David Wallace - Many Worlds of Quantum Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2024
- Quantum theory is very strange. No act is wholly sure. Everything works by probabilities, described by a wave function. But what is a wavefunction? One theory is that every possibility is in fact a real world of sorts. This is the Many Worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett and what it claims boggles the brain. You can't imagine how many worlds there would be.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the multiverse: bit.ly/33dKkQ4
David Wallace is a philosopher of physics at the Philosophy School of the University of Southern California, after twenty-two years at the University of Oxford as a student, researcher and faculty.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Wallace is my all time favorite!!!
I have had SO many aha moments listening to David Wallace explaining a concept!!! I can read books hear lectures and pass tests but I swear a lot of my true understanding has come from a handful of brilliant scientists on UA-cam...lol
He really is excellent, isn’t he? Lucid, articulate, erudite and humble. Fantastic mind.
The physics milestone is when it really explains what made collection of atoms to study themselves.
When physics explain the evolution of life and consciousness? The search for meaning? That's when physics and philosophy would be one and all encompassing. The holy grail, like uniting the standard model and quantum physics
Emergence
@@NiaaalQuantum Field Theory is the theoretical framework physicist use to build the Standard Model, they don't need to be united.
I believe what you wanted to say was something along the line of "uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity"?
Literally just finished watching DEVS and this is kind of surreal to see being uploaded just now
Devs used many worlds so incorrectly it was laughable. In fact how it used it destroyed the entire premise of the story and made it 1 giant plothole. Great potential ruined by absolutely terrible writing.
Great explanation
Me watching in another parallel world is gonna smoke weed after this
Be sure to pass it through the portal so others in parallel worlds can indulge.
I don't do drugs.
Well in this universe at least.
Zombie Mad vlogs be sure to use universe splitter to decide whether you will smoke one.
@@neole894 boom Jai Shiv Shankar
This is very good!
Continuation of quantum wave function and superposition of energy amplitudes and frequencies needed for measurements in future?
Got to love this science, makes me feel smaller than a grain of sand.
Me too.
But you have more branches than you know.
@@ivocanevo but those branches are being experienced by copies of me and not me so they dont count.
So do these other universes all conform to the same laws of physics as our one?
Is the speed of light the same? Gravity? Cosmological constant?
Moebius all laws of physics could be completely different , according to the theory .
@@eddiebrown192 But there are other types of universe possible - beyond the scope of MWI.
Loved the interview! Many worlds is.a beautiful theory that eliminates all of the problems manifested by The Copenhagen interpretation.. No more backwards causation, to name just one..Thanks Robert..
We also thank you haha no one wants this trick, even the evil unbelievers.
@@hyperduality2838 WOW..I hardly know where to start friend.. but it'll try.. You use YODA in a misplaced appeal to authority?? Your rendition of these ideas seem filled with category errors, logic voids, assumptive knowledge.. and yes, irrational associations.. "A strict definition of Hawking means that physicists cannot use the Schrodinger cat metaphor?? What the heck does that mean? Do you even know what Hawking is famous for? Please explain your assertion.. It's NOT an insult for me to suggest that you are ignorant as to the meaning of the many-worlds theory as well...Or MAYBE you misstated yourself with an irrational Association AND a category error..Can you defend any of these? It's apparent that you are a science denier, but your use of philosophy and its luminaries is wrong too. Hegel was about logic friend.. The thesis/antithesis/ synthesis postulate was ERRONEOUSLY attributed to him and has been perpetuated by the uninformed..You SHOULD know that.he REJECTED it in his book and writings, pointing out that the postulate failed by ASSUMING a thesis REQUIRED an anti-thesis with NO proper support...So it looks as tho YOU clumsily throw around and egregiously misuse scientific and philosophical terms.. After mixing them with a little double talk, and misdirection the conclusions you advocate in support of your own beliefs are critically flawed.. Prove me wrong friend, and as always no undue offense intended..
@@mustafaelbahi7979 When you think of groups of people as evil, you brand yourself as a Marxist with no empathy for others..
@@Bill..N Do not sympathize with evil thoughts
@@mustafaelbahi7979 I NEVER entertain evil friend..I am just a humble seeker of truth, who thinks its wise to follow wherever the EVIDENCE leads..Hopefully like you, I love and support my family, and wish ALL people a long, peaceful fulfilling life..
We need to humble ourselves to the concept that the foundational elements of physics are beyond our human brain and physical capacity to figure out. We can do our best trying though, and godspeed to all scientists. But defending theories with confidence can be misleading at best
You know God, if all scientist learn to speak same symbolic languages, then they can became like gods. He will mix their units of measurements somehow, so they will disagree and not be able to endanger gods.
