4 ms·

That's interesting, because "parallel universes", like gods, are mere dogmas and does not exist anywhere but minds of believers and has been built out of "socia

That's interesting, because "parallel universes", like gods, are mere dogmas and does not exist anywhere but minds of believers and has been built out of "social" mental constructs (memes) supported by flawed (correlation is not causation) "empirical evidences".)

quonn 12y ago
So, in your opinion, scientists are not allowed to discuss theories when they try to investigate the so far unknown? As opposed to regurgitating well-supported knowledge or - in your case - mere phrases?
matthewmacleod 12y ago
Don't be a dick. These guys are legitimate scientists writing about a new mental model for quantum mechanics, and it's interesting. I don't know how else you expect the field to evolve…
- dschiptsov 12y ago
  There are many parallel observers, not universes, colliding with each other.)
  - polynomial 12y ago
    When I used to program Lisp I would habitually add an extra close parens to the end of long statements, just to make sure I didn't miss one.
dghf 12y ago
> "parallel universes", like gods, are mere dogmas Hardly dogma. Lots of physicists hold to the rival Copenhagen interpretation, and have yet to be expelled from the halls of academe for heresy. > supported by flawed (correlation is not causation) "empirical evidences". Could you give an example of such a flaw?
- dschiptsov 12y ago
  Our inability to observe in details and measure exactly gives rise to "theories". I think is has a lot to do with so-called probabilistic models, like, you know, particles are "out there", but we can't tell where exactly they are in a given moment (perhaps, because a "moment" has nothing to do with particles) , so, we speculate that the universe we "observe" is a "snapshot of locations of all the particles", while there are could be many others. But no, there aren't any other. They does not exist, they just does not happen, at least to this particular observer. Each observer observes exactly one snapshot of the Universe, while every observer "sees" the same Universe from a different angle. But this is the same Universe. Multitude is just a mental flaw, mistaking different perspectives (views) for different "things". Ironically, this description fits perfectly to ancient notions of gods (and universes). There are many of them, but the mechanism which made them all - a human mind - is one and the same. I am not a quantum physicist, of course, neither I am a philosopher, but I prefer to rely on philosophy.)
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    Why do your posts have trailing parentheses?
    - dschiptsov 12y ago
      Old addiction. I started with FIDOnet. At that time, in the dawn of networking, it was generally a good idea to explicitly put "smiles" - an ugly way to communicate a "mood of not being too serious". Something like that fake, polite smile in Japanese culture, intended to relax a "tough" adversary. It worked well back then. Now it looks rather silly, I admit.
      - pavel_lishin 12y ago
        Interesting that it's just a smile, and not a full emoticon.
  - dschiptsov 12y ago
    One small update: One could say that "because for each observer an "instant snapshot" of the Universe is "slightly" different (not exactly the same) there are many Universes. This is nothing but word games. OK, for each observer it is not exactly the same "snapshot" (because two observers cannot be situated in the same location) and it is possible to claim that because two "snapshots" are not exactly same there are two parallel universes, but this is just an delusion. An appropriate analogy could be of a tourists taking pictures of the same Boudhanath stupa in Kathmandu. Each picture would be different, but the stupa is the same. To say that due to change in light and shadow, rains and moving particles in the air, the stupa is never the same would be a correct observation, but to say that there are multiple parallel stupas that are "colliding" with each other, is nonsense indeed. Here we discarding the illusory conception of "sameness", of "unchanging" (looking at a physical object as a set of continuous processes on various levels) but we never assume that there are more than one such set. Btw, things which are parallel (lines or planes) have no common point by definition. As long as they are "collide" they are not parallel but concurrent. So there are, indeed, multitudes of concurrent and parallel (they have nothing in common) processes which together form what we used to call Universe. Claiming that two process which "happen at the same time" have "the same time" in common is also a delusion. Suppose there are two beams of light from the same source which are propagating in orthogonal directions. Saying that they happening at the same time is just a mental construct. They are two "parallel processes" and have nothing in common. "Universal time" is just a mental construct. Each process has its own time.
goblin89 12y ago
I thought MWI is considered an established hypothesis in physics community. I went to Wikipedia and it confirmed my impression. Perhaps I’m missing something.
- Filligree 12y ago
  You're not. The "problems" this article suggests for MWI are actually only problems for people who don't fully understand it. Attempting to count worlds, for example, is a mistake right from the start; perhaps MWI is badly named, but decoherence doesn't produce fully disjoint worlds. They always overlap with their neighbours. For an analogy, trying to count MWI worlds is like trying to measure the length of Norway's coastline. It depends on how you count, but "worlds" also aren't a fundamental building block; it doesn't affect the predictions of the theory.
  - speakeron 12y ago
    Surely the Born rule is a problem for MWI.
    - Filligree 12y ago
      FSVO "problem", sure. There's no ambiguity in using it, but the motivation for its existence is still dubious; it seems like an appendix. That, however, is also true for all other QM interpretations.

quonn 12y ago

So, in your opinion, scientists are not allowed to discuss theories when they try to investigate the so far unknown? As opposed to regurgitating well-supported knowledge or - in your case - mere phrases?

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Don't be a dick. These guys are legitimate scientists writing about a new mental model for quantum mechanics, and it's interesting. I don't know how else you expect the field to evolve…

dschiptsov 12y ago
There are many parallel observers, not universes, colliding with each other.)
- polynomial 12y ago
  When I used to program Lisp I would habitually add an extra close parens to the end of long statements, just to make sure I didn't miss one.

dghf 12y ago

> "parallel universes", like gods, are mere dogmas Hardly dogma. Lots of physicists hold to the rival Copenhagen interpretation, and have yet to be expelled from the halls of academe for heresy. > supported by flawed (correlation is not causation) "empirical evidences". Could you give an example of such a flaw?

dschiptsov 12y ago
Our inability to observe in details and measure exactly gives rise to "theories". I think is has a lot to do with so-called probabilistic models, like, you know, particles are "out there", but we can't tell where exactly they are in a given moment (perhaps, because a "moment" has nothing to do with particles) , so, we speculate that the universe we "observe" is a "snapshot of locations of all the particles", while there are could be many others. But no, there aren't any other. They does not exist, they just does not happen, at least to this particular observer. Each observer observes exactly one snapshot of the Universe, while every observer "sees" the same Universe from a different angle. But this is the same Universe. Multitude is just a mental flaw, mistaking different perspectives (views) for different "things". Ironically, this description fits perfectly to ancient notions of gods (and universes). There are many of them, but the mechanism which made them all - a human mind - is one and the same. I am not a quantum physicist, of course, neither I am a philosopher, but I prefer to rely on philosophy.)
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  Why do your posts have trailing parentheses?
  - dschiptsov 12y ago
    Old addiction. I started with FIDOnet. At that time, in the dawn of networking, it was generally a good idea to explicitly put "smiles" - an ugly way to communicate a "mood of not being too serious". Something like that fake, polite smile in Japanese culture, intended to relax a "tough" adversary. It worked well back then. Now it looks rather silly, I admit.
    - pavel_lishin 12y ago
      Interesting that it's just a smile, and not a full emoticon.
- dschiptsov 12y ago
  One small update: One could say that "because for each observer an "instant snapshot" of the Universe is "slightly" different (not exactly the same) there are many Universes. This is nothing but word games. OK, for each observer it is not exactly the same "snapshot" (because two observers cannot be situated in the same location) and it is possible to claim that because two "snapshots" are not exactly same there are two parallel universes, but this is just an delusion. An appropriate analogy could be of a tourists taking pictures of the same Boudhanath stupa in Kathmandu. Each picture would be different, but the stupa is the same. To say that due to change in light and shadow, rains and moving particles in the air, the stupa is never the same would be a correct observation, but to say that there are multiple parallel stupas that are "colliding" with each other, is nonsense indeed. Here we discarding the illusory conception of "sameness", of "unchanging" (looking at a physical object as a set of continuous processes on various levels) but we never assume that there are more than one such set. Btw, things which are parallel (lines or planes) have no common point by definition. As long as they are "collide" they are not parallel but concurrent. So there are, indeed, multitudes of concurrent and parallel (they have nothing in common) processes which together form what we used to call Universe. Claiming that two process which "happen at the same time" have "the same time" in common is also a delusion. Suppose there are two beams of light from the same source which are propagating in orthogonal directions. Saying that they happening at the same time is just a mental construct. They are two "parallel processes" and have nothing in common. "Universal time" is just a mental construct. Each process has its own time.

goblin89 12y ago

I thought MWI is considered an established hypothesis in physics community. I went to Wikipedia and it confirmed my impression. Perhaps I’m missing something.

Filligree 12y ago
You're not. The "problems" this article suggests for MWI are actually only problems for people who don't fully understand it. Attempting to count worlds, for example, is a mistake right from the start; perhaps MWI is badly named, but decoherence doesn't produce fully disjoint worlds. They always overlap with their neighbours. For an analogy, trying to count MWI worlds is like trying to measure the length of Norway's coastline. It depends on how you count, but "worlds" also aren't a fundamental building block; it doesn't affect the predictions of the theory.
- speakeron 12y ago
  Surely the Born rule is a problem for MWI.
  - Filligree 12y ago
    FSVO "problem", sure. There's no ambiguity in using it, but the motivation for its existence is still dubious; it seems like an appendix. That, however, is also true for all other QM interpretations.