Re: "spooky action at a distance"

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:08:26 +0100

At 09:30 13/11/03 -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
>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.

So by "all universes exists" you mean "all physical universes" exists?

> 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.

In that case you get universe + multiverse + multimultiverse + ...
... + ... big renormalisation problem.
But that's ok. I mean it is the same with comp and the view from
inside "numberland".

>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.

OK, but only as harryPotter sort of "universe". Actually I think "universe"
is a very fuzzy term. Laws of physics emerges on the many consistent
histories/computations and are always essentially probabilistic.

>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.

So the need to make a quotient by the indiscernability equivalence relation.

>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
>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.

So I agree modulo the ambiguity in the word "universes" especially
with relation like "we belong to ..."

Received on Fri Nov 14 2003 - 10:03:58 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST