4 ms·

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 kno

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.

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.