you shoot a single electron through the slits,...

...that a precise copy (or copies) of you in those other "independent" universes would be creating the exact same experiment wherein every move they (and their electron) make would be a precise and instantaneous mirroring of every move that you and your electron make?

And that the absolute only difference between the entire inner-dimensions of those discrete and independently evolved - (billions of years old) - universes, would be that in your universe, the electron was discovered (measured) to be on the left side of the phosphorescent screen, while in one of the other universes it was measured to be on the right side of the screen, while in yet another universe, it was measured to be in the middle of the screen.

If any of that is anywhere near to what you are suggesting, then, again, it is even more ridiculous (if that's even possible) than the branching nonsense implicit in the standard take on the MWI.

No offense intended, Scott, but what you are demonstrating is the typical problem of a very intelligent person (you) getting caught-up in a dubious "thought bubble" that is created from the seeming logic of a particular (math-based) theory,...

...while, at the same time, ignoring (or not extrapolating) the theory's preposterous implications.
_______
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:52 am I noted most scientists re the BB do not accept there is one-instantaneous bang, rather they give the provision there could be activity before the BB but they do not venture into that in view of insufficient data.
There is a literal "ETERNITY" preceding the alleged Big Bang.

And the point is that whatever "activity" came before the BB, it had plenty of time (in fact, "FOREVER") to acquire the necessary conditions that would allow for the successful manifestation of this singular and isolated phenomenon...

Image

...that we call a universe.
Just curious as to WHY 'you' draw a picture of the Universe like this with a 'blueish circle' and blackness around it? It is like 'you' envision thee Universe, Itself, is some sort of 'bubble', which is finite, and is bounded or with a boundary, is this correct?

Also, 'we' do NOT call that what 'you' have envisioned and pictured here 'a universe'.
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:52 am At present the Copenhagen's interpretation is supported by loads of practical applications which can be verified empirically. So to doubt it is irrational.
I assume you are addressing that to Scott Mayers and not me, right? For my sarcastic critique of the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" was meant to show just one of the MWI's ridiculous implications (e.g., the "tiny toot theory"), and I mentioned nothing about doubting the Copenhagen Interpretation.

However, seeing how the Copenhagen Interpretation includes the caveat that its practitioners are so baffled when it comes to the true nature of the substances they are dealing with that they simply throw their hands in the air and exclaim: "shut up and calculate",...

...then it is clear that something is amiss.
_______
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:16 pm
socrat44 wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:30 pm Thanks to quantum physics, we have modern technology, and therefore QP cannot be “weird”. . . .
but (as selfish people) we transfer our unresolved problems ''from a sore head to a healthy one''
saying that nature is ''weird, strange, incomprehensible, cannot be understood by the classic logic''
Dear lord, no, there is absolutely nothing weird about the fact that we are magnetically adhered to the surface of what is, more or less, a rotating ball of concentrated "light-like" energy, flying laterally through space at approximately 67,000 miles per hour.

Furthermore, even though the vast oceans and our great human metropolises are being spun around (topsy-turvy) in a rotisserie cycle that only takes a mere 24 hours to complete, we are generally unaware that the ball is even moving, or that we are literally upside-down from those on the other side of the ball...
But there is NO actual "upside-down" in the Universe, NOR in relation to thee Universe, Itself.

There is ONLY a perception of 'upside-down', and ONLY relative to very small number of 'things'.

seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:16 pm Image

Nah, nothing weird about that at all. :roll:

Good grief, everyone needs to wake-up, for crying out loud.

The bottom line is that our general level of consciousness has been attenuated in such a way as to cause us to be oblivious of just how utterly weird our situation truly is.
_______
But when 'you', human beings, get past 'your' OWN level of consciousness and reach Consciousness, Itself, then what is RECOGNIZED, UNCOVERED, and SEEN is that there is ACTUALLY absolutely NOTHING so-called "weird" AT ALL. And that REALLY Everything makes ACTUAL PERFECT SENSE, and REALLY is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to UNDERSTAND and KNOW. Like, for example, EVERY thing discussed above here.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:14 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:28 am ...the Everitt [sic] interpretation permits the evidence of the apparent indeterminism to mean that a world for EACH possibility must exist...
Scott, do you actually believe that due to the interaction taking place between the photons of light jumping off your computer screen and that of your eyeballs,...

