On Sun, 2 May 1999, Gale wrote:
> Jacques M Mallah wrote (in Re: Recent paper on MWI)
> > The predictions of the MWI
> > are very clearly no different from the predictions of a one world
> > interpretation in an infinite universe.
>
> I’ve taken this out of context, but you have made similar
> statements before, Jacques. I’m not sure if you mean this
> literally, or as an analogy that makes a convenient way to
> think for most purposes. It is certainly a convenient
> analogy.
I basically use it as an analogy, since I think it helps people
understand measure, identity and mortality issues better. (Which is to
say, to reject "quantum immortality".) But it also is true, if one reads
it as "In an infinite universe, the predictions ..."
It never ceases to amaze me that many people who are adamantly
opposed to the MWI accept an infinite universe without blinking an eye.
This analogy also shows that the MWI is really a conservative hypothesis.
> However, I see one way in which the
> predictions of the MWI of a closed universe would be
> different from the predictions of a one world interpretation
> in an infinite universe.
>
> Basically, when the observers within the closed universe
> became able to observe the closed nature of their universe,
> they would have a difference between the MWI of their
> own universe and a one world interpretation of some part
> of an infinite universe, because the topologies must differ.
Right. Although I suppose one could generalize the idea of a
non-MWI infinite universe to include such things as Lee Smolin's universes
that are produced by black holes.
Current observations indicate that our universe is open and
suggest that the expansion is accelerating.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)
Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Received on Mon May 03 1999 - 13:01:38 PDT