4 ms·
> The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other. Some examples "The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation,
by jamesrcole 8y ago
> The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other.
Some examples
"The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, ... multiverse theory or just many-worlds. [...] MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
For those who don't know, the Everett mentioned in the following is the person who came up with the Many Worlds view.
"The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by Raphael Boussoa and Leonard Susskind
Abstract: We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many
worlds of the multiverse are the same thing, and that the multiverse is necessary to
give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum mechanics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf
"Identity and probability in Everett's multiverse", by P Tappenden.
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 51, Issue 1, 1 March 2000, Pages 99–114
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.1.99 https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.1.99
"The Structure of the Multiverse", by David Deutsch
1. Introduction
The idea that quantum theory is a true description of physical reality led Everett
(1957) and many subsequent investigators (e.g. DeWitt and Graham 1973, Deutsch
1985, 1997) to explain quantum-mechanical phenomena in terms of the simultaneous
existence of parallel universes or histories.
https://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0104033 https://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0104033
- whatshisface 8y ago> The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other. > (paraphrasing) The terms "multiverse" and "many worlds" are used interchangeably by many. You two aren't really disagreeing. The parent commenter was just highlighting that there are two totally separate concepts that are associated in public vernacular with a single word.
- jamesrcole 8y agoI take "The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other" to mean there does not exist any notion of multiverse that has to do with many-worlds.
- ars 8y agoDid you actually read https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf ? As best as I can tell the multiverse he describes is not the type with varying laws of physics. He's using yet another definition of the term.
- jamesrcole 8y agoYou said it has nothing to do with multiverse, not "it has nothing to do with one particular notion of the multiverse". The examples are countering the former. And what about the other examples?
- ars 8y agoYou are overdoing it. I specifically defined what I meant by multiverse in my first message. You can't nit pick my words by giving them a new definition, then argue that my words don't work for that new definition.
- jamesrcole 8y agoYou defined it and treated it as the only meaning the word has, making the blanket statement that MW has nothing at all to do with the notion of the multiverse. So you accept that it does have something to do with how many people use the term?
- ars 8y agoDid you forget that there is an actual article we are discussing here? And it uses the term? And it has a specific definition of it? The same one I used? I mean you did object to this article right? Not some other one, that used a completely different definition of the word?
- jamesrcole 8y agoThe article is not sacrosanct -- a number of people here, including myself, have made criticisms of it -- and you seem to be forgetting that my point started with a criticism of the article, not of your comment. It, like you, talks of _the_ multiverse in one specific way, and I was pointing out a problem with that. It said: "The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules." See where it says "The multiverse is" and "This theory is", as if the multiverse notion is only that? and the full text of my response to that point was > It's really misleading to present the multiverse notion as an attempt to explain a universe suitable for life. > > There are many other reasons people have proposed it. For example, in the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation