My Problem with Multiverse / Many-Worlds Theory

[Yoseph]

Am I correct in saying that this theory says that the universe is splitting into all the possible outcomes the universe can create?

 

From wikipedia:

 

"According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains 6 sides and that the result corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All 6 possible ways the die can fall correspond to 6 different universes." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse)

 

If this is true, would that not mean that each person's consciousness / soul / life would be seperated into it's own universe, where everyone else is just a dummy with "no soul" if you like.

This would techically make YOU the only real person / conscious thing in "your" universe? You would therefore be "God" in your own universe as without your consciousness, "your" universe would not exist?

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

Yoseph

[lemur]

Am I correct in saying that this theory says that the universe is splitting into all the possible outcomes the universe can create?

 

From wikipedia:

 

"According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains 6 sides and that the result corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All 6 possible ways the die can fall correspond to 6 different universes." (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Multiverse)

 

If this is true, would that not mean that each person's consciousness / soul / life would be seperated into it's own universe, where everyone else is just a dummy with "no soul" if you like.

This would techically make YOU the only real person / conscious thing in "your" universe? You would therefore be "God" in your own universe as without your consciousness, "your" universe would not exist?

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

Yoseph

Maybe you could look at it as every person you come in contact with is a version of yourself with a different life course.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If this is true, would that not mean that each person's consciousness / soul / life would be seperated into it's own universe, where everyone else is just a dummy with "no soul" if you like.

This would techically make YOU the only real person / conscious thing in "your" universe? You would therefore be "God" in your own universe as without your consciousness, "your" universe would not exist?

Why should it not be possible for consciousnesses to be duplicated along with everything else?

[md65536]

If this is true, would that not mean that each person's consciousness / soul / life would be seperated into it's own universe, where everyone else is just a dummy with "no soul" if you like.

This would techically make YOU the only real person / conscious thing in "your" universe? You would therefore be "God" in your own universe as without your consciousness, "your" universe would not exist?

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

MWI makes more sense if you think of it representing all potential universes in superposition, rather than "splitting" into copies like a Mogwai that you spilled water on.

 

If you imagine that all possible configurations can be described as different universes, and if it's possible for something to either exist or not exist, then "your universe" with some arbitrary thing removed from it would actually describe a different universe from yours. But it doesn't matter what that thing is... each of us could equally be "gods"... remove any of us and you get a different universe, different from "yours".

 

But universes without you could also exist. If you mentally "destroy a single universe" by making it an impossible configuration (eg. suppose "my universe" with me in it, did not exist), that doesn't mean that any other possible universe can't exist.

 

None of this really matters though, because it's true that if you removed yourself from your universe, your universe would not exist, even without the MWI. The reality of your universe is the reality that is experienced by you. Remove yourself from it and there is no longer any experience of reality. -- Sure, it could still be experienced by others, but it would need to be a different universe from the one you described as "yours", because the defining property of "your" universe is that you're in it. ... This is all just a way of saying VERY LITTLE at all: The universe could be a single universe shared by all of us, including Mr. X, but if you remove Mr. X from the universe, it is no longer Mr. X's universe.

 

 

Try to imagine describing a universe that you are not there to observe, contemplate, or describe. What could you possibly describe while not existing? And if you can describe it using someone else's point of view, then yours probably wasn't that special enough to call yourself a god of your own reality.

 

 

This is mostly just philosophical, however. Personally, I don't think that multiple worlds with different causalities exist. Whatever causes a die to be rolled a 1, will cause it to be rolled a 1 in all possible alternate realities.

Edited April 14, 2011 by md65536

[lemur]

This is mostly just philosophical, however. Personally, I don't think that multiple worlds with different causalities exist. Whatever causes a die to be rolled a 1, will cause it to be rolled a 1 in all possible alternate realities.

What about fundamental uncertainty in quantum physics?

 

What about complex decision-making situations that involve multiple factors, like deciding when to go to the bathroom during a meeting and how to organize what you say to tactfully escape to the bathroom without shirking your responsibility to say something pertinent? Is what you say not influenced by your need to go to the bathroom? Is your tolerance for your discomfort not increased by your need to say what you have to say and leave at the right moment?

Edited April 14, 2011 by lemur

[Edtharan]

If this is true, would that not mean that each person's consciousness / soul / life would be seperated into it's own universe, where everyone else is just a dummy with "no soul" if you like.

For a start, there is no evidence that a Soul exists, and different beliefs about what a soul is, is different between even people who believe in the same religion. So speculating on the effects of something that has not been shown to exist, and the definition of is inconsistent is not something that will lead to fruitful outcomes.

 

However, we have a better handle on conciousness. As far as we can detect, conciousness is a product of the processes in our brain (that is all the properties of conciousness can be attributed to know processes that occur in the brain). Thus, if you were to duplicate the brain without interrupting these processes, then it would be possible to duplicate a conciousness (once duplicated it would be a different conciousness, but it could be done).

 

Life too is just a process so there is no problem with duplicating that either.

 

So the only problem is with something that has no evidence of existence and has no consistent definition. Actually, I think it is these very things that cause your problem in the first place. As there is no consistent definition of a soul and we have no evidence of its existence, then knowing what effects something would have on such an entity is also completely unknown and undefined.

[md65536]

What about fundamental uncertainty in quantum physics?

Well... I don't think that observations of uncertain realities are fundamental! I speculated about it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55240-convergent-superficial-alternate-realities/

 

In other words: I think it's possible to have a single universe where things like thermodynamic energy are fundamental, but most of observed reality (time and distance and thus chronology and geometry) are emergent. I think it's possible for different observers to see a single universe differently, ie. different realities, but they are all consistent with the single fundamental description of the universe. Then the universe can be stochastic, and observations of it can be uncertain. -- This is based on my own work and is not developed enough to be anything more than an idea and an opinion.

 

 

 

What about complex decision-making situations that involve multiple factors, like deciding when to go to the bathroom during a meeting and how to organize what you say to tactfully escape to the bathroom without shirking your responsibility to say something pertinent? Is what you say not influenced by your need to go to the bathroom? Is your tolerance for your discomfort not increased by your need to say what you have to say and leave at the right moment?

All of those have causal relationships, whether or not they are deterministic (I may be wrong). I don't think that some random event can be observed to both cause an event, and not cause an event, as seen by different observers. Or in other words, though different observers may disagree on what they see, they will agree about "what everyone else saw", so that if some event causes an effect on any given observer, all other observers will agree that the causal event took place. -- Again, opinion! I'm not sure if the science backs me up at all.

 

 

[lemur]

Well... I don't think that observations of uncertain realities are fundamental! I speculated about it here: http://www.sciencefo...nate-realities/

 

In other words: I think it's possible to have a single universe where things like thermodynamic energy are fundamental, but most of observed reality (time and distance and thus chronology and geometry) are emergent. I think it's possible for different observers to see a single universe differently, ie. different realities, but they are all consistent with the single fundamental description of the universe. Then the universe can be stochastic, and observations of it can be uncertain. -- This is based on my own work and is not developed enough to be anything more than an idea and an opinion.

I was referring to the fundamental uncertainty regarding electron speed and position.

 

All of those have causal relationships, whether or not they are deterministic (I may be wrong). I don't think that some random event can be observed to both cause an event, and not cause an event, as seen by different observers. Or in other words, though different observers may disagree on what they see, they will agree about "what everyone else saw", so that if some event causes an effect on any given observer, all other observers will agree that the causal event took place. -- Again, opinion! I'm not sure if the science backs me up at all.

My point was that there are interaction effects in the variables.

 

 

[md65536]

For a start, there is no evidence that a Soul exists, and different beliefs about what a soul is, is different between even people who believe in the same religion. So speculating on the effects of something that has not been shown to exist, and the definition of is inconsistent is not something that will lead to fruitful outcomes.

That's true... and just using any of these words, like "Soul, Multiple worlds, Consciousness" etc carries WAY too many extra connotations to be able to figure it all out in an internet forum. It would be better to simplify and talk about only concrete things. Like: What specific aspects of a "soul" are we talking about here?

 

However, we have a better handle on conciousness. As far as we can detect, conciousness is a product of the processes in our brain (that is all the properties of conciousness can be attributed to know processes that occur in the brain). Thus, if you were to duplicate the brain without interrupting these processes, then it would be possible to duplicate a conciousness (once duplicated it would be a different conciousness, but it could be done).

Yes... but!...

 

Suppose someone duplicated you perfectly so that there was no difference between you and your twin. I would assume that you wouldn't simultaneously "think" from the perspective of 2 people. You would each still think you were you. No matter how "same" you are, there would be some aspect of you and your consciousness that is unique to each of you.

 

Or another example: You are the same person as "you" from yesterday, right? But that person no longer thinks, experiences, or exists. You from yesterday, as separate from you from today, can no longer think or experience in your universe. You each existed at different times, but you only associate your consciousness with the you that exists at the moment. -- Sorry if this makes no sense! It's all vague and confusing to me.

 

My point is that there is something that you associate with "you" that can be sensed (IE. thought of, or observed), that is independent of the physical system. No matter how identical you and something else are, you still have a sense of individuality. I think that the answer to this puzzle is that we are not actually fundamental parts of the universe! Consciousnesses must have some emergent component(s).

 

I assume consciousness is an effect of physical aspects of the universe (rather than existing independently of the physical universe), and to be affected by anything constitutes making an observation of it. So consciousness involves one or more observational perspectives. I assume every observational perspective can describe its own reality (very similar but not identical to all other realities). And I think that reality is emergent. Therefore, what I think of as "me" is "real" but not "fundamental": I exist in the reality I observe. Some form of me exists in the reality you observe. And, the physical constituent parts of me (my mass, energy, state, whatever) exists in a single fundamental universe, as we all do, but the identity I associate with myself does not exist there.

 

Simple!

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the fundamental uncertainty regarding electron speed and position.

 

If spacetime is emergent (which I believe it is) then geometry is emergent, and speed and position are emergent. I think this could mean it's possible that the energy of an electron exists in a "fundamental universe", and yet it can be observed differently (different speed and position) by different observers.

 

:S I could try to explain this belief better, but it would take a long time and it's based on a lot of conjecture anyway.

 

 

 

 

My point was that there are interaction effects in the variables.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is "interaction effect" the same as what I'm calling "causal effect"? Or is there an example of an effect that wouldn't be considered causal? I think I could convert any MWI example as might be observed in reality, into a single-world interpretation.

 

For example: Take Schrodinger's cat... Suppose the cat has all sorts of advanced sensing equipment and observes that the radioactive source does NOT decay and release any radiation, yet the Geiger counter observes that it DOES decay, and cracks open the vial of poison. The cat, being an exceptionally clever one, accepts that the reality it observes may be slightly different than the reality the Geiger counter observes, and thus accepts that the Geiger counter observed radiation even though the cat's equipment didn't. Thus the cat obligingly dies. All realities had slightly different observations, but all agreed on what everyone else saw (consistency), and thus all agreed on the results of all causal effects, and thus all agreed on consistent outcomes.

Edited April 14, 2011 by md65536

[Yoseph]

Thanks for the replys, I enjoyed reading

 

This all sort of links to this thing I was thinking about the other day; that maybe consciousness is a dimension. I was thinking this because I was wondering whether conciousness / the mind exists in 3 dimensional space? Of course the brain does, but does that mean your thoughts do?

 

If it doesn't then what does it exist in? To me it seems that as you said there is a universe which is agreed on, a "true reality" if you like. But each persons mind warps this reality into a perspective; a different universe. In all of these different perspectives / universes, the persons mind would be acting as a "5th dimension" as it creates the universe theyre experiencing.

 

Sorry if I sound quite nooby, I'm assuming I'm a lot younger than you guys and have read far less books and don't know much about philosophy or anything past A level physics.

[Edtharan]

Suppose someone duplicated you perfectly so that there was no difference between you and your twin. I would assume that you wouldn't simultaneously "think" from the perspective of 2 people. You would each still think you were you. No matter how "same" you are, there would be some aspect of you and your consciousness that is unique to each of you.

You are treating consciousness as a "Thing" rather than as a process (see next section).

 

Or another example: You are the same person as "you" from yesterday, right? But that person no longer thinks, experiences, or exists. You from yesterday, as separate from you from today, can no longer think or experience in your universe. You each existed at different times, but you only associate your consciousness with the you that exists at the moment. -- Sorry if this makes no sense! It's all vague and confusing to me.

If I was duplicated like you say, then each individual would have its own process, so I wouldn't think form 2 perspectives at once. However, as each process, from the moment of duplication has different experiences, then the processing of those experiences into consciousness would be different, so each would be distinct individuals that don't have the same consciousness.

 

As an example, one of them would be the original and the other would be the copy. Just knowing that I was the original would mean that my experience of the copying would be fundamentally different form the copy.

 

Or what about the scenario where the duplication split the original so that neither could say if they were the original or not? Well in this case we would have different spatial or temporal positions (eg: one wakes up on the left side of the room and the other on the right). These differences cause a fundamental distinction between the entities and this means the processes are different from the outset.

 

My point is that there is something that you associate with "you" that can be sensed (IE. thought of, or observed), that is independent of the physical system. No matter how identical you and something else are, you still have a sense of individuality. I think that the answer to this puzzle is that we are not actually fundamental parts of the universe! Consciousnesses must have some emergent component(s).

As I said above, it is due to the fact that there is a fundamental distinction between the experiences of any copies. As experience is a process too, then you can state that the processes of the copies are different and distinct.

 

I assume consciousness is an effect of physical aspects of the universe (rather than existing independently of the physical universe), and to be affected by anything constitutes making an observation of it. So consciousness involves one or more observational perspectives. I assume every observational perspective can describe its own reality (very similar but not identical to all other realities). And I think that reality is emergent. Therefore, what I think of as "me" is "real" but not "fundamental": I exist in the reality I observe. Some form of me exists in the reality you observe. And, the physical constituent parts of me (my mass, energy, state, whatever) exists in a single fundamental universe, as we all do, but the identity I associate with myself does not exist there.

 

Simple!

It is even more simple than that. It the thinking of "Consciousness" as a "Thing" that leads you into trouble here.

 

Let me give an example:

 

If you copy a file on your computer, you create two files where the contents of them are identical. However, they exist as two separate entities on your hard drive because they have different physical locations on your hard drive. So even though they are identical in content, they are distinct and different by the fundamental fact that they have different physical locations.

 

Now, this distinction is not found within the contents of the file, but in the fact that they don't occupy the same space and time. If you were then to make changes to one file and then different changes to the other, the contents of the files would begin to differentiate because different processes occurred to them (the changes you make).

 

So the differences are not to be found in a physical property of the file, but in the processes that occurred to them (and they are involved in).

 

This is the point I am making. As Consciousness is a process, then even if you copied the physical material the process is running on (the brain), the fact that one is a copy and they don't exist in the same space and time means that the processes are different and this creates differences in the copies, giving then uniqueness.

[farmboy]

Am I correct in saying that this theory says that the universe is splitting into all the possible outcomes the universe can create?

 

From wikipedia:

 

"According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains 6 sides and that the result corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All 6 possible ways the die can fall correspond to 6 different universes." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse)

 

If this is true, would that not mean that each person's consciousness / soul / life would be seperated into it's own universe, where everyone else is just a dummy with "no soul" if you like.

This would techically make YOU the only real person / conscious thing in "your" universe? You would therefore be "God" in your own universe as without your consciousness, "your" universe would not exist?

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

Yoseph

 

Assuming my understanding is correct, then it seems to me that people in this thread (not everyone of course) are sort of ignoring the bit I've highlighted above. You see this all the time in sci fi when they delve into this topic, all the alternate realities are the products of human decisions rather than what I thought the theory actually states, which is that all the alternate realities correspond to different quantum 'decisions'.

[md65536]

You are treating consciousness as a "Thing" rather than as a process (see next section).

 

 

[...]

 

As an example, one of them would be the original and the other would be the copy. Just knowing that I was the original would mean that my experience of the copying would be fundamentally different form the copy.

 

Or what about the scenario where the duplication split the original so that neither could say if they were the original or not? Well in this case we would have different spatial or temporal positions (eg: one wakes up on the left side of the room and the other on the right). These differences cause a fundamental distinction between the entities and this means the processes are different from the outset.

Then perhaps it is "identity" that I was thinking of as an emergent property.

Is it fair to say that identity is a product of consciousness, which is simply a process?

 

For examples I prefer the idea of splitting a consciousness so that there is no distinction between the 2 copies. If you say "one must be the original", that gives you an easy way to associate the identity of the original with only one of the copies, and avoid thinking about the problems. The problem is that there are now 2 copies and 2 separate processes of consciousness, and 2 identities... and while you could clone Bob and say "They're both Bob!", each of the clones would have a feeling of "me" that separates the 2... each knows "The other clone is not me," at least as far as the process that creates identity is concerned.

 

I think that the difference between our points is that I'm trying to say "The clones can be identical and yet each has something that is unique", while you are saying "As soon as there are 2 copies they are different, so there is no problem with them having unique identities." I think both points are correct; I'll have to dig deeper to find a useful distinction.

 

 

If we make the following assumptions:

- Identity is the result of the process of consciousness, which is a result of the physical makeup of a brain (including any applicable aspects of matter, energy, time, etc).

- Without the physical processes of the brain, consciousness would cease.

- Without consciousness, an identity associated with that consciousness would cease to exist.

 

 

Perhaps we can simplify everything by saying that the idea that "Identity is an emergent phenomena" is the same sentiment as "Identity is a process and not a physical thing." Perhaps the essence of "emergence" is that it involves characteristics that "come into being" only due to the arrangement and interaction of other physical objects and measurements. There IS no problem with identities being created or destroyed, because they don't exist as things. -- So, okay I think I get your point now.

 

 

Going back to the idea of being a "god of our own reality", this is true if...

- we allow that a god can exist as a consequence of other physical properties, rather than as independent physical properties

- we allow that a god can be created by a particular arrangement of reality, and destroyed when that arrangement is dismantled

- so despite being a god, we cease to exist if that particular reality ceases to exist.

 

This kind of goes against the connotation of being a god. Instead of saying "My particular reality exists only because I exist", it makes more sense to say "I exist only because my particular reality exists." Reality is the god; I am nothing.

 

 

 

Then, going back to my ramblings about a "fundamental universe" vs emergent realities...

I would say that the difference between what is fundamental and what is emergent then seems to be an issue of whether a physical aspect "exists" on its own independent of other things, or exists (only?) as a consequence of other physical aspects. One might say that the energy that makes up the mass of our brain is a fundamental part of the universe, and the spatial arrangement of that matter may be fundamental or emergent (I believe the latter), but the consciousness of that brain is emergent, and only exists as consequence of the arrangement of the brain's energy in space and time.

 

If this is acceptable, then I would say No, consciousness is not an extra dimension. The dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it [."]http://en.wikipedia....iki/Dimension]. If consciousness is just a consequence of the spatial and temporal arrangement of mass, energy, etc, then that consciousness can be completely specified by specifying the mass and energy in their spacetime dimensions. Given a particular arrangement of energy, a consciousness can be deduced. I don't see a need for anything extra that can't be specified in the "usual" dimensions (whether or not additional dimensions are included for MWI).

 

Assuming my understanding is correct, then it seems to me that people in this thread (not everyone of course) are sort of ignoring the bit I've highlighted above. You see this all the time in sci fi when they delve into this topic, all the alternate realities are the products of human decisions rather than what I thought the theory actually states, which is that all the alternate realities correspond to different quantum 'decisions'.

I think you're right about what the theory states. Neither "decisions" nor "observations" need to have anything to do with humans.

 

Human decisions seem to have an element of uncertainty to it (though it's not settled for good whether we, or the universe, is deterministic or stochastic -- the latter seems to be the correct one). A particular human decision involves a lot of individual interactions of matter and energy, probably involving a mix of many deterministic and non-deterministic processes.

 

I consider an observation to be any effect that depends on the state of something else.

For example, if an atom collides with another atom and is affected by it, that constitutes an observation.

An atom can be an observer, if an observation affects it.

My understanding of the MWI is that if the event of an atom colliding or not colliding is a probabilistic event that both occurs and doesn't occur (both in superposition), then the event of collision or no collision is a quantum observation (or decision) that differentiates 2 different worlds based on only this event. (With many many other worlds existing, differentiated by each of all the possible different random events that can occur in different ways)

Edited April 15, 2011 by md65536

[Butters]

It does seem like a lot of people emphasise human decisions about what to do and when as causing the universe to ¨split¨. Surely it´s a lot more fundamental than that, at a quantum level. Besides, it seems likely that your genetic makeup and past experiences will always lead you to do the same thing. You don´t have a ¨choice¨to be a completely different type of person. You are what you are. The only variations in your behaviour would be based on differing circumstances based on quantum effects, not you suddenly deciding to strip naked and dance the Charleston on the desk at work simply because it´s physically possible to do so.

 

So yes, I actually do believe that free-will is an illusion. You do what you do because of who you are, which was not a choice you made as´you´did not exist.

 

I should point out this whole thing should be prefaced with IN MY OPINION, as otherwise it comes across as if I´m stating these things as if I think they are facts!