Re: "spooky action at a distance"

From: Benjamin Udell <budell.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:45:56 -0500

CORRECTION -- sorry -- Ben Udell.

As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically deterministic universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems that an SAS in such a universe would have no reason to surmise a Level III multiverse. It makes you wonder what things we SASs don't know about, that might have led us to surmise still further Levels of the multiverse.

Or conceivably could an SAS in a classically deterministic universe surmise something like a Level III multiverse, from considerations of the (ontological?) status(es) of terms of alternatives, alternatives of the types studied in logic (e.g. multivalue logic), mathematical theory of probability, & ("pure") mathematical theory of information -- such disciplines as consider structures of alternatives that exhaust the possibilities (a la "p or ~p")?

(Note: These fields seem distinguishable from other areas of math also by being concerned with drawing what tend to be irreversibly deductive conclusions -- I mean as distinguished from the reversible & equational reasonings which preserve information & help allow a same mathematical object to be pursued & applied under quite diverse aspects -- so, if there is an area of variational math or optimization which has this "irreversible deductions" tendency, it should probably be included among them, but I'm not a mathematician & don't know whether there is.).

- Benjamin Udell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <hal.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: "spooky action at a distance"

This list is dedicated to exploring the implications of the prospect that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch is real and where the other branches are eliminated. Universes exist where the transactional interpretation is true, and where Penrose's "objective reduction" happens. I'm tempted to even say that universes exist where the Copenhagen interpretation is true, but that seems to be more a refusal to ask questions than a genuine interpretation.

Therefore it is somewhat pointless to argue about whether we are in one or another of these universes. In fact, I would claim that we are in all of these, at least all that are not logically inconsistent or incompatible with the data. That is, our conscious experience spans multiple universes; we are instantiated equally and equivalently in universes which have different laws of physics, but where the differences are so subtle that they have no effect on our observations.

It may be that at some future time, we can perform an experiment which will provide evidence to eliminate or confirm some of these possible QM interpretations. At that time, our consciousness will differentiate, and we will go on in each of the separate universes, with separate consciousness.

It is still useful to discuss whether the various interpretations work at all, and whether they are in fact compatible with our experimental results. But to go beyond that and to try to determine which one is "true" is, according to the multiverse philosophy, an empty exercise. All are true; all are instantiated in the multiverse, and we live in all of them.

Hal
Received on Thu Nov 13 2003 - 14:00:52 PST