Really interesting series of lectures, will there be a paper book version? Also, the illustration 51:17 what system is supporting the separate worlds? i.e. both systems would likewise be the result of two more, before you ever arrived at the shown illustration you would need to go through an infinite regress of systems. Seems to me all the ontology of quantum systems resides only in the part of the components that reside in extra-dimensions, the part that resides in our 3D is a result of the activity in extra D, therefore does not participate in its own manifestation. Once manifest these interact classically.
I don't have the patience to follow this since it's hard. But it seems Leibniz said we live in the best of possible worlds and then others say that's clearly nonsense if we look around. But what if any collaps of the wave function is influenced by the future? I mean "why this collapse and not any other ?" It's not a matter of the lowest energy I guess so it could be that we are always heading for the best future, which would be unification with God and so even the worst of times were needed to get there?? Other presents could have lead to an even worse outcome. But had Leibniz this in mind, I don't know.
It's possible to imagine a unique connected state of infinity, because it's what we see, a possible infinity that is eternity shaped into a unique "time" era by continuous incremental change. Any object is reducible to an infinite number of points, in every unique position and arrangement for comparison with the rest of the collective points, which is another version of the inclusion/exclusion principle. So to apply this to the universe, then the least measurable quantum state can be compared to the rest of the universe according to whatever rules are self chosen for an observation, ie, observations are connected via a unique point and state, but in completeness, sum up to a unique shape of one infinite probability, at every infinitesimal instant/point. Logically, there is no point in saying what the universe isn't.
great stuff, I've waited a longggggggg time for access to this sort of lecture and this sort of progress in many worlds supporting argument
Really interesting series of lectures, will there be a paper book version? Also, the illustration 51:17 what system is supporting the separate worlds? i.e. both systems would likewise be the result of two more, before you ever arrived at the shown illustration you would need to go through an infinite regress of systems. Seems to me all the ontology of quantum systems resides only in the part of the components that reside in extra-dimensions, the part that resides in our 3D is a result of the activity in extra D, therefore does not participate in its own manifestation. Once manifest these interact classically.
I don't have the patience to follow this since it's hard. But it seems Leibniz said we live in the best of possible worlds and then others say that's clearly nonsense if we look around. But what if any collaps of the wave function is influenced by the future? I mean "why this collapse and not any other ?" It's not a matter of the lowest energy I guess so it could be that we are always heading for the best future, which would be unification with God and so even the worst of times were needed to get there?? Other presents could have lead to an even worse outcome. But had Leibniz this in mind, I don't know.
It's possible to imagine a unique connected state of infinity, because it's what we see, a possible infinity that is eternity shaped into a unique "time" era by continuous incremental change. Any object is reducible to an infinite number of points, in every unique position and arrangement for comparison with the rest of the collective points, which is another version of the inclusion/exclusion principle.
So to apply this to the universe, then the least measurable quantum state can be compared to the rest of the universe according to whatever rules are self chosen for an observation, ie, observations are connected via a unique point and state, but in completeness, sum up to a unique shape of one infinite probability, at every infinitesimal instant/point.
Logically, there is no point in saying what the universe isn't.
You're actually just imagining a representative idea of a unique connected state of infinity. It's quite impossible.
I see exactly one universe. Can somebody point me to the infinity of others that are supposed to be out there?
What about the brain injured individual unable to recognize a cat?
Lewis Joseph Wilson Jessica Wilson Laura
Many worlds is a realistic interpretation? An ever increasing infinity of completely undetectable universes is realistic?
The "many nows" model. facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1371966232830449&set=a.461143893912692.124791.100000512553904&type=3&theater