YOU friend are committing a SERIOUS faux pas.. While defending your personally subjective and biased ideas WITH CONFIDENCE you infer that non-subjective and unbiased mathmatiical theories CANNOT be confidently advanced.. Really?? Its likely you are either a science denier or at the very least are scientifically and philosophically illiterate.. Which is it?
@@xspotbox4400 Thats pretty funny..
JOHN M.V That link and the explanation by that scientist leaves me speechless to say the least. I am sure that channel has lots of subscribers awaiting the next video promised by that guru. Thanks
@@johnm.v709 I left a comment on your video friend.. I enjoyed the video, but added a clarification..Peace.
Solving a mystery with a miracle.
Reality is a miracle.
This miracle much closer to understanding reality and time, because can give the answer why reality is specific, and why time is one-way directed. (because there is other realities)
"Nothing else happens" is a miracle?
There are very bizarre social implications that physicists never talk about, if anything possible to happen actually does happen in a parallel world.
Physicists never talk about everything possible happening. We have never seen that. The only people who are talking like that are simply failed physicists or not even that.
Brilliant man. A real scientist.
Why you can think in physics theories , say String theory, and in case they are not correct , how it is posible that could it be possible?
Doublethink?
The Many Worlds Theory presupposes that for every moment that a particle in the quantum field splits into two super positions it takes along with it every single other particle of its universe to create another universe, and this is true, if the theory is correct, for every particle in not only this observable universe but of every particle in every universe at every moment of possible splitting in the space-time continuum of each possible universe.
What would make you feel better?
So would the world's still be branching if there were no humans? Would the branching happen in a static Universe?
Yes of course. What we think of as "Branching" is really just an illusion from our perspective, but the mechanics of what makes that illusion is happening every single possible moment. Because at the scale of the actual universe (The Universal wave function how reality ACTUALLY is) every single particle is in superposition and is in all possible states it can be in and it MUST progress according to the Schrodinger equation no matter what, with even more possible states in the future. What we think of as the universe is just one branch where every particle in what we think is the "universe" just happens to be located in those specific places and path histories that made our reality emerge. Branches where no human life exists, or no life at all exists would just be other possible states of the universal wave function, and every single possible outcome from THOSE states would emerge as well. So what we think of as "branching" isn't something that depends on us or anything alive at all. But again really our branch is just 1 specific state of the universal wave function, the entirety of reality is ALL the possible states. MWI just claims that everything behaves the same way it does at the subatomic level and that superposition NEVER disappears which leads to more possible states over time. Superposition is the NORM not the exception to the universe.
Unfortunately Many "worlds" is misunderstood, because it really has nothing to do with "worlds" as we think it. That's what gets people confused because they think about our universe being duplicated or split. The way people think about "worlds" as being universes being physically "duplicated" is complete fantasy and NOT what many worlds actually suggests despite some people explaining it that way. If Many Worlds is correct there's 1 universe in every possible superposition state it can be in with more superposition states emerging over time. Not something physically duplicated but possible states increasing.
Yes - the strength of MWI that is requires no observers. There no static Universe.
There really is only one relevant question regarding "many worlds": Can it be tested? If not, then it can only remain speculation.
Why doesn’t our individual lives - some 9 billion people - proof enough of the many worlds ? Our existence is real and physical but differs from everyone else’s. The sun , the moon and many such physical objects interact with each of us differently as well as the same way concurrently which is a superposition and yet happening with out any questions. So, why is many world, still thought of as untestable? 9 billion parallel lives and 9 billion multi verses. Ignoring this proof and imagining this to be a single universe, in my view, is the absurdity of philosophers and physicists alike. Once humanity develops tools and methods to interact with one another and all the rest concurrently we would have elevated humanity to its next levels of civilization. This advancement has already begun and will gradually be recognized and accepted as normal before hopefully not too long.
See Max Tegmark on the Quatum Suicide experiment. You can prove MWI to yourself, but never demonstrate it to any else and you leave about 100 universes with your head blown off from a shotgun triggered by a random quantum decay. I will pass.
Many worlds is just quantum mechanics. So the question is, "Can quantum mechanics be tested?" And the answer is, "Yes. Quantum mechanics has been tested and is the most successful physical theory we have."
People only think that quantum mechanics is something other than many worlds because they have added other stuff to it. Most notably, they have added the collapse of the wavefunction. Schrödinger's equation describes the wavefunction of a system continuing to evolve through time. It doesn't say anything about the wavefunction collapsing. The idea that the wavefunction collapses is something that people have added. The real question is, what is the justification for adding this stuff about the wavefunction collapsing? If there is no justification for adding it, then Occam's razor would tell us not to add it.
@@larrybeckham6652 No, that's just quantum mysticism. The idea that quantum mechanics makes you immortal is as absurd as quantum healing nonsense. It doesn't even make sense in the MWI framework, as their specific reason that they claim we find ourselves on one branch rather than another is because our own bodies, and thus our consciousness, is also broken up between branches, and so we always find ourselves on one of those specific branches, incapable of interacting with the others.
Yet, despite this, Hugh Everett and Max Tegmark contradict themselves and turn around and say that it is not true we are actually isolated from other branches, but that somehow our minds can jump between branches, and upon the moment of our death it will hop to a branch where we will survive. It's incoherent. If there really is a multiverse which we can't access other parts of it because we are also split apart into multiple copies, finding ourselves trapped on a specific branch, then it is self-contradictory to suddenly say consciousness can interact between the branches.
It would logically follow that when we die, we would die with our branch, since we are trapped in it, while our other selves would live on.
@@omp199 God creating the universe is just the Big Bang. So the question is, "Can the existence of God be tested?" And the answer is, "Yes. The Big Bang has been tested and is the most successful astrophysical theory we have."
Of course, I do not believe that, I am mocking you. You laughably claim Many Worlds "is just quantum mechanics" then immediately go onto deny one of the fundamental axioms of quantum theory, that being the Born rule. You cannot make accurate predictions without the Born rule. It is "added" because it is a necessary axiom of the theory to make it compatible with objective reality.
Denying the Born rule is denying quantum mechanics. It is just as absurd as denying the Schrodinger equation. If a particle hits a beam splitter, it will either be reflected or pass through the beam splitter. If two measuring devices are placed at the end of these paths, it is an objective fact in the real world that we will observe the particle only show up on a single measuring device with probabilities equivalent to that of the Born rule.
Just deleting the Born rule because you do not find it mathematically beautiful enough for you does not even make any sense. We do not observe a wave that is somehow a linear combination of a photon reaching both detectors. We observe a photon only on a _single detector._ What is the justification for the Born rule? The justification is that it is literally necessary to make correct predictions as to what we _actually observe in the real world._
If superposition principle says a particle can be both at A and B at the same time, should not then it be a two-world interpretation theory?
It's not the same thing. Being in two different positions actually means being non-localized, spread out in a distribution of probabilities.
Many-world interpretation (MWI) is a proposed solution to the wavefunction collapse - when you "look" at a particle it is either on point A or point B but not both. According to MWI, if you get point A, there is another universe where a copy of you got point B.
@@ferdinandkraft857 Can my copy of me stop at point C, where a bar is usually located and take a drink, before it continue over path to point B?
@@ferdinandkraft857 You mean there are many probabilities in being at A and many in being at B?
@@irfanmehmud63 what he means is that, in this interpretation, when it collapses, there is generated a universe in which it is at point A, and another universe where its at point B. But it doesn't have to be limited to 2 possibilities. Its just easier to talk about when using an example of only 2 possibilities.
if you are observing it from universe #1, then to you see it resolves to being at A. But if a copy of you is observing it from the other universe that was generated when it was observed - universe #2 - then for him it resolves to be at B.
If instead of just A and B it could possibly go to A, B, C, D, E, F, G (7 possibilities). Then instead of 2 universes where each possibility plays out, 7 universes spring into existence where each possibility plays out, once in each universe. Thus, more than 2 worlds, in this case - 7. Also, this is happening anytime a relevant particle has a 'choice'. This isn't only happening to one particle in the universe. There are a lot of particles in the universe going through this process at any given time, each creating new universes for each possibility to play out. Thus more than 2 worlds, more than 7 worlds, more than a million worlds, more than a million million worlds, etc... Many worlds. "Many" is in fact, underselling it. Only if this interpretation is true though of course.
This is one alternative way to interpret what we observe. If it were true, it would explain why we observe what we do. So its a possible explanation for what we know. But there are other interpretations that disagree, and also explain the weirdness of what we observe, but in a different way that don't require multiple universes. And there may yet be yet other even weirder interpretations no one has thought of yet. What we observe in the lab is what we know. How we interpret what we see is where we get into trouble and debate.
@@SmegInThePants Ok got it...a particle could be anywhere A, B,C, D......
Thanks very much for your detailed comment!
Could it be that everything is already entangled, it is simply that we can hook up a logical connection to it's entanglement once we know about it. Are we glimpsing one aspect of another dimension? If time spreads out into possible futures then it also spreads out into possible pasts. And our own current position in time is like the 2d creature in flatland, we are limited from perceiving the plurality of it simply by the nature of us actually BEING it. Could it be the paradoxes of time travel as solved simply by the raw quantity of infinity? If you go back in time there is every perceivable version of you going back from and too every conceivable point of time, you are simply existing in a new stream of time that you are now entangled with. Or maybe I'm tripping idk anymore time to go back to homework.
Could be another world every moment / planck unit of time?
How can something be infinite ? Do we hit a wall at the edge of universe if we travelled very fast ? Where is the end . Why don't we see infinities in common world mechanisms ?
Seeking increasingly finer detail about the questionable multiverse hypothesis is like questioning the God hypothesis by asking how tall is God or what is Gods' gender or is God left or right-handed or How many Gods are there, instead ask if there might be alternative hypotheses that are as or more plausible that would address the observations.
I keep thinking of Horton Hears a Who.
Lets say the probability of outcome A is 1/3 and B 2/3. How does MWI explain this?
By for instance saying that B has two of the same versions of that universe. You run in the trouble if you use irrational numbers. The question is are the universes countable or uncountable? The Schrödinger equation suggests the latter. But if it is uncountable then you get an infinity paradox. Infinity divided by infinity is undefined.
You mean something like p(A)=1/√3, p(B)=1-1/√3?
But even in case the universes are countable, what does it mean "two of the same versions"?
How are this two worlds distinguishable from each other if they are identical? Aren't the universes distinguishable by means of their different outcomes only? If not, why 3 universes (1xA, 2xB)? Why not 6? Or 90000? Or an infinite number with a ratio of 1 to 2?
@@eyebee-sea4444, yes that what I mean (the 1 divided by square root of 3 for instance).
One physicist (I thought Max Tegmark or maybe Sean Carroll) had the idea of a universe as a single experiment. The probabilities appear when you repeat the experiments over and over again. If B is two times A then the result B happens two times more often than A in the repeating experiment (world).
That means that somehow there are multiple copies of the same universe "out there". Version B has two times more versions than A, if B is 2/3 and A is 1/3. But how many versions of A and B are there? That's the million dollar question. Normally it depends on the number of experiments you run. The number is not infinite, because probability has no meaning in such a case. If there is one version of A and two of B then the probability of observing B is 2 divided by 3. But if A and B are both infinite then A divided by A+B is undefined. You need a cutoff at some point and say the number of copies or experiments is very large, but still finite.
I know for instance that in quantum field theory they use high (or low) energy cutoffs to remove infinities. Maybe in the many world interpretation such a cutoff is needed too to make sense of probalities. You can't have infinitely many copies of the same universe.
@@patatje6974 Wasn't MWI supposed to be the most straightforward approach to understanding quantum mechanics?
The technique you mentioned is called "normalization". I read it is more like a trick that is used, because it works somehow.
eye bee-sea, MWI is very straightforward. We only don’t know what probability means in an infinite universe.
There is an article which touches upon this subject:
www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/infinity-is-a-beautiful-concept-and-its-ruining-physics
Quote: “When we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts there will be infinitely many copies of you, far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome; and despite years of teeth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities.”
MWI has the very same problem: infinity divided by infinity. The author of that article sees a solution in abandoning the principle of infinity in physics.
Other life and other universes is likely. Cool beaches around the universe is certain.
The question I was waiting for was does the MW interpretation predict anything different then say the Copenhagen interpretation.
It predicts the existence of new tenured professorships in the Physics Department.
No it doesn't, all interpretations predict the same outcome I believe.
Cosmik Relic what about the fantastic power of quantum computing?
@@bobjazz2000 Sorry, I don't see the connection.
Cosmik Relic David Deutsch seems to though.
Schrodinger was taking the p*ss with his cat story.
i can not get this thought out of my mind. if you have 3 dimensions well you need 2 and 1 first and whatever your theory is we have to believe that the first dimention is everywhere and mybae that explains how quantum entanglement can be so fast and the speed of light ( i know entanglement is faster then the speed of light) and why light goes through things etc. maybe it is the 1st dimention and the bases for everything.
How can a universe which had nothing create things by using Quantum Physics??
The symmetry group of empty space is the Poincare group. There are an infinite number of Poincare group representations. If you pick three U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) and make a product of them then they reproduce all the physics below 1TeV. If you make a Riemannian manifold with local Poincare symmetry, then you get (mostly) general relativity. It's pretty trivial.
The number is stupid. We are in all possibilities and probabilities. The past is a dream and the future is another probability and possibility. Many worlds interpretation is very fascinating.
Could the many quantum worlds be infinite slices of time from past to present to future?
No, because the point is that different worlds exist at the same time.
A number of comments:
If we put some polonium-210 next to some nitrogen tri-iodide, then there will be a bang after a random interval of time. I would like to be able to do a computer simulation of this sort of behaviour, presumably making use of a random number generator in order to get a random outcome. The MWI does not provide any guidance on what to do.
MWI instead predicts that the Universe will split in half, which does not correspond to experience. I experience a bang after a random interval of time, not a splitting or a rumble.
Efforts to locate the world where I win the National Lottery every week have so far proved to be fruitless. Could it be because that world does not actually exist? I have seen the MWI described as merely a reification of probability theory.
The MWI does not distinguish between quantum mechanics and classical Brownian motion, both of which have an uncertainty principle. I suggest it's classical Brownian motion in the microworld, and wavelike behaviour in the macroworld. The MWI is unable to say if I have things the wrong way round (I do).
What do things look like in reverse? Do worlds ever recombine? Just for fun I will suggest that worlds can be spot-welded back together when the tri-iodide goes off.
Nevertheless there might still be an Everett effect. I would like to repeat an experiment on Bell's inequalities with one of the detectors made of antimatter. This puts plenty of pressure on the experimenter to miniaturise the detectors. I would suggest that detectors lighter than the Planck mass will fail to work due to an Everett effect and the failure of the wave function to actually collapse. One Planck mass accident is an explosion equivalent to just less than a ton of TNT.
Most people think they understand physics, but they really doesn't and it's not our fault. When we talk about physics in mechanics, things can obviously be observed and motion of a machine tracked to a finest detail, because it's all a 3D object. But if we talk physics from perspective of everything we know is real, than all events occur in 4 dimensions. People are good in recognizing volumetric perspective illusion, but not so much when we include space time in those drawings. Computers are doing something even worst, they draw a 3D sphere on a flat screen, than sphere is moving around flat space, like it supposed to simulate motion in space time. But this is not how things are, nothing moves over a flat plane but radiate sphere of potential in surrounding space that is also moving itself. How could we draw that?
It's a flaw in global educational system, people are fed with fake illusions of reality, most don't encounter relativistic problems in their every day life, so they understand science, but only up to 3 dimensions we can clearly observe. Because mental image is false, people can't develop their intellectual skills and take scientific knowledge serious enough, so science doesn't advance as much as it could.
There are things we could do, machines we could build and test some of the weirdest hypothesis about multiverse, but people can't brake trough when stuck with fake 3 and a half dimensional mental picture in their minds.
In the past you have to believe that man turned into a monkey, and now you have to believe in the multiverse. No one desires my friendship; Otherwise, you will lose your job, so it is better to lose your job than to lose your other life
Q.M is the ink blot test for philosophers. Ink blots are just blobs of ink and Q.M is a set of equations. You want to see butterflies and many worlds, knock yourself out. Or flowers or nymphs or whatever you choose to perceive, that's your choose, it's not wrong or right, it's useless.
It's all on the math. Scary, scary math.
It's bewildering to me that a physicist and philosopher such as David would outright dismiss any non-phydicalist account of consciousness yet accept something as inflationary and preposterous as many-worlds.
many-worlds = no collapse
Why introduce collapse in the theory when it is already perfectly consistent with observation without it? The only reason seems to be that people don't like the consequences.
Both "non-physicalism" and many-worlds are anti-intellectual mystical mumbo jumbo.
@@firstaidsack There are dozens of interpretations without collapse. Equating MWI simply to being no collapse is intellectually dishonest. MWI is not even consistent with observation as it does not even describe anything we actually observe. If a photon hits a beam splitter, we actually observe it taking one path or the other. MWI describes a universe where it takes both paths. It is literally not consistent with observation, it in fact has no relation at all to what we observe. This was a criticism made both by Tim Maudlin and Carlo Rovelli, MWI seems to describe a universe without observables, without _facts,_ and so it is unclear how a factless world without observables can be used to explain our observational world of facts: _"The gigantic, universal ψ wave that contains all the possible worlds is like Hegel’s dark night in which all cows are black: it does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe."_
@@amihart9269
How would a universe look like where it takes both paths? Don't forget that upon observation the observer also splits.
Not sure what they mean by "factless". Decoherence would reduce the quantum state to a superposition of all possible observables and entanglement would create a superposition of observers corresponding to the observables.
Everything in universe experiences another world every planck unit of time?
No. it doesn't.
Why does nobody question the fact that it’s only ever humans that are discussed to live many worlds? Why not dogs, birds, trees, microbes, that affect the many worlds too? seems so egocentric to believe only humans are the differential of the many worlds. Multiverse and dimensions exist simultaneously just as the atoms and cells in our bodies, not created or destroyed, but always changing. All in all is all we are.
3D time is what many worlds is trying to explain .
I think it is very telling that Wallace almost as an aside is completely dismissive of any observer centric interpretation basically saying the MWI is the only serious possibility. The impetus is clearly to get the camel nose of “God” out of the tent at all costs. The fundamentalists materialist camp, who with a religious like zeal dispute the very idea of a “hard problem of consciousness” -refuse outright to acknowledge the explanatory gap of mapping “experience” onto matter.
It is the same exact phenomena in the Physics and Cosmology communities where the “observer paradoxes” and “the fine tuning question” are explained away with outlandish speculations of infinite parallel worlds and infinite multiverses. The primacy of local realism and matter must be kept!
If all this means that we are not really conscious, that we exist because quadrillions of multiverses happen to produce one just like this one, and that every quantum event splits into a new world, then so be it-the holy grail of classical matter has been preserved!
Why does he not understand basics physics? Because he wasn't paying attention in school. ;-)
Many worlds has to be the most silly view of reality I have heard.
So if you have a copy machine that does one copy per split. And a copy of each page is sent to separate copiers that starts it's own history of splits. Forever ??
Reality sure is getting crowded if that's the case.
A pointless mental exercise since we can't know if it's correct or not. And were would the energy for the other timelines come
from ?
2 Corinthians 12:2. Luke 23:43
@@jamessmith989
Oh no ! You didn't just do that ! Sweet Jesus , you did ! That's 5 points off you're license.
@@thomasridley8675 Lol...those UFOs are coming from somewhere?
@@thomasridley8675 Maybe it's planet x entering our solar system. Have you noticed the increase in earth quakes and volcanic eruptions?
@@jamessmith989
If they have been around for so long. They seem to not be doing much but helping too make videos for the news outlets. Unless they plan on taking over the planet. Which i would say ' good luck'.
Can you imagine what their fuel prices must be like. I wonder what mileage they get per light year, on average.
Ships over 5000 yrs old are no longer covered under the factory warranty. And the nearest shop is a galaxy away. They must be Italian imports.
the take away for the "many worlds" theory (I think)... is that the world as we know it, of finite things like desks, lamps, chairs, people, doesn't truly exist. Everything is a wave function of probability. When the environment interacts with itself, ie. photons hit a piece of sand flying through space or me mowing the lawn, it serves as a "measurement" that breaks the superposition, branches the universe, and establishes the classical view that we all have of physical objects with a known position and velocity.
No, that's not how it works. All you have to do is to take the lamp off the desk and drop it on your big toe and you will experience the real world in full effect.
That sort-of occurred to me too 😊 (Dot)
@@lepidoptera9337 Nope - just correlation.
Yes, and this is precisely the problem. The Many Worlds Interpretation is not a physical interpretation but a dualist one, dualist in the Kantian sense. For Kant, the world is made up of unobservable things-in-themselves, called the noumena, and these things are reflected into the mind where they become phenomena. For Kant, these are totally distinct realms with no clear bridge between them as nothing that can ever be observed could explain how what we don't observe gives rise to what we observe, because all things we observe are by definition part of observation and not outside of it. We can never observe the noumena by definition, and so no observation could explain how the noumena gives rise to the phenomena, as we're always, in a sense, trapped inside the phenomena. This leads to the mind-body problem, or Chalmer's reformulation of it as the hard problem of consciousness.
While many materialist and realist schools of philosophy have solved this problem and closed this gap (dialectical materialism, contextual realism, empiriomonism, etc), MWI is trying to pry it back. It is trying to get rid of the connection between the physical theory and what is observed, whereby the physical theory is not a theory of what we observe but a theory of something else entirely which we cannot observe. The universe is made up of things that are unobservable, there are no _beables,_ no desks, lamps, chairs, no measuring devices, no measurement results. Nothing. It is a world devoid of facts, yet it somehow supposed to explain the world of facts.
_"The gigantic, universal ψ wave that contains all the possible worlds is like Hegel’s dark night in which all cows are black: it does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe...It is not enough to know the ψ wave and Schrödinger’s equation in order to define and use quantum theory: we need to specify an algebra of observables, otherwise we cannot calculate anything and there is no relation with the phenomena of our experience. The role of this algebra of observables, which is extremely clear in other interpretations, is not at all clear in the Many Worlds interpretation."_ (Rovelli)
This is also a criticism of it pointed out by Tim Maudlin, that MWI has no basis in beables (physical entities that are directly tied to certain observations), and so there is no obvious connection between the theory and the real world we actually experience. By rejecting the use of beables, MWI breaks the connection between the physical sciences and observational experience, and thus reintroduces the mind-body problem as the interpretation cannot explain why we observe desks, lamps, and chairs if such things do not have real existence at all, not even as approximations.
Many worlds theory is exactly the same idea the Neville Goddard talked about that all possible outcomes exist in the One Mind.
I want to believe in many worlds but it smacks of religion. ie, there's another physical tangible version of me out there which you can never see, but you have to believe there is. What's the diff between that and god?
Why would you want to believe in unscientific nonsense like that?
The difference is that one comes out of the theory of quantum mechanics, which is literally the most successful theory we have, that has been rigorously tested in many, many ways, and that has passed all the tests, whereas the other is just an ancient story that has not been - and cannot be - rigorously tested at all.
how many worlds? tree(3)
People are so enamored with the "incredible" this and "remarkable" that of QM, that they may be losing sight of the fact that it needs refinement or is even, blasphemy, incorrect after a certain point.
After what point?
Not blasphemy at all. Lots of scientists are looking for ways that QM might fail after a certain point. Experiments on that are done and published all the time.
@@bryanreed742 Well, has anyone found any evidence of it failing?
@@omp199 nothing much, as far as I know.
So everytime you toss a coin will split you in to two, one seeing head and one tails...okay i get it
Call it by its name - a googolplex ;)
Never in a million years, would I expect THAT VOICE to come out of THAT MOUTH
Particles exist as blobs of potential and space is nothing, so we have two substances that doesn't exist like here and now in any permanent form. If only one of them would behave like that, than we could say this anomaly is causing an illusion in our system. But because space is also not well defined, no object can be determined equal for all observers at the same time. Observers are made from same stuff, so they also experience temporal nondeterminism. Reality is always in motion and does this trick with light traveling at same speed over shortest path, this is giving us a geometrical consistency. But this is just light, when we try to determine what was observed by what and when, geometry turns out to be a fake idea, since physical relations change from one observer to another, therefore things were never exactly here or there but somehow smudged over some wide area. And when we ask why can i see something like real and present, it's because this is the way how universe branched for us at that exact moment. Problem is when we look back at beginning of observation, if we ask other people or points of reference where we were at that time, their measurements will disagree because they existed in their separate space time coordinates, receiving signals over different paths. There's nothing permanent and solid in this universe, so every experiment is kinda unique event, special for each observer.
This cannot be true unless universe is not a one single thing but exist in many states at once. But does this mean multiverse or some magic mode of reality existence, this is yet to be determined. Perhaps universe is just shaking very fast, like we would move palm of our arm front of our eyes left and right, so eyes could see arm existing at different places, at same time. We know it's only one arm really, there were never many arms at play, our brains just can't take snapshots at higher fidelity. It's weird because light is flowing in our eyes in continuous stream, but brain can't see it all at once, must make those quick snapshots and mind must fill gaps between them, to produce coherent flow of events. What if all objects vibrate really fast, radiating light and energies in wiggling motion, forcing emissions of photons to intersect and produce colorful interference patterns, than universe is more like computation than multiverse. There are no objects, pulses of energy are constantly adding up and subtract inside some endless ocean of possibilities. Than we're not talking about creation or inflation of matter but it was just a phase transition from one mode of computation to another. Difference is, there can be only finite amount of pulses in existence, this means there's not enough energy for any other universes and it's also not a simulation because there is no place where reality faking machine could exist. Universe is weird and bizarre, but it's not a multidimensional magic, this reality is all we got.
I am Glad that there is a world where I am rich and there are girls sorounding me.
I like this theory, yes..😀
Love , Light , Awareness , IAM is reality and energy is all the forms on infinite levels of virtual reality ... 😍💖🕊️🎶
Do you at least have the math to back up that hypothesis?
Many worlds doesn't seem strange to me.
I will have what you are smoking!
Seems absurd to me. Why can't we experience the other world. Why can't it be many perceptions.
@@tajzikria5307 Because we are in the world we are in. The other versions of us are experiencing the worlds they are in.
@theotormon yeah but all hypotheticals I don't buy it.
@@tajzikria5307 That's okay. Every theory of ultimate reality is hypothetical and far-fetched. You just have to go with what feels right to you.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Quantum physics ... not quantum psychics.
Eat some shrooms and see for yourself
I think these absurdities just expose the flaws in quantum theory.
Quantum theory is likely wrong even though it appears to work in so many applications.
QM is playing with our minds. The universe is complex enough to make it more complicated. We live in a mind (God's mind), so we can expect to experience weird things, like we do in a weird dream.
No, it's an absurdity that has arisen from physicalism, an abandonment of materialism. Materialists adhered to a philosophical notion of "matter" (which has no relation to the physical definition) which refers to entities that the universe is composed of and are _directly related to certain observable properties._ John Bell derived a similar concept and referred to them as "local beables."
The problem with physicalism is that it arose with the discovery of _fields_ and an attempt by philosophers to incorporate fields as a fundamental entity to the universe like particles. Fields are not fundamental entities. A water wave, for example, disappears if you analyze only a single water droplet. It is a property only observable in large numbers of water droplets as it describes their overall behavior in relation to each other. The wave is not its own entity, but rather, _the wave is the relations between the water molecules._ In a similar sense, it is fallacious to treat fields as a fundamental entity.
If you want to see a magnetic field, you can sprinkle magnetic dust and see its shape. Yet, what you are seeing is not the field, but the magnetic dust. The field is, again, not its own distinct entity. It is the relations between the beables, between the matter. In other words, it is a _dispositional_ property of matter, it is the _propensity_ of matter to arrange itself into particular shapes under particular conditions. It is not matter itself, it is not a beable.
The abandonment of materialism for physicalism was justified on the basis of treating invisible and tangible fields as distinct entities. This fallacious reasoning led physicalists to then interpret the wave function in the same way: they interpret the wave function as a distinct physical entity, that there are literal unobervable waves floating around in the universe that either collapse upon measurement, or don't collapse upon measurement.
Yet, quantum waves are identical in this sense to waves on water. You cannot see the waves with a single particle, when you see a wave, such as the interference patterns in a double-slit experiment, this is only formed with large numbers of particles. The wave is not a physical entity, but is the relations held between particles and their movement. The wave function is not an ontological entity, there are no physical waves floating around in the universe as fundamental entities of the universe. The wave function instead describes _dispositional_ properties of the matter itself, its _propensity_ to behave in particular ways. It's a behavioral characteristic of ensembles of particles and not a standalone entity, any more than a field is.
If you just abandon the silly notion physicalists introduced of invisible "fields" and "waves" and return to a more traditionally materialist understanding, then there is no confusion at all. There are no "probability waves" that "collapse" upon measurement, there is no multiverse described by a "universal wave function." There are particles as we know particles to be, and mathematical laws that describe the dynamics of these particles.
another multiversist. I like my UNIverse just fine
That does not make any sense.
God did it! Solved, go home 👽
I say yes, hahahahahaha
Get Sean on this; this guy just made things worse.
The bible teaches that the Christian inherits the Worlds,also I am the vine you are the branches ,this is absolute bible truth he is talking about.
As Pierre-Simon Laplace said to the King of France, "Your Majesty, I have no use for that hypothesis!"
I don't care about your hypothesis only mine
I'm related to the crusaders though ,it is what it is I don't care what you believe
your arrogant to think I wanted your opinion
@@larrybeckham6652 I'm not majesty ,only a baronness
The human excitedness once again for the latest revelation of quantum physics, now its all about quantum, but let us remember when the relativity theory came up and dumped down common-sense, it was the time for political correctness, you might be a man but truly you're a woman and vice versa.
You're pouring a glas half full, but no it's half empty. A brain capturing puzzle has emerged that turned the world of thinking upside down, and no one seems to notice it.
And now, the newest puzzle part of being in a state of being in prison or free on the streets. We don't need no techno visualizing headset anymore, we are mid's with quantum theory.
It's ok, I'm not criticizing the science discoveries, only pointing out the effects on the human brains that caused a lot of weird decissions, be it political or in general.
I think it's the dominant handling that has to be considered as truth, everything else is secondary to the issue.
For example,; the rapist is not being mentioned, the reasoning is based on, the girl wearing a short dress, the way she walked etc. questioning all other relativities, but not the "fact" that a girl can be walking naked and no one has the right to touch her.
These grievances, through misunderstood explanations in context with our reality are confusing the public negatively.
waste of time.
It's science fantasy, that's all ... ;-) xxx
We believe there are nany worlds, but only 3 that matter.