Evolutionists use the multiverse idea to explain how their improbable idea that all of biology, and everything else, just happened to arise spontaneously. We know from science that the idea is improbable, but that is only if we restrict ourselves to our particular universe. What if there are many universes? A great many universes. So many universes that even improbable events are eventually likely to occur, in at least one of them. And since there is no upper bound on the number of universes there may be out there, even astronomically unlikely events—like millions and millions of incredible species, each with their incredible designs—become just another yawner. So what, it was bound to happen. And when said evolution occurs, then the creatures it produces will observe their own world. What will be apparent to them is only their own universe. It will appear as though the world must have been created, so unlikely and incredible are its inhabitants. But it is all an illusion for, in the bigger picture, that near infinity of universes—the multiverse—was bound to produce a world so incredible.What evolutionists do not so often discuss is the baggage that comes along with this multiverse idea. For if our world becomes an odds-on favorite to evolve, then what else has evolved out there? There must be universes that contain all manner of incredible, unlikely events. After all, with the mulitiverse, they no longer are unlikely.
This following is a excellent video on the absurdity of the atheist's multiverse:
ReplyDeleteThe Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon
http://vimeo.com/34468027
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon
DeleteAre you sure that wasn't Bruce Wayne?
Dr. Hunter, well Dr. Gordon is very close to being a 'super-hero' in my book! :) ,,, another thing, besides the 'baggage of absurdity' that atheists don't talk about in their multiverse scenario, is exactly what is it that is generating these hypothetical and untestable multiverses.
Deletenotes:
Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Origination and sustaining of the Universe
Excerpt of conclusion: Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly , can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0′ state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit
The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/
Excellent video. I love the way Dr Gordon summerizes the science. It gets to the motivations as to why scientists try so hard to create these ludicrous models. His explanations of the fine tuned constants are informative and humorous - hard to beat. His logic is impeccable.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteBut I always wanted to be Robin.
So you always aspired to be a second fiddle lackey and run around in tights? :)
Working for the DI must be your dream job then.
If multiverse is true, then there must be a Universe where there is a transcendent God who created the heavens and Earth in seven days, made a big flood, saved eight people in an ark, made a covenant with a man named Abraham, and took Abraham's children out of the land of Egypt, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's right natschuster. Just like with Darwinism, nothing is any longer falsifiable.
DeleteBingo! And thus in their desperation to avoid having to explain the fine-tuning of the Universe and vast improbabilities involved with the origin of biological information from stochastic processes the atheists have walked right into the ontological argument for the existence of God.
DeleteLOL! I guess I could be a spoil-sport and point out that the Multiverse hypothesis has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. But you little kids are having too much fun cheering CH's latest idiocy.
ReplyDeleteOh well. One of primary purposes of this blog is to provide a place for scientifically illiterate and impotent Creationists to vent some of their frustration.
So scream away little kiddies. It won't affect the world of science in the slightest.
More venom laced commentary of course. I guess that makes you feel good or something.
DeleteWhatever floats your boat.
But Thorton, does that mean that you are OK with God creating the universe and then allowing biological evolution to do it's thing?
If there is no God for biological evolution, why would you think there is for cosmological evolution?
If you take an atheistic position, you have to explain both problems so I don't see how you can get yourself off the hook just by saying this has nothing to do with biological evolution.
So what! The point still remains that the multiverse is fast becoming a part of the atheist's Statement of Faith.
This shows the weakness of the position in my opinion.
Why is it that so many critics of creationism are incapable of acknowledging or recognizing that one's cosmological premises are inextricably intertwined with one's epistemology, particularly when considering scientific data to derive, support, or rule out a specific theory of biogenesis? This is either dishonest or irrational. Probably both.
Delete
ReplyDeletescream away little kiddies. It won't affect the world of science in the slightest
Well that settles it then. The multiverse hypothesis must be true! Once again the mighty Thorton stuns us with his razor sharp intellect and cogent arguments.
Thorton states:
ReplyDelete'I guess I could be a spoil-sport and point out that the Multiverse hypothesis has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.'
Yet:
The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life - Eugene V Koonin - 2007
Background: Recent developments in cosmology radically change the conception of the universe as well as the very notions of "probable" and "possible". The model of eternal inflation implies that all macroscopic histories permitted by laws of physics are repeated an infinite number of times in the infinite multiverse. In contrast to the traditional cosmological models of a single, finite universe, this worldview provides for the origin of an infinite number of complex systems by chance, even as the probability of complexity emerging in any given region of the multiverse is extremely low. This change in perspective has profound implications for the history of any phenomenon, and life on earth cannot be an exception.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/
So Thorton do you want to go inform Koonin?
List of my favorite universes:
ReplyDelete5. one atom universe
4. square universe - that's for my mother in law. She's German.
3. Sponge Bob universe
2. Thorton universe
and number one
1. spell checking universe- I really need that one
When your worldview forces you to place your faith in the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes to save your pet theories, perhaps it is time to re-examine these beloved theories and your worldview as well.
ReplyDeleteBut I always wanted to be Robin.
ReplyDeleteWill this tights fad ever end?
I,for one,welcome our new tights clad overlords.
ReplyDeleteIF CH goes the full Robin route to fight those evil evos, I wonder what he'll carry in his Creationist Utility Belt?
ReplyDelete1. Chick tracts to hand out, useful for crowd dispersal
2. Jonathan Wells pepper(ed moth) spray
3. Dembski explanatory filter, blocks all rational thought
4. Behe anti-malaria spray, works against designed parasites.
5. Atomic shovel for high speed quote-mining
6. Casey Luskin eyebrow comb
7. Random number generator for creating claimed enormous improbabilities
8. CSI "looks designed to me" detector
I'm sure there's more...
:)
9. Thorton look-alike mask, when crashing super-secret evo meetings.
Delete10. List of every parasite and disease, to use when disguised as Thorton.
11. Gish-gallop quotes.
Robin Hunter
Delete9. Thorton look-alike mask, when crashing super-secret evo meetings.
10. List of every parasite and disease, to use when disguised as Thorton.
11. Gish-gallop quotes.
LOL! Touche. :)
...But for #9 you're going to have to leave your tights at home, sorry.
Fair play Cornelius for having a giggle. I don't really agree with much you write, but points 9-11 gave me a chuckle. Both sides take themselves too seriously at times.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how multiverse solves the problem. There could be an infinite number of universes that are all the same, and lifeless.
ReplyDeletenatschuster
DeleteI don't see how multiverse solves the problem. There could be an infinite number of universes that are all the same, and lifeless.
The multiverse hypothesis wasn't offered as a solution to any problem. It's one cosmological possibility derived from quantum mechanics. There is another, slightly different one that derives from M-theory (string theory).
None have any connection to biological evolution, except in as much as all of our known physical reality has a connection.
To claim that the hypothesis was offered as a solution of the problem of OOL is typical Hunter dishonest spin.
CH: We know from science that the idea is improbable, but that is only if we restrict ourselves to our particular universe.
ReplyDeleteExcept, we've already pointed out the sort of likelihood you were referring to was invalid in the case of evolutionary theory. As such, you're inventing a problem to be solved.
CH: What if there are many universes?
What if there are multiple theories about multiple universes?
But we do not have to ask, "what if?", because there are multiple theories about multiple universes. And they are posited as explanations for different phenomena, of which none are biology. And they also have different implications, which you've conveniently left out.
So, again, it would seem you're argument is a non-starter…
CH: So many universes that even improbable events are eventually likely to occur, in at least one of them. And since there is no upper bound on the number of universes there may be out there, even astronomically unlikely events—like millions and millions of incredible species, each with their incredible designs—become just another yawner. So what, it was bound to happen.
You've also conveniently left out that "improbable" events would have occurred even if there was only one universe. It's only when you assume that specific events were selected ahead of time that they are improbable in the sense you're implying.
So, we still haven't even left the gate.
CH: So what, it was bound to happen. And when said evolution occurs, then the creatures it produces will observe their own world. What will be apparent to them is only their own universe. It will appear as though the world must have been created, so unlikely and incredible are its inhabitants. But it is all an illusion for, in the bigger picture, that near infinity of universes—the multiverse—was bound to produce a world so incredible.
And, as it expands exponentially, the rest of our universe will eventually travel so far from here that it will no longer be visible from our milky way galaxy. And the same can be said for other galaxies as well. Should life evolve then, the resulting organisms will observe their own world. What will be apparent to them is only their own galaxy. It will appear to them as if galaxy was created, so unlikely and incredible are its inhabitants. But it will all be an illusion for, in the bigger picture, trillions of galaxies will exist beyond the their visible universe.
In other words, the sort of blindness you described isn't only possible if multiple universes exist. It *will* occur in our universe if it keeps expanding exponentially.
It's only because we evolved at this particular time in our universe that we know about the rest of these galaxies. In the distance future, the evidence for their existence will no longer be visible.
CH: What evolutionists do not so often discuss is the baggage that comes along with this multiverse idea.
ReplyDeleteFirst, while I know taking theories seriously isn't your thing, it's not baggage, it's what one concludes when we assume multiple universes exist, in reality.
Second, that depends on exactly who you've decided to label "evolutionists" at the moment, as the Many-Worlds interoperation (MWI) represents a main-stream interpretation of quantum mechanics. As such the implications are discussed quite often.
For example, in the MWI each of these universes share the same laws of physics. And there are an estimated 10^500 universes that are significantly similar enough to ours in that they interfere with each other in specific ways on the small scale.
In fact, the entire field of quantum computing is based on each of these 10^500 universes being similar enough to ours that slightly different results are returned for the same problem. resulting in the ability to factorize the same, extremely large number at a rate that would be impossible for a single classic computer in a single universe.
Nor do they represent some sort of "alien" world, because they each represent the logical consequences of slightly different events that occurred in one universe, but not some other universe, and so on, and so on. As such, they represent a sort of continuum of slight differences. We're just acclimated to the particular differences we've experienced over time.
If you can imagine decision making in one world, you can imagine decision making in many worlds. Each has the world constantly splitting, but otherwise obeying all the same rules.
So, it's precisely *because* there are so many universes that ours appears normal, in that they all follow the same classical laws of physics. As such, we no longer think a cat could be both dead and alive at the same time. Nor do we think our moon only exists even if no one is observing it. These, along with a number of paradoxes, are resolved by the MWI.
Scott states that:
ReplyDelete'Many-Worlds interoperation (MWI) represents a main-stream interpretation of quantum mechanics.'
Yet the infinite multiverse was postulated to deal with (explain away) the fine-tuning of the universe, whereas many-worlds (quasi-infinite parallel universes) was postulated to deal with (explain away) quantum wave collapse.
Quantum mechanics
Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications
Yet, the 'quantum wave packet' is now shown to be 'real', and thus the materialists/atheists foundation for postulating infinite parallel universe, by removal of quantum wave packet, is now shown to be false:
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';
Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011
Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html
Moreover consciousness is now found to precede collapse of the quantum wave packet:
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Moreover, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpDwWetu66fBRlPM7zjA5BpHzcu5wBY7AdB7gOz51OQ/edit
Scott also states:
Delete'In fact, the entire field of quantum computing is based on each of these 10^500 universes being similar enough to ours that slightly different results are returned for the same problem.'
Yet quantum computation is not based on any such metaphysical thing, but is instead based directly on the logic that follows from the 'qubit' (I believe Feynman was the first to derive the logic of the qubit):
note:
The Quantum Computer
Excerpt: In a quantum computer, the fundamental unit of information (called a quantum bit or qubit), is not binary but rather more quaternary in nature. This qubit property arises as a direct consequence of its adherence to the laws of quantum mechanics which differ radically from the laws of classical physics. A qubit can exist not only in a state corresponding to the logical state 0 or 1 as in a classical bit, but also in states corresponding to a blend or superposition of these classical states. In other words, a qubit can exist as a zero, a one, or simultaneously as both 0 and 1, with a numerical coefficient representing the probability for each state.
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~taha/teaching/05F/210/news/2005_09_16.htm
Quantum computing was founded on the assumptions that the MWI is true. Specifically David Deutsch proposed it as a way to falsify the MWI.
Deletehttp://esi-topics.com/enc/interviews/Dr-David-Deutsch.html
Also, Feynman was a proponent of the MWI.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/04/feynman-and-everett.html
Seems Deutsch is 'nearly alone' in his conviction that it would provide proof
DeleteDeutsch is nearly alone in this conviction that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound, though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_galchen
As well, your David Deutsch link does not have the precise falsification criteria listed. But at first glance I would say that having billions upon billions upon billions of entangled atoms in living systems, verified to be 'non-local', would provide the falsification:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Moreover, regardless of Feynman's atheistic metaphysics, Quantum computation is derived directly from the logic of a qubit and is not derived from a Many Worlds metaphysics. That is a contrived add on.,,, You simply have not presented any evidence to counter the 'reality' of the wave function but have merely, once again, reasserted your metaphysics as if your word should be good enough for proof!
Born: Yet quantum computation is not based on any such metaphysical thing, but is instead based directly on the logic that follows from the 'qubit' (I believe Feynman was the first to derive the logic of the qubit):
DeleteThat's odd, because Deutsch was the pioneers in quantum computing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch
David Deutsch laid the foundations of the quantum theory of computation, and has subsequently made or participated in many of the most important advances in the field, including the discovery of the first quantum algorithms, the theory of quantum logic gates and quantum computational networks, the first quantum error-correction scheme, and several fundamental quantum universality results. He has set the agenda for worldwide research efforts in this new, interdisciplinary field, made progress in understanding its philosophical implications (via a variant of the many-universes interpretation) and made it comprehensible to the general public, notably in his book The Fabric of Reality.
Born: As well, your David Deutsch link does not have the precise falsification criteria listed. But at first glance I would say that having billions upon billions upon billions of entangled atoms in living systems, verified to be 'non-local', would provide the falsification:
At first glance, I would say you do not understand that a non-local intepretations accept the same evidence as the MWI.
Born: Moreover, regardless of Feynman's atheistic metaphysics, Quantum computation is derived directly from the logic of a qubit and is not derived from a Many Worlds metaphysics.
And how do can we explain how qbits do what they do?
http://193.189.74.53/~qubitor/people/david/structure/Documents/Non-Technical/Frontiers.html
While conventional, non-quantum computers perform calculations on fundamental pieces of information called bits, which can take the values 0 or 1, quantum computers use objects called quantum bits, or qubits (pronounced queue-bits). A qubit can also either represent 0 or 1, but its value can vary from universe to universe. Hence in the time it takes a conventional computer to perform a given calculation, a quantum computer with its counterparts in other universes can perform many such calculations. In particular, they can each perform different pieces of a complex computation simultaneously. Using quantum interference, the computer in our universe can then combine its results with those of its counterparts, to arrive at the overall answer.
Also,
One especially convincing argument [for MWI] is provided by quantum algorithms — even more powerful than Grover’s - which calculate more intermediate results in the course of a single computation than there are atoms in the visible universe. When a quantum computer delivers the output of such a computation, we shall know that those intermediate results must have been computed somewhere, because they were needed to produce the right answer. So I issue this challenge to those who still cling to a single-universe world view: if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed? I have yet to receive a plausible reply.
On the other hand, non MWI can only say, "that's just how quantum mechanics works" It's a bad explanation for reason I've mentioned elsewhere.
Scott, first I repeat this:
DeleteQuantum mechanics
Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications
and this:
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
and this:
Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011
Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html
Scott I repeat, you simply have no foundation in science to postulate a MWI since the wave function is found to be 'real'. Scott, to overturn this falsification of MWI you must prove that the wave function is not 'real' but is merely abstract.
Moreover, though you put extreme confidence into the unsubstantiated metaphysical assumption Deutsch has made to MWI, the fact is that,,
Deutsch is nearly alone in this conviction that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound, though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_galchen
Thus Scott, I have hard evidence that falsifies a MWI scenario and you have the unsubstantiated, and now falsified, metaphysical assumption of Deustch. Are you beginning to see the futility of your atheistic position?
Moreover the 10^500 figure Scott uses does not arise from the now falsified Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but instead arises from the exercise in mathematical fantasy known as 'string theory':
ReplyDeleteString theory landscape
Excerpt: In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10^500.[1] The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,[2] being a version of the subset sum problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
further note:
“string theory, while dazzling, has outrun any conceivable experiment that could verify it”
Excerpt: string theory, while dazzling, has outrun any conceivable experiment that could verify it—there’s zero proof that it describes how nature works. - Professor Peter Woit
http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics/string-theory-while-dazzling-has-outrun-any-conceivable-experiment-that-could-verify-it/
'it is clear that the string landscape hypothesis is a highly speculative construction built on shaky assumptions and,,, requires meta-level fine-tuning itself." - Bruce Gordon
Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno - Robert Sheldon - November 2011
Excerpt: 'In fact, on Lakatos' analysis, both String Theory and Inflation are clearly "degenerate science programs".'
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/08/sean_carroll_channels_giordano_bruno.thtml
Moreover 10^500 does not come anywhere near explaining the initial entropic state of this universe:
Baron Münchhausen and the Self-Creating Universe:
Roger Penrose has calculated that the entropy of the big bang itself, in order to give rise to the life-permitting universe we observe, must be fine-tuned to one part in e10exp(123)≈10^10exp(123). Such complex specified conditions do not arise by chance, even in a string-theoretic multiverse with 10^500 different configurations of laws and constants, so an intelligent cause may be inferred. What is more, since it is the big bang itself that is fine-tuned to this degree, the intelligence that explains it as an effect must be logically prior to it and independent of it – in short, an immaterial intelligence that transcends matter, energy and space-time. (of note: 10^10^123 minus 10^500 is still, for all practical purposes, 10^10^123)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/baron_munchausen_and_the_selfc.html
Born,
ReplyDeleteThe MWI is an interpretation, not a theory. As such, it encapsulates all of the observations of quantum mechanics.
In other words, none of the links you posted oppose the MWI.
In fact, many even support it. For example...
The Copenhagen interpretation later fell out of popularity, but the idea that the wavefunction reflects what we can know about the world, rather than physical reality, has come back into vogue in the past 15 years with the rise of quantum information theory, Valentini says.
Rudolph and his colleagues may put a stop to that trend. Their theorem effectively says that individual quantum systems must "know" exactly what state they have been prepared in, or the results of measurements on them would lead to results at odds with quantum mechanics.
This is consistent with a particle existing in a classical universe that interferes with slightly different versions of it self across multiple universes.
From the 2007 article..
Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
However, neither realism or locality is discordant under the MWI, as each universe acts in accordance to classical physics. Nor does separated events in the same universe some how influence each other instantaneously. These problems are resolved by the MWI.
So, what you'e done here is pick out words from my comment, then post links that reference them in some way, despite the fact that they do not actually conflict with the substance of my comment.
Born: Moreover the 10^500 figure Scott uses does not arise from the now falsified Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but instead arises from the exercise in mathematical fantasy known as 'string theory':
DeleteExcept, when it did come from the MWI....
