6 ms·

Some remarks on the mathematical structure of the multiverse (2016)

empath75 2y ago
This is 8 years old, and as far as I can tell, has never been cited by anyone other than the author.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  And seems to be about the parallel branches of Everettian Mechanics, not the multiverse of brane theory (the Bulk), or the multiverse of multiple disconnected bubbles of false vacuum.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Too true. In fact, none of the author's other writings in quant-ph on Arxiv have been cited by any scientific work of anyone other than the author. Still, I don't think it's an objective reason to be dismissive.
OutOfHere 2y ago
I see the author also has some newer papers as well on the broad topic. The reader may also enjoy this survey report on multiverse theories which I generated just this morning: https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://github.com/impredicative/newssurvey/blob/c1cab6a/samples/2024-09-17T15%3A38%3A34%20Exploring%20Multiverse%20Theories%3A%20Foundations%2C%20Evidence%2C%20and%20Implications.html https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://github.com/impre...
gpvos 2y ago
(2016)
VirusNewbie 2y ago
This person is making a mistake with Everettian mechanics, assuming there is branching, which is precisely not what is happening.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  Everett used the same terminology
  - VirusNewbie 2y ago
    no, he talks about the perception of branching. The universe isn't branching, a coherent thread we observe is. It's the difference between tracing a path on a graph, and seeing a graph change.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      If branching is real, then the perception we have is of "not branching".
    - hollerith 2y ago
      But I don't percieve any branching. Do you?
      - VirusNewbie 2y ago
        of course. I see the cat end up dead or alive, not in the superposition of both. Hence, I perceive a branch.
        Nevermark 2y ago
        Hmm. A branch can mean one of the branches, or it can mean the bifurcation that created branches. Not really responding directly to your comment. But I see the opportunity for a lot of disagreement based on slightly different term use.
        hollerith 2y ago
        I meant that to all appearances, I seem to live in a reality that does not ever split, and it is only a complex deductive argument made by Everett and his followers that makes me to suspect that reality does in fact split. Anyway, I doubt that further dialog between you and I will lead anywhere fruitful.
anon291 2y ago
Anyone making an absolute claim of knowledge of the nature of self-awareness needs to demonstrate how qualia arises by making a testable way to disable qualia in humans or to demonstrate qualia in a non-human system. The latter is preferred.
- Rhapso 2y ago
  The former is just a lot easier...
jbotz 2y ago
I've been on the same trip as this guy for the last couple of decades. I haven't tried to write it up as scientific papers, but I've been actively looking for refutation of some of the key insights that lead down this path of thinking and haven't found any yet. I think that the key premise here is assuming that consciousness can be a feature of a turing machine. If you accept that premise then all objections to reality being purely mathematical fall away, and Conway's Game of Life (GoL) provides a perfect substrate for thought experiments around this. Because we know that GoL is turing complete, and GoL is obviously purely mathematical... its phenomena exist without our simulating them, simply because they are mathematically possible. We simulate them in order to help us discover their existence, but their existence is "Platonic", independent of our simulations. So if consciousness can be a feature of any turing complete system, then an infinitude of consciousnesses exist in the space of GoL phenomena; consciousnesses from whose perspective their respective (from our perspective purely mathematical) GoL Universes are "material". The main obstacle to accepting this view is insisting on dualism between the material and the purely mathematical, giving a special status to materialism. But materialism also tends to lead one to accept that consciousness can be a property of turing machines, which would then imply a mathematical reality. I call this paradox "the poverty of materialism", and I'd love to see a convincing refutation.
- qazxcvbnm 2y ago
  If consciousness is a property of mathematical systems, and such an infinitude exists, what is the paradox? It sounds quite consistent to me. Could you elaborate?
  - jbotz 2y ago
    The paradox only exists if you start with philosophical materialism, i.e. the assumption that reality is material in nature and mathematics is just something we use to describe the material reality. If you're not a materialist than there's no paradox, and you probably accept Texmark's view of the mulitverse or something like it.
    - qazxcvbnm 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

This is 8 years old, and as far as I can tell, has never been cited by anyone other than the author.

slowmovintarget 2y ago
And seems to be about the parallel branches of Everettian Mechanics, not the multiverse of brane theory (the Bulk), or the multiverse of multiple disconnected bubbles of false vacuum.
OutOfHere 2y ago
Too true. In fact, none of the author's other writings in quant-ph on Arxiv have been cited by any scientific work of anyone other than the author. Still, I don't think it's an objective reason to be dismissive.

I see the author also has some newer papers as well on the broad topic. The reader may also enjoy this survey report on multiverse theories which I generated just this morning: https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://github.com/impredicative/newssurvey/blob/c1cab6a/samples/2024-09-17T15%3A38%3A34%20Exploring%20Multiverse%20Theories%3A%20Foundations%2C%20Evidence%2C%20and%20Implications.html https://html-preview.github.io/?url=https://github.com/impre...

gpvos 2y ago

(2016)

VirusNewbie 2y ago

This person is making a mistake with Everettian mechanics, assuming there is branching, which is precisely not what is happening.

nh23423fefe 2y ago
Everett used the same terminology
- VirusNewbie 2y ago
  no, he talks about the perception of branching. The universe isn't branching, a coherent thread we observe is. It's the difference between tracing a path on a graph, and seeing a graph change.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    If branching is real, then the perception we have is of "not branching".
  - hollerith 2y ago
    But I don't percieve any branching. Do you?
    - VirusNewbie 2y ago
      of course. I see the cat end up dead or alive, not in the superposition of both. Hence, I perceive a branch.
      - Nevermark 2y ago
        Hmm. A branch can mean one of the branches, or it can mean the bifurcation that created branches. Not really responding directly to your comment. But I see the opportunity for a lot of disagreement based on slightly different term use.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        I meant that to all appearances, I seem to live in a reality that does not ever split, and it is only a complex deductive argument made by Everett and his followers that makes me to suspect that reality does in fact split. Anyway, I doubt that further dialog between you and I will lead anywhere fruitful.

anon291 2y ago

Anyone making an absolute claim of knowledge of the nature of self-awareness needs to demonstrate how qualia arises by making a testable way to disable qualia in humans or to demonstrate qualia in a non-human system. The latter is preferred.

Rhapso 2y ago
The former is just a lot easier...

jbotz 2y ago

I've been on the same trip as this guy for the last couple of decades. I haven't tried to write it up as scientific papers, but I've been actively looking for refutation of some of the key insights that lead down this path of thinking and haven't found any yet. I think that the key premise here is assuming that consciousness can be a feature of a turing machine. If you accept that premise then all objections to reality being purely mathematical fall away, and Conway's Game of Life (GoL) provides a perfect substrate for thought experiments around this. Because we know that GoL is turing complete, and GoL is obviously purely mathematical... its phenomena exist without our simulating them, simply because they are mathematically possible. We simulate them in order to help us discover their existence, but their existence is "Platonic", independent of our simulations. So if consciousness can be a feature of any turing complete system, then an infinitude of consciousnesses exist in the space of GoL phenomena; consciousnesses from whose perspective their respective (from our perspective purely mathematical) GoL Universes are "material". The main obstacle to accepting this view is insisting on dualism between the material and the purely mathematical, giving a special status to materialism. But materialism also tends to lead one to accept that consciousness can be a property of turing machines, which would then imply a mathematical reality. I call this paradox "the poverty of materialism", and I'd love to see a convincing refutation.

qazxcvbnm 2y ago
If consciousness is a property of mathematical systems, and such an infinitude exists, what is the paradox? It sounds quite consistent to me. Could you elaborate?
- jbotz 2y ago
  The paradox only exists if you start with philosophical materialism, i.e. the assumption that reality is material in nature and mathematics is just something we use to describe the material reality. If you're not a materialist than there's no paradox, and you probably accept Texmark's view of the mulitverse or something like it.
  - qazxcvbnm 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]