Philosophical Implications Of Infinite Parallel Multiverses

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that's the philosophical implication of this thread.

To me, it's factual rather than philosophical.

[dimreepr]

what fact?

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what fact?

The fact that there are many unknowables.

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Genady said:

The fact that there are many unknowables.

😇

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Genady said:

To me, it's factual rather than philosophical.

it's philosophical bc the fact is, we cant know what will be unknowable. 

[Genady]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

we cant know what will be unknowable

Why can't we?

Why do you emphasize "will be"? Don't you mean that we can't know what is unknowable?

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why can't we?

Why do you emphasize "will be"? Don't you mean that we can't know what is unknowable?

i mean that we can't know the future.

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

i mean that we can't know the future.

Scientific predictions disagree.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

i mean that we can't know the future.

 

We can't know most of the future, most of the present, and most of the past. What is philosophical about this fact?

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Genady said:

We can't know most of the future, most of the present, and most of the past. What is philosophical about this fact?

that's not what I said, besides that's another question.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Scientific predictions disagree.

how far into the future are We talking?

[Genady]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

that's not what I said

Evidently, I've misunderstood.

[MigL]

Just like other interpretations of QM superposition of states can be taken to absurd/ridiculous extremes, so can the Many Worlds interpretation.

Can a macroscopic cat belonging to Erwin be in a superposition of states, alive and dead, whilst ignoring the multitude of interactions that occurr in a macroscopic object, like a cat, that would cause collapse or decoherence to a  singular state.

This thread seems to illustrate the point.
You can't create mew universes every time an interaction forces decoherence.
And H Everett's interpretation is called Many Worlds; Multiverse refers to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by MigL

[𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵]

It's interesting to think of the possibility of parallel universes. But then, could there not be many parallel worlds within this Universe?

Then, parallel Universes means even more parallel worlds...

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, 𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵 said:

It's interesting to think of the possibility of parallel universes. But then, could there not be many parallel worlds within this Universe?

How would that work? Are you placing them in different dimensions, or are you talking about multiple duplicate Earths in the observable universe where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist?

[wtf]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:11 AM, dimreepr said:

it's philosophical bc the fact is, we cant know what will be unknowable. 

That point was made by the great American philosopher Donald Rumsfeld, when he said:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."

You aren't planning to invade Iraq under false pretenses by any chance, are you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, wtf said:

there are known knowns; ... there are known unknowns; ... there are also unknown unknowns

What about unknown knowns? Why are they not on that list?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

What about unknown knowns? Why are they not on that list?

They forgot. Those knowns were unknown at the time of typing. 

[𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How would that work? Are you placing them in different dimensions, or are you talking about multiple duplicate Earths in the observable universe where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist?

I would be more inclined towards the idea of different dimensions.

Where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist, would that distort the flow of historical events? Would these "duplicate Earths" be within different dimensions?

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, 𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵 said:

I would be more inclined towards the idea of different dimensions.

Where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist, would that distort the flow of historical events?

Only if you're playing a different record...

[Mc2509]

On 1/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, Intoscience said:

I was thinking the other day about QM, uncertainty principle, superposition the multiverse theory, destiny and so forth.

I then started to consider what the philosophical implications of infinite multiverses may present. The main one I considered was what this means for a person regarding their "soul", their destiny and so forth...

I started to imagine such a scenario where we have the idea of infinite parallel multiverses where every quantum change creates a new universe that branches off. This sounds so far out there but is considered by some physicist as a plausible idea that can be used to explain many phenomena.

So in this scenario everything that could exist does exist and every scenario within the confines of the laws of nature that can happen does happen. This means that there potentially would be an infinite number of every possible person that could ever be and every possible scenario would exist. This then lend me to think about a person's sense of themselves; the choices they make, what they believe to be their destiny, all the good and all the bad experiences, the length of their lives... the list is endless.

But in short if this was how the universe functioned then what we consider to be destiny, luck, chance... each are just a tiny perception within our own experiences of one big puzzle where non of those have any real meaning. Then this led me to consider our "souls" and god even though I'm not a particular believer in either and what it means to sense oneself if there are an infinite number of you in existence.

This then made me consider the implications of how any of that would fit into the big picture,  the value of life both universally and individually and how value of any kind could have any real meaning in terms of this big picture. 

I could go on... since my mind has been going over this the last few days. I just thought I'd share it with you folks, if anyone is interested.

Thanks

     

Parallel Multiverses = a theory, not reality 

No proof yet.  No equations about that theory.

[Intoscience]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:27 AM, 𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵 said:

I would be more inclined towards the idea of different dimensions.

Where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist, would that distort the flow of historical events? Would these "duplicate Earths" be within different dimensions?

I guess you could consider this as frequencies, where one reality is slightly out of phase with another.

On 1/27/2023 at 9:55 PM, Mc2509 said:

Parallel Multiverses = a theory, not reality 

No proof yet.  No equations about that theory.

And? Its a plausible theory held by many credible scientists as a real possibility, so its at least worth thinking about, no? 

[Eise]

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I guess you could consider this as frequencies, where one reality is slightly out of phase with another.

Frequencies of what?

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

And? Its a plausible theory held by many credible scientists as a real possibility, so its at least worth thinking about, no? 

Personally I think, no. The many worlds theory is based on the metaphysical assumption that the wave function is real, and never collapses, but instead splits into so many universes as there are possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. But as there is no possibility to know anything about all these 'other worlds' (except the one you find yourself in), the many worlds idea cannot be empirically tested. In other words, it is just an interpretation of QM.

I belong to the 'epistemological camp': the wave function is not real, but with it we can calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. We have no access to any deeper reality below that. Said in other words: with the wave function we have reached the limit of what we can know. Even an explanation of why the wave function works is then impossible: for that we would have to derive it from precisely this deeper ontological level to which we have no access.

That said, interpretations can have heuristic value. Without pictures of what is 'really going on', it is difficult to think about QM. So interpretations can help to develop new ideas. As an example, Bell came to his theorem by thinking about Bohm's 'guide waves' theory, which is also an interpretation of QM.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Frequencies of what?

Personally I think, no. The many worlds theory is based on the metaphysical assumption that the wave function is real, and never collapses, but instead splits into so many universes as there are possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. But as there is no possibility to know anything about all these 'other worlds' (except the one you find yourself in), the many worlds idea cannot be empirically tested. In other words, it is just an interpretation of QM.

I belong to the 'epistemological camp': the wave function is not real, but with it we can calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. We have no access to any deeper reality below that. Said in other words: with the wave function we have reached the limit of what we can know. Even an explanation of why the wave function works is then impossible: for that we would have to derive it from precisely this deeper ontological level to which we have no access.

That said, interpretations can have heuristic value. Without pictures of what is 'really going on', it is difficult to think about QM. So interpretations can help to develop new ideas. As an example, Bell came to his theorem by thinking about Bohm's 'guide waves' theory, which is also an interpretation of QM.

Just for the record, I gave you that +1 🙂

[Intoscience]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Frequencies of what?

Waves, strings, vibrations... what ever one might consider I guess. I was not promoting anything per-say. It was in response to a suggestion about parallel "reality's" within the same universe. But as you stated its all conjecture based on ideas that are not testable.  

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Frequencies of what?

Personally I think, no. The many worlds theory is based on the metaphysical assumption that the wave function is real, and never collapses, but instead splits into so many universes as there are possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. But as there is no possibility to know anything about all these 'other worlds' (except the one you find yourself in), the many worlds idea cannot be empirically tested. In other words, it is just an interpretation of QM.

I belong to the 'epistemological camp': the wave function is not real, but with it we can calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. We have no access to any deeper reality below that. Said in other words: with the wave function we have reached the limit of what we can know. Even an explanation of why the wave function works is then impossible: for that we would have to derive it from precisely this deeper ontological level to which we have no access.

That said, interpretations can have heuristic value. Without pictures of what is 'really going on', it is difficult to think about QM. So interpretations can help to develop new ideas. As an example, Bell came to his theorem by thinking about Bohm's 'guide waves' theory, which is also an interpretation of QM.

Though I may agree with you I can't help wondering why it's still doing the rounds among modern day scientists? You also by your own admission stated that you belong in the "epistemological camp". By the way just to be clear I share the same view, so I'm not arguing the case for any particular theory, but this doesn't make one idea right or wrong, its just a view point based on our interpretation of data/theories.    

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Just for the record, I gave you that +1 🙂

that's what I like about you dim

Edited January 30, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[MigL]

Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Eise.

In case it is still not clear, Everett's Many Worlds is an interpretation of Quantum Theory.
There are many such interpretations, but none are 'theories'.

See here      Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia