Comments on: Are Many Worlds and the Multiverse the Same Idea?

By: geogeo

geogeo — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:28:00 +0000

Per MWI: the universe in state A (call it #A) can ‘split’ into #B and #C; could #C (say) ‘join’ with #D to make #F? If not we have (at last!) a truly unidirectional temporal process; if not, then information is lost, and quantum determinism (so dear to the heart of Leonard Susskind) fails. And yes, the two- multiverse and MWI- could be the same idea, because we couldn’t possibly know enough at this point to say otherwise.

By: Assorted links — Marginal Revolution

Assorted links — Marginal Revolution — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:37:47 +0000

[...] Could the multiverse and “many worlds” actually be the same idea? Caveat [...]

By: Many worlds theory, many interpretations? | Uncommon Descent

Many worlds theory, many interpretations? | Uncommon Descent — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:04:35 +0000

[...] Discover Magazine’s blog, “Cosmic Variance,” “Sean” asks “Are Many Worlds and the Multiverse the Same Idea?” (2011/05/26) , When physicists are asked [...]

By: pollywog

pollywog — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:29:27 +0000

here’s my answer ed…

Everything is now and You are here!!!

That only leaves one other option if it were not true. You are not here and everything is not now, meaning you are dead !

http://pollywannacracka.blogspot.com/2007/06/predetermining-collapse.htm

By: edward s. andrews

edward s. andrews — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 03:55:23 +0000

can anyone anwser my question

By: edward s. andrews

edward s. andrews — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 03:51:50 +0000

does time stay time in other universes and if a paraell universe colaspes what happens to the time in the universe beside it and if one runs backwards and the other forwords what happens

By: Alvin

Alvin — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:10:59 +0000

I’ve read (arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796), and have a few comments. First, there are only 2 possible alternatives that I can see that agree with all aspects of reality. First, that time and space are lineal, but causality works both from past to future and future to past, and where decoherence is entirely reversible (that is, nothing ever really happens, kind of like existence from the point of view of a photon, where creation and annihlation occurs at the same time) over time. This would solve quantum entanglement action at a distance. The second would be a multiverse as described with the following caveats: 1) there must be a probabillity axis with a dimensional magnitud between 1 and 0, describing parallel universes with all possible probabillity states. 2) the intersection point between the probabillity axis and time-space, can only have two “real” states: interaction and non-interaction. 3) all intersection points in time-space for the same particle, are the same intersection point in the probability axis.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:15:06 +0000

I don’t understand how the many worlds interpretation can possibly be true. Actually, I think it’s nonsense. When I open the box and find a dead cat, why am I living in the universe harboring a dead cat and not one that’s alive? What governs which universe I am aware of? You see my point? MWI is pure nonsense. The universe doesn’t magically split whenever an “observation” is made.

By: De la rencontre de l'univers multiple et des multiples univers | Ze Rhubarbe Blog

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:16:21 +0000

[...] est analysée sur de nombreux sites de physique, par exemple sur le blog Cosmic Variance du cosmologiste Sean Caroll du California Institute of Technology. Mais comme le dit Bousso [...]

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:40:05 +0000

82 doloop,

Well, you asked for it