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???
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.
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.