4 ms·
> Would certainly be interesting if true :) Yes, except it's psuedoscientific crazy talk.
by alexbecker 12y ago
> Would certainly be interesting if true :)
Yes, except it's psuedoscientific crazy talk.
- blueflow 12y agoEverything was "psuedoscientific [sic!] crazy talk" before it was widely recognized in the science world.
- noonespecial 12y agoThats a good example of something that is technically true but not useful. Like saying that all great men were once babies.
- paulannesley 12y agoI don't think so. Those great men (and women) thought to once be babies were in fact once babies. Whereas those truths thought once to be pseudo-scientific crazy talk were actually truths all along. Thinking they were crazy talk was a mistake, and we can use that lesson to avoid repeating the mistake. Useful.
- ars 12y agoIs that a bad thing? It's a thought experiment.
- gizmo686 12y agoWhat is the point of this thought experiment? If I know I am looking for a certain thing in a thought experiment, than I might be able to suspend disbelief on the other parts, but without knowing what I am looking for, all I see are the inherit inconsistencies in the universe you posit.
- ars 12y agoIt doesn't really have a point. I was just trying to find a way to make it possible for people to actually remember different things and both to be correct. So like I remember one thing, but once the waveform collapsed it ended up being different. But my memories are either of what could have been (the other state of the waveform), or alternately memories from a different universe. I thought it was an interesting idea so I wrote it. I'm not trying to start new physics.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoIf by pseudo-scientific you mean difficult/impossible to falsify then I'd agree with you. If you mean gobbledy gook then I would disagree. There are some number of theorists that are working with multiple universe theories defined by 'choices' in the quantum world. Its hard to prove that such things exist (or don't exist) but one notion has that detangling a photon from its entangled counterpart has you "actualizing" in one of two possible universes. The GP thread posits macroscopic effects of that, which is both impossible to prove and an interesting conjecture.
- gizmo686 12y agoThe GP posits interactions between the several possible universes, in the sense that I am from universe A and am litterally talking to someone from universe B. While it is conceivable that this type of cross universe interaction is possible, it is not at all possible in our current understanding of physics, and if it where possible, it would have to be possible in a very subtle way or else we would have already noticed it (in the same sense that relativity breaks Newtons laws in a very subtle way). Assuming that such interactions our possible, we have no reason to believe that the macroscopic effects would be to transfer intact memories between universes, or for the universes to be similar enough for us not to notice this effect explicitly, but different enough for events to occur differently for different people.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoFair enough. I'm not an adherent to the many worlds interpretation, and I claim no specific expertise in this space. That said, I read your comment as implying that a MWI would be, by definition, acyclic? To be honest I was thinking that might not be the case on the theory that you could arrive at the same universe by many paths. Some part of me wants infinity constrained slightly :-)
- ars 12y agoOnly the memory is transfered from one universe to another, not the actual event. And because people don't usually falsely remember things in a way that is inconsistent with how things turned out only subtle changes would be transfered. This is just an idea I'm playing with for fun, I'm not trying to start new physics.