...that trillions of copies of you, me, the earth, and the entire universe just now sprang into existence in the few seconds it took you to read this sentence?

Really???
_______
In general, yes. The fact that we can find certain realities as based UPON probabilities between multiple possibilities (where they exist), the reality could NOT be statistically valid if the other options do not exist somewhere.

For instance, you come to a T-intersection in which you could turn left or you can turn right. If the probability of real instances is 50% for turning left and 50% for turning right, this probability could not be demonstrated consistently if whichever possible choice one does not choose is 0% to the 100% one does choose. That is, where you discover real statistical probabilities consistently, this requires one accept the other options as real or believe that we live in an absolutely unique universe.

To add force to this, when given a frame of a movie, is there only one unique possible 'story' that this frame uniquely fits into? That is, can you tell from ONLY that one frame what is determined to precede it or follow it uniquely? The Copenhagen interpretation would assert that the probabilities are real in some grand univeral computer that 'tosses dice' in order to determine the particular reality AND that this particular reality is the ONLY one. The multiple worlds interpretaton is the only option that completes the full picture because it would account for why certain consistent probabilities are distributed FAIRLY among the different possibilies.
How, EXACTLY, could there be so-called "different possibilities" if there exists One, infinite AND eternal, Universe, ONLY?

What is the 'probability' of there being "different possibilities" in thee One and ONLY Universe?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm Note that I only used "Everett Interpretation" based upon it being the name of the first person to propose it, ....not to assert my support for any PARTICULAR unique meaning to Everett's views.
Did you mean here; the first KNOWN person to propose it, the first KNOWN person, to 'you', to propose it, or do 'you' literally mean the first person to propose it and that there was NO person EVER throughout human history who had proposed 'it', even in one's own head, previously?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm As such, my argument is more broadly extended and requires being a truth about Totality (all posssible Universes of universes).
How, EXACTLY, do you define the 'Universes' and the 'universes' words?

And, is it possible, to you, that either a capital 'U' or a small 'u' could be used without and 's' at the end?

Also, did you mean to use a capital 'U' in the first word and a small 'u' in the second word?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm If only ONE actual option in the above left-right-turn example is true, any measure of statistics collected about many different instances would not have ANY actual predictable pattern.


Note also that the example I gave in reality to which way one turns can depend on other factors such as whether we are in London versus Toronto, given we would tend to possibly favor turning 'right' in Toronto but 'left' in London due to which side of the road we normally ride on.
In relation to thee Universe, Itself, is there even a 'left' or a 'right', and if so, then how would you describe that 'left' and that 'right'?

See, to me, 'left', 'right', 'up', 'down', and 'upside-down' are NOT actual 'things' in relation to thee Universe, Itself.

Those 'things' only exist in VERY NARROWED or VERY SHORT-SIGHTED fields of views. Which are Truly NOT the Right WAY of LOOKING AT 'things' when discussing universal perspectives of 'things'.

Those 'things' or those way of LOOKING AT 'things' will ONLY ALWAYS just provide a VERY SMALL picture. Which will, OBVIOUSLY, paint A BIG Picture of 'things', which is what is NEEDED to SEE thee WHOLE Picture or the WHOLE and ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm But even under the possibility of such differences, while it might be say 75% chance that people in Toronto might favor turning 'right', we still expect this probability to hold consistently under those restricted influences. The only way a statistic of nature to hold consistently where it is not 100% or 0% assured is if the possibilities are actually distributed and fit with the same probability regardless of how many times you repeat it.
IF the people in "toronto" might favor turning 'right' or turning 'left' might also be influenced on how much each one of them, for example, likes drinking alcohol, likes to gamble, likes to buy hand bags, likes to eat fruit and vegetables, likes to go fishing, likes to do exercise, or likes to do just about ANY thing. The variables are just way TO MANY for this to even be a True consideration of 'things', Especially in regards to discussions about thee Universe, Itself.

There can ONLY EVER be, by definition, One 'Universe'.

Now, if ANY one of 'you' wants to discuss if the One and ONLY Universe is finite AND not eternal, finite AND eternal, infinite AND not eternal, or infinite AND eternal, then let us DISCUSS.

I will inform you now, however, that thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY be infinite AND eternal.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm Does this help understand the distinction? The Copenhagen interpretation drew the same criticism from Einstein that I share. "God does not toss dice" was asserted by him about this interpretion because it implies our PARTICULAR reality should not show real fixed pattern of probabilities that 'collapse' into one unique reality unless it was perfectly indeterminate (not even predictable by probabilities.)
I suggest to 'you', human beings, instead of formulating 'theories' and/or 'guesses' about what COULD BE true, and instead just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what ACTUALLY IS True, then you WILL FIND what 'it' is that 'you' are ALL LOOKING FOR here.

If ANY one would like to give that a go, just to FIND OUT and SEE what RESULTS, then I am more than happy and willing to. Until then just carry on as 'you' have been. But just REMEMBER 'you' have been going like that for thousands upon thousands of years now, and REALLY are 'you' that much CLOSER?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:52 am I noted most scientists re the BB do not accept there is one-instantaneous bang, rather they give the provision there could be activity before the BB but they do not venture into that in view of insufficient data.
There is a literal "ETERNITY" preceding the alleged Big Bang.

And the point is that whatever "activity" came before the BB, it had plenty of time (in fact, "FOREVER") to acquire the necessary conditions that would allow for the successful manifestation of this singular and isolated phenomenon...

https://www.listland.com/wp-content/upl ... 363447.jpg

...that we call a universe.
Why are you so concern with what is before the Big Bang at all when there is no evidence and reasonable probability to grasp what there is at time t0 and prior?
BECAUSE if one is NOT 'concerned' about 'that', then they will NOT even 'consider' 'that', and if one does NOT even 'consider' 'that', then they might as well just say and BELIEVE " 'God' created everything ".

Saying, "big bang created, or is the start of, everything", and NOT considering 'BEFORE' is just as RIDICULOUS and as ABSURD saying, "God created everything".

BELIEVING a "big bang" was the start is just as INSANE as BELIEVING "God" was the start. If one has NO PROOF AT ALL, then BELIEVING either speaks for itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am What is happening is very personal to you, i.e.
you a fallible gnat [relatively] is trying to play God in jumping into conclusion to stop an infinite regression.
From where did you get your authority and power to do so?
Wow this is a different way of so-called "arguing" here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am Your drive to play God to stop an infinite regression [as a consonance] is due to a psychological issue, i.e. the inherent existential crisis that is driving you to relieve the cognitive dissonance in you. That is why the Buddha state life is sufferings [dukkha].
And, INSTEAD 'you' and "others" SHOULD just BELIEVE the "big bang" is the START, which CREATED EVERY thing. And, if ANY one questions what created the "big bang" or what was BEFORE the "big bang", then "veritas aequitas" will inform 'you' that there are just some things we are NOT meant to know. Just like every "good" priest and preacher will say if ANY one questions their BELIEF in that "God" is the START, which CREATED EVERY things.

"veritas aequitas" OBVIOUSLY has its OWN BELIEFS, and if ANY one questions those BELIEFS, then "veritas aequitas" WILL SAY the most ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and RIDICULOUS 'things', as SEEN and PROVED above here, and just like "religious" people do when their BELIEFS are QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am Being a gnat [relatively] all humans should just accept whatever is possible up the 61st seconds [t 61st second] after the supposedly Big Bang and not be bothered with what happen at time t0 and prior.
And, according to this "logic" ALL human beings SHOULD just ACCEPT that 'God' CREATED EVERY thing and not be bothered with what happened BEFORE 'God' did this.

The ABSURDITY of this SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, and is VERY CLEAR here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am This is the top-down approach to reality, i.e. we start with what is observable and verifiable NOW and work backward in time to as far as our current evidences can support with the ultimate purpose for the individuals and humanity future well being.
So, 'God' OR the "big bang", which in REALITY are words for the EXACT SAME perceived 'occurrence'. And, 'you', human beings, ONLY arrived at 'this occurrence' BECAUSE 'you' do NOT LOOK AT the WHOLE Picture. And this is BECAUSE 'your' FIELD OF VIEW is LIMITED, literally, by your very OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:52 am At present the Copenhagen's interpretation is supported by loads of practical applications which can be verified empirically. So to doubt it is irrational.
I assume you are addressing that to Scott Mayers and not me, right? For my sarcastic critique of the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" was meant to show just one of the MWI's ridiculous implications (e.g., the "tiny toot theory"), and I mentioned nothing about doubting the Copenhagen Interpretation.

However, seeing how the Copenhagen Interpretation includes the caveat that its practitioners are so baffled when it comes to the true nature of the substances they are dealing with that they simply throw their hands in the air and exclaim: "shut up and calculate",...

...then it is clear that something is amiss.
_______
Ok, I was addressing Scot's point.
By the way, there is MORE 'truth' in the "tiny toot theory" than there is the "big bang" is the START of EVERY thing 'theory'. Although BOTH are OBVIOUSLY incorrect there is MORE 'truth' in the former one here.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:53 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:14 pm Scott, do you actually believe that due to the interaction taking place between the photons of light jumping off your computer screen and that of your eyeballs,...

...that trillions of copies of you, me, the earth, and the entire universe just now sprang into existence in the few seconds it took you to read this sentence?

Really???
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm In general, yes.
Please forgive me for belaboring this issue, but I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the MWI.

Let's try to imagine what your "In general, yes" response to my question, actually implies...

First, let's imagine that the following simplistic representation of our universe...

Image

...contains approximately (for rounding-off purposes) a hundred-billion galaxies, with each galaxy containing approximately a hundred-billion sun systems, and with each of those sun systems consisting of its own unique assortment of orbiting (and richly detailed) planets.

Now, inside of just one of those hundred-billion galaxies, in the midst of its hundred-billion sun systems, is an infinitesimal speck of a planet that we call Earth, upon which sits a human named Scott Mayers who believes that trillions of full-blown copies of this galaxy-packed bubble of reality...

Image

...instantaneously spring into existence (branch-off of his universe) as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that take place from him gazing at his little computer screen for a few seconds.

However, if such an absurd situation were actually the case, then it must also be understood that each one of those trillions of instantly created copies of Scott's universe contains a copy of Scott Mayers who is also gazing at a computer screen for a few seconds, thus causing yet another instantaneous branching of new universes off of their universes. And, likewise, each of the trillions of copies of those universes contains a copy of Scott Mayers gazing at their computer screens....and so on, and so on --> ad infinitum.

Now, with the above in mind, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a span of perhaps 10 seconds of just the copies of Scott Mayers gazing at their little computer screens,...

(never mind the almost infinite number of other quantum events taking place, each and every second throughout the rest of each of the universes)

...we would have a situation in which these galaxy-packed bubbles of reality...

Image

...would be replicating so fast and so furiously that these newly created copies of the universe would appear to be the metaphorical equivalent of some kind of effervescing foam, perpetually BLASTING out of a shaken bottle of warm champagne and instantly expanding in all directions in a never-ending EXPLOSION of branching universes.

All of which presents a vision of reality that is so utterly ridiculous that I can't believe that anyone would even consider the plausibility of such nonsense.

I mean, we can't even begin to fathom how the richly detailed reality of just this one universe alone came into existence.
If you would like to KNOW WHY 'you' can NOT even begin to fathom how the richly detailed reality of just this one universe alone came into existence, then I will TELL 'you' WHY.

The reason WHY 'you' can NOT even 'begin' to fathom 'that' is BECAUSE this One Universe NEVER did 'come' into existence.

This One Universe has ALWAYS JUST be in Existence, and that is WHY 'you', human beings, have, literally, NEVER been even able to 'begin' to 'fathom' the RIDICULOUS 'notion' that some of 'you' 'try' to 'fathom'.
seeds wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:53 pm Yet here we have humans believing that the entire thing can be randomly duplicated (on an unfathomable scale) faster than you can photo-copy your résumé at Kinkos.
And, YET here we ARE with STILL SOME human beings who BELIEVE that this One Universe 'came into' existence.
seeds wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:53 pm The bottom line is that anyone who thinks that the MWI is a logical alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation, needs to pull their head out of the, perhaps, elegant math set-forth in Everett's thesis written back in the 1950s...

...and take a good hard look at its profoundly absurd implications.
While they are at that they could possibly LOOK AT at the JUST AS ABSURD notion that Everything BEGAN, as well?
seeds wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:53 pm Let me end this lengthy rant by stating that you no doubt probably know that Bryce Dewitt is the theoretical physicist who coined the term "many-worlds" and was an early and avid champion of Everett's Theory.

In an article for the magazine, Physics Today, Dewitt stated the following:
“...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”
Well, as I have stated elsewhere on this forum, I suggest that the only "shock" that should be experienced here is that of "Electroconvulsive Therapy"...

Image

...in an effort to erase this MWI nonsense from the mind of physics.
_______
And WHEN are 'you', human beings, going to ERASE the 'notion' that thee Universe, Itself, could even BEGAN, and could even BE EXPANDING?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is quantum theory so strange? The weirdness could be in our heads

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am
seeds wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:53 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:14 pm Scott, do you actually believe that due to the interaction taking place between the photons of light jumping off your computer screen and that of your eyeballs,...

...that trillions of copies of you, me, the earth, and the entire universe just now sprang into existence in the few seconds it took you to read this sentence?

Really???
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:51 pm In general, yes.
Please forgive me for belaboring this issue, but I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the MWI.

....

Let's try to imagine what your "In general, yes" response to my question, actually implies...

First, let's imagine that the following simplistic representation of our universe...
...

...contains approximately (for rounding-off purposes) a hundred-billion galaxies, with each galaxy containing approximately a hundred-billion sun systems, and with each of those sun systems consisting of its own unique assortment of orbiting (and richly detailed) planets.

Now, inside of just one of those hundred-billion galaxies, in the midst of its hundred-billion sun systems, is an infinitesimal speck of a planet that we call Earth, upon which sits a human named Scott Mayers who believes that trillions of full-blown copies of this galaxy-packed bubble of reality...


...instantaneously spring into existence (branch-off of his universe) as a result of the infinitesimal quantum events that take place from him gazing at his little computer screen for a few seconds.

However, if such an absurd situation were actually the case, then it must also be understood that each one of those trillions of instantly created copies of Scott's universe contains a copy of Scott Mayers who is also gazing at a computer screen for a few seconds, thus causing yet another instantaneous branching of new universes off of their universes. And, likewise, each of the trillions of copies of those universes contains a copy of Scott Mayers gazing at their computer screens....and so on, and so on --> ad infinitum.

Now, with the above in mind, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a span of perhaps 10 seconds of just the copies of Scott Mayers gazing at their little computer screens,...

(never mind the almost infinite number of other quantum events taking place, each and every second throughout the rest of each of the universes)
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.
'What', EXACTLY, could exist, which could separate this so-called "separate worlds", and NOT be a part of the Universe, itself?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am 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.

And the proof of this is that there EXISTS apparent options
But these 'apparent' 'options' ONLY exist because 'you', human beings, are able to so-call 'see' into, or at least 'think' of, 'future scenarios'.

Those so-called "options" do NOT ACTUALLY exist in the One and ONLY Universe. But, in saying this, OF COURSE the CHOICE to turn so-called 'left' or 'right' Truly does EXIST.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am AND that where quantum mechanics has shown of the slit experiment, that PROBABILITIES work as predictable outcomes. If we were only one exact universe with no other, then how can ANY 'probability' ever be expressible?
Because as I alluded to above 'you', human beings, can IMAGINE 'different possibilities', AND, 'you' can IMAGINE 'probabilities', as well as, 'different probabilities'. But IMAGINING 'things' does NOT mean that they do NOR will occur.

For example, 'you', human beings, CAN IMAGINE that there are "many worlds" or "many universes" or that "universes began and/or expand", but ALL of these IMAGININGS does NOT mean that ANY of them have ANY resemblance AT ALL to what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am For instance, if a fair coin is tossed, there should still only be ONE UNIQUE outcome deterministically for all such tosses everywhere. But this is not the case.
WHY is this, supposedly, 'NOT the case'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am This coin toss is not the greatest example because it CAN be true that if the toss were made EXACTLY as it was in all prior tosses, the coin should be reasonably able to always demonstrate one and only one outcome, right?
But is it even a POSSIBILITY that a coin could be tossed in the EXACT SAME WAY as PRIOR TOSSES?

If yes, then how, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am But this is why the slit experiment matters: it shows an interference pattern that nature itself demonstrates is real.
Was ANY one under ANY ILLUSION that 'Nature', Itself, is EVER NOT so-called 'interfering' in how 'things' come about?

If yes, then WHY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am Now, given you accept the Copenhagen interpretation (if you actually understand this),
Do 'you' UNDERSTAND the so-called 'copenhagen interpretation'?

If yes, then WHERE did you get YOUR INTERPRETATION of THAT INTERPRETATION from, EXACTLY?

And, is there ANYWAY AT ALL that YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION, or UNDERSTANDING, of 'copenhagen INTERPRETATION' could a Wrong or MISS INTERPRETATION AT ALL?

Or, do you think or BELIEVE that your OWN UNDERSTANDING is thee One and ONLY irrefutably True, Right, AND Correct one?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am you accept that the probabilities are themselves real but interpret that ONLY one of those probabilies occurs 100% when taken independently. What it implies is that OUR universe is the ONLY one
WHY do 'you', human beings, STILL made this ABSURD CLAIM that THE Universe is OUR Universe.

'you', human beings, say this as though 'you', human beings, ARE God, and that is was 'you' who CREATED and OWN 'this' Universe.

Oh, and by the way, 'this' Universe IS the ONLY One.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am yet requires believing that some 'God' has tossed dice and whichever outcome it noticed, it deemed this one and only one universe as having it.....and RULES OUT those other possibilities!
BUT, interpreting that ONLY one probability exists in relation to thee Universe, Itself, and that there can ONLY EVER be just THIS One and ONLY Universe NEVER, and I will repeat, NEVER "requires BELIEVING that some 'God' has done what you say here.

All one has to do is just LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS/EXISTS, from thee Truly OPEN perspective, and what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and that Truth here IS; there can ONLY EVER be just One Universe, which ALWAYS HAS TO BE infinite AND eternal, in the HERE, and, NOW.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am The distinction at issue is whether the probability is itself a reality or if it only REPRESENTS indirectly the reality of other possibilities. IF the other 'possibilities' are EXCLUDED with certainty, you imply that those other universese are certainly non-existent AND have to believe in some SPECIAL part of nature that does the tossing of dice to decide which reality will exist.
A part of Nature is that It is ALWAYS causing or CREATING THIS Universe, in the HERE, and, NOW, through an evolutionary process. Of which THIS can NOT be REFUTED.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am Can you not see that the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation undoes the meaning of the mathematical probability as being the expression of one of many possibilities but implies that there is only ONE UNIQUE probability (100% or 0% only) to which possibility is REAL?

Note that I initially discussed the issue of probability interpretation here and elsewhere before regarding the Monty Hall puzzle and its application through Bell's Theorem. [I may not have completed the extensional comparison to Bell's Theorem on this site though.]
Let us NOT FORGET that ANY of these 'interpretations' NOR 'theories', et cetera just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

ALL of those 'interpretations', et cetera just LOOK AT what are, essentially, just GUESSES and/or PREDICTIONS of what COULD BE true, INSTEAD.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am The point is that you have to ask yourself if any probability itself could be functionally useful at predicting anything if the possibilities not taken are deemed NEVER REAL somewhere?
WHY do 'you', human beings, PERSIST in WANTING to "predict" things, when it is FAR EASIER and FAR SIMPLER to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS ACTUALLY True and Right, INSTEAD?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am If all proposed possibilities that aren't literally taken afterthefact are deemed UNREAL ANYWHERE under the identical conditions, you reduce all statistical probabilities to being nonsense. The Copenhagen interpretation, like the Big Bang, is intentionally favorable to the religious person because it begs that our particular world is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY UNIQUE REALITY ANYWHERE. If this were the actual case, then there is never a need to respect any probability.
But one can so-call 'respect' ANY 'probability' like if it will 'probably' be sunny or rain, tomorrow. But just because some do NOT want to LOOK AT nor 'respect' 'probabilities' like if a bear toots, then COULD HAVE this CREATED 'this universe' that we are living and existing in now does NOT mean that there is NEVER a 'need' to 'respect' ANY 'probability', like, for example, 'respecting' those types of 'probabilities' that it will or will not rain tomorrow, or the 'probability' if will get hit by a car if i walk across this road without LOOKING and LISTENING?

To me, SOME 'probabilities' are worthy of so-called 'respecting'. But just because some, like me, do NOT like to so-call 'respect' ALL 'probabilities', like for example again, this Universe was created from a 'bear tooting' does NOT mean that I instantly dismiss or not 'respect' ANY other 'probability'.

Also that this particular so-called 'world' is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY UNIQUE REALITY ANYWHERE is True because there is, in fact, ONLY One Universe, and therefore ONLY One UNIQUE REALITY EVERYWHERE, and absolutely NOTHING about 'considering' or 'respecting' 'probabilities' or not.

Thee Truth that 'this world' is UNIQUE, literally, STANDS ON ITS OWN, and NOT because 'other probabilities' have NOT been considered.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am For instance, if you WIN the lottery, you'd have to interpret Nature (or some Specific Unique Reality such as some 'God') as assuring you would win regardless but that you perhaps were not yet aware of it until after the draw. The dice-toss of which reality would occur under this delusion would lie permanently indeterminate and so would not demonstrate patterns of probability.
I think 'you' are just 'trying to' CONVINCE "yourself" here of some 'thing' or other.

1. Is ANY AWARE of the winning lottery numbers BEFORE they are drawn? If yes, then who?

2. Just because one wins the lottery, does NOT mean that they would HAVE TO 'interpret' ANY thing.

3. Nature does what It does, and will continue to do what It does, NO MATTER what 'you' or ANY one 'interprets', including 'interpreting' what Nature is doing.

4. I am NOT SURE what 'the point' is that you are 'trying to' make here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am This is also related to the 'Free will" versus "Determinism" argument.
If you are CURIOS as to WHY there is a 'free will' VERSUS 'deterniminsm' argument, and as to WHY 'that' 'argument' is STILL EXISTING, then this is BECAUSE there is NO ACTUAL 'versus' involved there. This is because they BOTH EXIST.

It is NOT a case of 'one' OR 'the other'. Just like what MOST of 'you', human being, CREATED arguments/never-ending discussions are about. And, it is because 'you' are continually 'fighting/arguing' OVER there being 'one' OR 'the other' WHY 'you' NEVER come to FINALLY SEE, and UNDERSTAND, what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth IS, INSTEAD.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am The Multi-World possibilities are the only rational explanation and helps close the totality of Universes that exist as 'determinate' but relatively 'indeterminate' PER world perspective. If this is only ONE literal World, we'd be Determined by God/Nature uniquely and so lack free will other than to what some God might opt to reflect upon your prayers.
This is NOT true as Nature could have (and HAS by the way) provided 'free will', through an evolutionary process. In other words, human beings have be CREATED with 'free will', through EVOLUTION.

Just like BOTH 'creation' AND 'evolution' EXIST so to does 'free will' AND 'determinism' ALSO EXIST.

This means that what WAS 'going to happen', IS going to happen', and WILL 'happen', and this is BECAUSE the 'free will' that human beings have been endowed with will ALLOW them to CHOOSE 'what to do', of, literally, their OWN 'free will', which WILL create what Nature has ALWAYS had 'in store', as some might say.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am That is, you might appeal to God to make the odds favor you rather than tossing dice where he might do so 'fairly' otherwise.
NO God, obviously, is going to favor ANY one particular thing, other than Its OWN 'Self', which by the way just means or refers to ALL 'things' together as One.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am For one NOT believing in any Superior Being that might be treating us as some game of Solitaire, the only rational interpretation of reality as a whole (Totality) is that it is UNBIASED to favoring any SPECIAL world's existence.
This is true. We just have to REMEMBER that this One and ONLY 'world' in Existence, and which COULD BE in Existence, is NOT "special' because it is 'favored'. This 'world' is just 'special' because it is the ONLY One, which, in essence, MEANS that It IS UNIQUELY SPECIAL.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am Note that Totality CAN have nonsense worlds too...
NO TOTALITY CAN NOT, as to do so would, literally, be NONSENSICAL to.

And, what is NONSENSICAL, obviously, does NOT fit in with what IS and MAKES PERFECT SENSE, and ONLY what MAKES PERFECT SENSE, COULD EXIST.

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am ones that interpret each and every point as continuously infinite, as you were advancing. But OF all possible worlds, only those that have a distinct consistent set of patterns that fit with finite probabilities would 'materialize'. So, for instance, there should be a 'world' where I turned 'up' given only the choices 'left' or 'right'. But our particular experiences do not permit this possibility locally. As such, while they exist, they differ from the set of worlds that DO have consistent only patterns. The ones of which probabilities FIT to our world must mean that those worlds exist.
What, EXACTLY, makes you ASSUME that "the ones of which probabilities FIT to so-called "our" 'world' MUST MEAN that those 'worlds' exist?

Are you 'trying to' suggest here that just because there is a probability that 'you' could win the lottery is 'this world', then there MUST be some 'world', somewhere, where you have won the lottery?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am Another example: A story is finitely written. But we can add still alter such prior stories to become another novel one. That is, imagine keeping the whole story the same of some book but you only ADD new chapters to the next editions. The old story still exists but is CLOSED. Thus, the relative Universe of the original story has ENDED. But because we can alter this old one, the new one represents a continuation of the old story as a novel possibility realized.
But talking about 'stories', which 'you', human beings, make up and create, is a bit different to talking about 'the Universe, Itself.

Just because 'you', a part of 'the Universe', can do some thing does NOT mean that 'the Universe', Itself, can or does do the exact same thing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am Reality does this too if the Multi-world interpretation is real.
But COULD it be?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

Just EXPLAIN what the 'thing' IS that COULD or DOES separate these "separate worlds", then we can LOOK AT 'that', and then DISCUSS. Until then there is NOTHING for me to LOOK AT, and thus CONSIDER here.

Provide some ACTUAL 'things' to CONSIDER, then we CAN. Until there there appears to be NOTHING to consider so far.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am For instance, IF there exists a quantum set of distinct possibilities that enables Shrodinger's cat to be alive or dead distinctly, the 'story' of discovering a cat as dead from the perspective of the cat is nonexistent EXCEPT where that 'story' has possible outcomes. From the cat's perspective, if it died by probability in one world, the worlds where it did not die becomes the reality with respect to the cat's perspective as an addition to some story we write that becomes the more complete 'story'.
Talk about making COMPLEX what is Truly SIMPLE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am Does this help?
In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:46 am If not, would you want to digress into something like the Monty Hall problem as a model of the issues regarding statistical interpretations?
Now we have a TYPICAL response that these human beings would use, in the days when this is being written, that is; Let us ADD ANOTHER 'problem' INTO the 'problems' that we can NOT work out, so far.
Post Reply