Diadem wrote:Well, it's true that some of the parallel universes are identical to ours. But the fraction of identical universes is of course vanishingly small.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:An actual cloud... full of lesbians.
KrO2 wrote:One thing I'm not clear on is, is saying that you end up in the same point but in a different universe assuming that there's a privileged reference frame? Otherwise, you're in the same point relative to what? Yourself?
Yakk wrote:You can do away with infinities.
Suppose the universe is quantized. Every Planck time period in every Planck volume one of two things happen. Each of these fork the universe into two.
The volume of the observable universe is about E80 cubic meters.
A Planck length is about E-35 meters. So there are E185 cubic Planck lengths in the observable universe.
The universe is roughly E10 years old, or E18 seconds. A Planck time unit is E-44 or so, so the universe is E62 Planck time units long.
If every Planck time unit in every Planck volume, a single random bit is split into two possibilities, you get 2^(10^185) universe copies created per Planck time unit. Over E62 Planck time units, this generates a total of roughly 2^(10^247) parallel universes.
This is reasonably large, but not infinite. And you can count and divide and generate probabilities.
Going further, we could apply the holographic principle, and say that the two copies of the solar system in which the solar system is the same, but all signals from the rest of the universe are identical, are actually the same solar system -- and similarly, the universes where the solar system varies but the boundary condition of what is emitted from the solar system stays the same is the same solar system. Ie, boundary conditions are what we care about.
In essence, whatever happens where you cannot observe it, everything happens. This sort of (in a hand-wavy sense) explains Quantum Mechanics -- when two things aren't interacting, or are carefully isolated from each other, the boundary conditions between them permit multiple states in each other, so these multiple states are real.
In this case, you are in effect in every parallel universe where the solar system is identical. You cannot "travel" there, because they are the same place.
Elvish Pillager wrote:you're basically a daytime-miller: you always come up as guilty to scumdar.
SlyReaper wrote:Did you never notice the etymological link between "tyrannosaur" and "tyrant"? 1% of the dinosaurs had 99% of the prey. Occupy Pangaea.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:However, if it's the whole Universe, that means that every action an alien takes in another galaxy creates a parallel universe, including a parallel Earth, where things AREN'T different. Assuming every action in the ENTIRE universe creates a parallel, then there would be an infinite number of parallel universes which are, within the boundaries of our solar system, exactly the same.
The result, of course, is that if there is an infinite number of IDENTICAL parallel universes, then if you managed to go to one it would be exactly the same as this one in every respect, which means the 'you' in that Universe would have just moved to a parallel universe right when you did, which means you are now occupying the space occupied by HIM a moment ago. You would be in an utterly identical world, occupying the former space of an identical you.
End result: As far as you know, you didn't go anywhere and the experiment failed.
SurgicalSteel wrote:Wow, you're spectacularly unhelpful! I think you have a real talent for not being helpful!
The word universe means everything there is - you can't have an infinite 'number of universes,' but you can have an infinite universe.
But - if in fiction terms, you really don't want to shake off this notion of the existence of slightly or very different universes - you can still have them.... you just can't 'create' them by making a decision. They must already exist. Every conceivable version must already be in existence, from big bang through to big crunch. Can't rule that out because if everything is infinite, then it could all be there right 'now'. But you can't.... (no matter how hard you try!) 'create' a universe, by making a decision.
Sweeney_Todd wrote:If you assume parallel universes to be true, then what determines why our consciousness occupies this universe? For example, say you face a crossroad, and you turn right. A parallel universe exists in which you turn left the second you turn right. If that universe is exactly the same, save for your direction change, why don't you experience turning left?
Yakk wrote:Your use of the word "must" in particular. Building a model where there aren't enough copies of verses to be "already there" for all future splits is not the only way to do it, despite your claims. If you have a reason why this "must" be the case, please clarify.
SpringLoaded12 wrote:You're like a modern-day Holden Caulfield, except that no one would read a book about you.
Yakk wrote:The non-forking model, where there are a countable number of identical parallel universes who evolve non-locally and probabilistically, is nigh-indistinguishable from the forking parallel universe model. And if you identify with the pattern of information processing rather than any physical particles, you could say that the pattern exists over multiple causally disconnected universes, and forks itself.
My personal favorite parallel universe model is a computational one. Each cell of Planck size is simulated fully with all boundary conditions for a period of Planck time (where I assume reality is discrete on Planck time / Space units). Then, possibly needlessly, 8 such cells are glued together (such that they agree on the seams) and their evolution is simulated (which is nearly a noop in a sense, as the possible evolutions of each cell was already calculated). Then 8 such cells are glued together...
As no actual simulation really need be done past the first stage, in a sense the first simulation implies a full simulation of every reality that consists of only the original Planck sized cells and the evolution rule. . . We (the patterns that make up people) can be found in the dust of the original computation.
A classical computation results in a physics model that contains information patterns that perceive reality as being non-classical. How is that for a brain in a vat?
EvanED wrote:be aware that when most people say "regular expression" they really mean "something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a regular expression"
Yakk wrote:Semantics are uninteresting.
Eddie Editor wrote:Likewise, I was not merely being pedantic when I said that ‘an infinite number’ misleads us. I think it is important to be aware that ‘infinity’ is utterly in a class of one. Beyond our primitive mathematics, it has nothing to do with very big numbers.
Yakk wrote:For a toy example, start with a 1 dimensional binary finite automata with a diameter 3 evolution rule. This can easily generate time-like behavior in the y direction (with entropy and such). Such systems are easily made Turing complete, and (presuming something analogous to the Church-Turing thesis holds) we should be able to set up initial conditions for a sufficiently large (ridiculously so) system to contain the computation of intelligent life, whose existence is described completely in a 2 dimensional computation that is (once finished) unchanging.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests