Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

From: Norman Samish <>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 14:00:46 -0700

I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again.

I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis advisor. He gave me the same sense of unease that FoR did.

While I have no better explanation for quantum mysteries, I remain agnostic. "MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds." (Wikipedia)

I also can't buy "wavefunction collapse."

Perhaps some undiscovered phenomenon is responsible for quantum mysteries - e.g., maybe the explanation lies in one or more of the ten dimensions that string theory requires. Maybe these undiscovered dimensions somehow allow the fabled paired photons to instantly communicate with each other over astronomical distances. This is a WAG (wild-ass guess) of course, but it's more believable to me than new universes being constantly generated.

However, I CAN see some logic to the idea that Tegmark introduced me to - the idea that, in infinite space, a multiverse exists containing all possible universes - and we inhabit one of them. I believe that, in infinite time and space, anything that can happen must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times.

I freely admit that there are a lot of things I can't understand, e.g. more than three physical dimensions, the concept of infinity, time without beginniing or end, and the like. The reason I lurk on this list is to try to gain understanding. I sit at the feet of brilliant thinkers and listen.

----- Original Message -----
From: "1Z" <>
To: "Everything List" <>
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

> Norman Samish wrote:
>> Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your
>> statement. It seems to boil down to "Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do
>> with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum
>> superpositions."
> Correct.
>> Fair enough.
>> When I read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a
>> quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to
>> include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these
>> S.C. is alive; in half it is dead.
> That's just standard MWI. BTW, you didn't answer my question about FoR.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Aug 06 2006 - 17:03:04 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST