5 ms·

The problem with many worlds is why do I think I'm in a particular timeline? If many worlds is correct, there is no "I", there are many rapidly branching "I"s,

by yters 7y ago

The problem with many worlds is why do I think I'm in a particular timeline? If many worlds is correct, there is no "I", there are many rapidly branching "I"s, which intuitively doesn't make sense. Of course, each "I" will have the perception of being the sole "I", but the overall view that there is no singular "I" is very counter to my self conception. I prefer to preserve intuitions over conjectures, so I count that as a strike against the many worlds interpretation. So, it seems like both the Copenhagen and the many worlds interpretations of quantum physics are wrong, given a preference for non arbitrary reference point and preserving intuitions. Is there a reason that those two must be the only possible interpretations?

sousavdouglas 7y ago
YES
faissaloo 7y ago
This whole idea of observers just brings to mind things like culling in graphics rendering, perhaps that's what's happening
- yters 7y ago
  What is doing the culling?
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    Depends who you ask, I'd say God, others might say the computer we exist in and others might say The Universe
    - yters 7y ago
      But in a quantum universe everything is an uncollapsed wave. It doesn't seem anything can cause the collapse to happen.
      - faissaloo 7y ago
        Observation causes collapse, so perhaps because the effect it has is negligible to the system of the universe there's simply no point 'rendering'/wave collapsing. Perhaps there is some other collapse mechanism to explain life before conscious observers, or perhaps quantum behavior emerged as time went on after the big bang, or perhaps there exists some kind of proto-conciousness.
        yters 7y ago
        I guess my question is if the conscious observers are themselves part of the universe, what caused their waveform to collapse? And what is the special 'observation' part of their material properties such that it can cause collapse? Why don't other material configurations cause collapse?
        faissaloo 7y ago
        I'm inclined more towards a dualistic explanation than a material one. Perhaps a better word to describe these concious and proto-concious entities would be 'collapsing agents', 'collapsants' or something of the sort.
        yters 7y ago
        Interesting idea, where would the dualist agents exist?
        faissaloo 7y ago
        I'd speculate that they exist as some unobservable component of reality, considering we see no hard evidence for it with our existing tools. I'm no expert on string theory, but as I understand it predicts a large number of dimensions, if we think of these as arrangements of data in memory, perhaps this information could be encoded there?
finchisko 7y ago
>"I" is very counter to my self conception it'a because of human nature, ego and self-worth. It's hard to accept that "I" might have many siblings living in different branches.
- yters 7y ago
  But perhaps those are valid constraints. Given that all of science is built from fundamental subjective perceptions, it seems inconsistent to extrapolate scientific theories that deny fundamental subjective perceptions.
bvinc 7y ago
> but the overall view that there is no singular "I" is very counter to my self conception And the idea that the Earth being round and rotating around the sun is also very counter to my intuition. Think of it this way. Instead of asking "Does this feel correct to me?", ask, "If this was correct, would I feel any different?"
krzat 7y ago
It's definitely a mindfuck but I'm not sure if you can dismiss MWI based on that. Everything that was intuitive was already discovered. That's why each new theory is harder to visualise than the previous one: newtonian physics, electromagnetism, relativity, quantum physics, etc.
bonoboTP 7y ago
There is a singular you, the one that is your time-line. There are also different versions of that in other timelines. But as you don't expect to feel the consciousness of the guy spatially next to you, the other parallel universe has also no influence on your conscious feeling of self.

by yters 7y ago

sousavdouglas 7y ago

YES

faissaloo 7y ago

This whole idea of observers just brings to mind things like culling in graphics rendering, perhaps that's what's happening

yters 7y ago
What is doing the culling?
- faissaloo 7y ago
  Depends who you ask, I'd say God, others might say the computer we exist in and others might say The Universe
  - yters 7y ago
    But in a quantum universe everything is an uncollapsed wave. It doesn't seem anything can cause the collapse to happen.
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      Observation causes collapse, so perhaps because the effect it has is negligible to the system of the universe there's simply no point 'rendering'/wave collapsing. Perhaps there is some other collapse mechanism to explain life before conscious observers, or perhaps quantum behavior emerged as time went on after the big bang, or perhaps there exists some kind of proto-conciousness.
      - yters 7y ago
        I guess my question is if the conscious observers are themselves part of the universe, what caused their waveform to collapse? And what is the special 'observation' part of their material properties such that it can cause collapse? Why don't other material configurations cause collapse?
        faissaloo 7y ago
        I'm inclined more towards a dualistic explanation than a material one. Perhaps a better word to describe these concious and proto-concious entities would be 'collapsing agents', 'collapsants' or something of the sort.
        yters 7y ago
        Interesting idea, where would the dualist agents exist?
        faissaloo 7y ago
        I'd speculate that they exist as some unobservable component of reality, considering we see no hard evidence for it with our existing tools. I'm no expert on string theory, but as I understand it predicts a large number of dimensions, if we think of these as arrangements of data in memory, perhaps this information could be encoded there?

finchisko 7y ago

>"I" is very counter to my self conception it'a because of human nature, ego and self-worth. It's hard to accept that "I" might have many siblings living in different branches.

yters 7y ago
But perhaps those are valid constraints. Given that all of science is built from fundamental subjective perceptions, it seems inconsistent to extrapolate scientific theories that deny fundamental subjective perceptions.

bvinc 7y ago

> but the overall view that there is no singular "I" is very counter to my self conception And the idea that the Earth being round and rotating around the sun is also very counter to my intuition. Think of it this way. Instead of asking "Does this feel correct to me?", ask, "If this was correct, would I feel any different?"

krzat 7y ago

It's definitely a mindfuck but I'm not sure if you can dismiss MWI based on that. Everything that was intuitive was already discovered. That's why each new theory is harder to visualise than the previous one: newtonian physics, electromagnetism, relativity, quantum physics, etc.

bonoboTP 7y ago

There is a singular you, the one that is your time-line. There are also different versions of that in other timelines. But as you don't expect to feel the consciousness of the guy spatially next to you, the other parallel universe has also no influence on your conscious feeling of self.