Attention, New Age Freaks and Weirdos.

[Micro Ice]

But we are existing in this universe.

You know, the one where an object is pulled towards the groung at 32 m/s/s

9.8 m/s², even.

i think it's 32 feet/s²?

Touche


Quite right, although its 9.81 m/s²
That 0.01 make one hell of a difference. Trust me on that one

It depends on your elevation.

YOU TOO ARE RONG HAHAHA

[Cain]

Hoopla, you mean Zeno's paradox?

Yes, I love using it at parties.

Yeah, its not bad.  Alot of the old Greek ones make good party tricks because, well, they were mostly invented for them.  The intelligensia of the time would get together, get incredibly drunk and try to show each other up with annoying metaphysical and logical paradoxes.  And then Plato ruined it all.

He's like the guy in college who never got laid.

Plato is that guy who never even made it to the kitchen at parties.

[LMNO]

Giving Plato a wedgie, ITT.

[hooplala]

I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD BE SMOKING THAT...
          \

[LMNO]

SHUT THE FUCK UP, SPAG!
  \

[Cain]

Oh STFU, Plato.  Srsly
\

[Daruko]

I don't think that the EW model paints a picture of universes seperated by impassible barriers, but rather a larger interactive whole.   Quantum interference is explained in this framework as a result of this more complex structure, in which information is processed across an non-objectively measurable spectrum.  First of all, this is a hell of a lot better explanation than "nonlocality", and it has the additional benefit of actually producing a whole new field; namely, Quantum Computation.  If you disagree, please explain where the "superposited" operations are being performed in "spacetime", when factoring with some of the more refined versions of Shor's Algorithm on a Quantum Computer.

MWI posits:  Time does not flow.   Other times are just special cases of other universes.   Our Newtonian and Quantum models are obviously well off from accurately describing the universe.  Most existing physical theories suggest reality IS a spacetime.  From the Many Worlds model, reality is a multiverse, and physical theories can at best provide good approximations.

Although time is not a "sequence of moments" in this framework, and it does not flow, our intuitions about it's properties can still be applied broadly.  We can indeed measure causes and effects, the future is open, the past fixed, and possibilities do become actualities.  The idea is that we exist in multiple versions of each 'moment'.  We are not directly aware of these copies, but can observe the physical laws that link information through different universes.  If we suppose that the moment of which we are aware is the only real one, we fall into solipsism, and thus, the MWI suggests all moments are PHYSICALLY real, as well as the whole multiverse. 

I don't have a profoundly deep understanding of this model, but it suggests to me, that we have an empirical method for exploring the universe beyond the limitations of a static four-dimensional entity, and that the physical "laws" of modern day spacetime physics, as commonly known, are much more flexible than we might think.    We find this out more and more everyday.   Through a process of impedence, we can make light faster than light... an information trick.     If it's physically "improbable", but physically "possible", perhaps what we are really saying (in this framework) is that there are less "instances" of the event in the multiverse.   I'm not too sure about that last statement, but it's interesting, I think.

"The conversion, relative to any observer, of possibilities into actualities- of an open future into a fixed past - also makes sense in this framework.   Consider [a coin-tossing experiment].  Before the coin toss, the future is open from the point of view of an observer, in the sense that it is still possible that either outcome, 'heads' or 'tails', will be observed by that observer.  From that observer's point of view both outcomes are possibilities, even though objectively they are both actualities.  After the coin has settled, the copies of the observer have differentiated into two groups.  Each observer has observed, and remembers, only one outcome of the coin toss.  Thus the outcome, once it is in the "past" of any observer, has become single-valued and actual for every copy of the observer, even though from the multiverse point of view it is just as two-valued as ever."  - David Deutsch, Centre for Quantum Computation, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford

I just don't have the time to put more into this explanation... I've already put it off for several days though, so I wanted to put something up.    I hope I didn't mutilate it too terribly.

[LMNO]

I don't think that the EW model paints a picture of universes seperated by impassible barriers, but rather a larger interactive whole.

[citation needed]

1. How exactly are you suggesting these universes are interacting?

2. Could you provide a citation that suggests some universes have developed physical laws that are contrary to our present universe, and how that is possible?

[Daruko]

I don't think that the EW model paints a picture of universes seperated by impassible barriers, but rather a larger interactive whole.

[citation needed]

1. How exactly are you suggesting these universes are interacting?

2. Could you provide a citation that suggests some universes have developed physical laws that are contrary to our present universe, and how that is possible?

I will answer both questions as soon as I have time, and I do have citations for you.... just want to restate quickly what I said earlier... this is a REDUCTIONIST model. 

So naturally, there are limitations, but there are still interesting answers within the framework for both of your questions.

[Daruko]

Here's a few resources of interest:

Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/quant-ph/papers/9906/9906015.pdf

Structure of the Multiverse
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0104/0104033.pdf

DeWitt, B.S. and Graham, N. 1973 in The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics 183-186 (Princeton University Press)

Everett, H. 1957 Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 3 454-462

Everettian Rationality: defending Deutsch's approach to probability in the Everett Interpretation, by David Wallace
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0303/0303050v2.pdf

[LMNO]

You know, this might sound strange, but I actually don't have time to read all that, unless you want to put this thread on hold for a couple of months.

[Daruko]

You know, this might sound strange, but I actually don't have time to read all that, unless you want to put this thread on hold for a couple of months.

Just discussing aren't we?  Take all the time you need, or don't.   I'm very short on time lately too, and like I said, I don't totally understand the implications of the theory anyway, but it's very interesting.    The first one there (Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions) isn't all that long, and if you skim through the really complicated shit, you'll still get a rough idea, I think.

I'd be very interested in hearing your criticisms, upon digesting any of this material.

EDIT:  I'll try and throw something together to answer the questions you had in simple terms, sometime in the future... near or far, i can not say.   

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Listen the fuck up, because I only spew Hideous Troofs ONCE:

Quantum mechanics is just God CHEATING to balance the books.  If he hadn't slacked off on day 7, then maybe "tunneling" wouldn't be NECESSARY for conservation of energy to work.

This is what you get for hiring Angry Mountain Gods.

STAND UP FOR YOURSELF!  Don't let any of your electons tunnel!  Get your friends to do the same!

TGRR,
Giving vengeful dieties what-for since the Johnson Administration.

[Daruko]

Listen the fuck up, because I only spew Hideous Troofs ONCE:

Quantum mechanics is just God CHEATING to balance the books.  If he hadn't slacked off on day 7, then maybe "tunneling" wouldn't be NECESSARY for conservation of energy to work.

This is what you get for hiring Angry Mountain Gods.

STAND UP FOR YOURSELF!  Don't let any of your electons tunnel!  Get your friends to do the same!

TGRR,
Giving vengeful dieties what-for since the Johnson Administration.

  not one of your better posts

[hunter s.durden]

Daruko, you're a vicious failure when it comes to comedy.