When a quantum factorization engine is factorizing a 250-digit number, the number of interfering universes will be of the order of 10^500 - that is, ten to the power of 500. This staggeringly large number is the reason why Shor's algorithm makes factorization tractable. I said that the algorithm requires only a few thousand arithmetic operations. I meant, of course, a few thousand operations in each universe that contributes to the answer. All those computations are performed in parallel, in different universes, and share their results through interference.
You may be wondering how we can persuade our counterparts in 10^500-odd universes to start working on our factorization task. Will they not have their own agendas for the use of their computers? No - and no persuasion is necessary. Shor's algorithm operates initially only on a set of universes that are identical to one another, and it causes them to become differentiated only within the confines of the factorization engine. So we, who specified the number to be factorized, and who wait while the answer is computed, are identical in all the interfering universes. There are, no doubt, many other universes in which we programmed different numbers or never built the factorization engine at all. But those universes differ from ours in too many variables - or more precisely, in variables that are not made to interact in the right way by the programming of Shor's algorithm - and so do not interfere with our universe.
David Deutch. The Fabric of Reality.
See reply here:
Deletehttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-is-what-multiverse-really-means.html?showComment=1332508893784#c8041667319016189933
Scott, the wave function is found to be 'real' thus directly undermining the foundation (removal of wave packet) upon which MWI was built. If you see no conflict with that finding there is nothing I can do for you!!!
ReplyDeleteMoreover, consciousness precedes collapse of wave function is completely antagonistic to the atheistic MWI no matter what you say!
DeleteQuantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D
http://vimeo.com/37517080
Quantum mind–body problem
Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem
"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169)
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner
Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous' to each unique point of conscious observation:
DeleteWheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
etc.. etc..
Scott, you simply have no evidence for a atheistic MWI view of Quantum Mechanics, and you are either self-deluded, or you are purposely trying to deceive others to insist otherwise!!
Born: Scott, the wave function is found to be 'real' thus directly undermining the foundation (removal of wave packet) upon which MWI was built. If you see no conflict with that finding there is nothing I can do for you!!!
DeleteYes, there is nothing you can do for me as, apparently, you lack a firm grasp of quantum mechanics.
Again, the term 'real' here is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation in which the wave function is thought to merely be an instrument of predicting what we will observe, rather than necessarily revealing anything about reality.
However, the MWI does not say the particles are acting in a way that does not reflect reality. Rather it suggests they are acting that way because, in reality, they are interfering with each other, while moving according to classical physics in different universes.
So, while the particles are not actually acting as waves, they appear to because to they are interfering with each other in other universes. This is an interpretation of what's happening in reality, rather than merely an instrument used to predict what we'll experience.
Born: Moreover, consciousness precedes collapse of wave function is completely antagonistic to the atheistic MWI no matter what you say!
From the same link….
Since the physical description in Everett's [MWI] realist account is the deterministic wavefunction, the issue of interpretation is only relevant when analyzing the experience of an observer. The answer to the question "what does this observer see?" is only ambiguous to the extent that the specification of the observer is imprecise. An observer's state is a particular high dimensional projection of the universal wavefunction, but not all parts of the wavefunction describe a single observer – only those parts which describe a consistent past. In Everett's picture, the interpretation is a clarification, it tells you which observer you are examining.
Nor is clear how the MWI is "atheist". What assumption are you basing this on?
Scott you keep repeating this as if you had anything other than your imaginary conviction that it must be true to base it on:
Delete"they are interfering with each other, while moving according to classical physics in different universes."
Yet that is merely your forced interpretation on the evidence. What we know for sure, from experimental science in this universe we live in right now, is that particles do not obey 'classical physics' in the first place. Thus you are clearly living in denial of empirical science with this continued insistence on the falsified MWI. Indeed, you truly are self-deluded of purposely trying to deceive people, moreover you clearly have no grasp of what you are dealing with in Quantum Mechanics!
notes:
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010
Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
This following study adds to Alain Aspect's work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the 'hidden variable' argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous 'spooky action at a distance' found in quantum mechanics.
Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009
Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
(of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)
In fact the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf
Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!
Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement to do it - Anton Zeilinger
http://vimeo.com/34168474
etc.. etc..
Scott, let's repeat this REAL SLOW so that you might get it this time:
DeleteQuantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
Thus Scott, think about this. You have a probabilistic interpretation (10^500) from MWI, and yet this proof I cite states in no uncertain terms that you cannot have a probabilistic interpretation of a Quantum Wave! i.e. You must appeal to another cause, besides the probabilistic MWI, to explain quantum wave collapse. Moreover, I just happen to know of a 'sufficient cause' that is not probabilistic;
Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation (Implications discussed in description) - video
http://vimeo.com/38463906
Excerpt from description:
Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly , can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0′ state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Born,
DeleteThis shows you have no clue as to the contents of the links you're reference.
Wallace is a MWI proponent. His work is focused on the MWI.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0130/evprob.html
Wallace thinks this research is significant because it collaborates the MWI, not contradicts it.
As such, it's unclear why we should even bother reading they links you post as apparently, you've either obtained them from a link that is incompetent / disingenuous, or you simply do not have a clue.
Of course, as soon as you realize this discovery doesn't support your view, you're change your mind, in that it will be nothing but "speculative metaphysics".
Scott can you even read dates??? The paper overturning probabilistic interpretations (MWI) is dated Nov 2011!! Wallace's papers are dated 2009 and before!! Or are you saying that experimental evidence has no effect on your preferred scenario?
DeleteBorn,
DeleteYou might as well have said....
Can you even read dates! The date on the receipt on your iPad 2 is dated in May 2011!!! So, MWI must be wrong!!
The paper doesn't overturn the MWI any more than the receipt for my iPad 2. You just do not realize this.
Wallace is commenting on the paper, which he didn't write.
In other words, Just because Wallace didn't write the paper, this doesn't mean it doesn't collaborate the MWI.
Again, it would seem that you're clueless about the MWI, the source of your links is clueless MWI or your source is knowingly presenting false information assuming you simply won't notice.
Scott, you are clearly clueless!
DeleteScott, to show just how misguided you are, Deustch does not hold that the wave function is 'real'. In fact it is a 'fatal flaw' in his argument in that he does not hold that a photon travels as a uncollapsed wave in the slit experiments;
Excerpt: 'But that still doesn't solve the fatal flaw in Deutsch's argument: there is no experimental evidence that a photon goes through one particular slit when we see a four slit interference pattern.'
http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html
And yet Scott, even though Deustch himself does not hold that the wave function is 'real', you cited the paper I originally cited,,,
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
as proof that MWI is correct!?! Scott, This evidence directly falsifies MWI!!!
Further notes on the reality of the wave function which MWI denies:
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract' as is held in MWI. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon
Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,
http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';
Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011
Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html
My favorite query to ask a Multiverse proponent.
ReplyDeleteWe now realize from the Multiverse theory that given any physically possible event, it will eventually happen in some instance of the multiverse. It is physically possible for you to say the word "YES". So given that, there are many instantiations where I, ask you, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you?"
"Is this one of the instances where you say 'YES'?" "Why or Why not?"
Um, is that supposed to present a dilemma for anyone?
DeleteIn any case, it shows you're more interested in rhetorics than science.
JDH: We now realize from the Multiverse theory that given any physically possible event, it will eventually happen in some instance of the multiverse. It is physically possible for you to say the word "YES". So given that, there are many instantiations where I, ask you, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you?"
ReplyDeleteI wrote: If you can imagine decision making in one world, you can imagine decision making in many worlds. Each has the world constantly splitting, but otherwise obeying all the same rules.
So, in those cases, there would be instances of myself in the multiverse that would say "YES" because of specific factors that were different than there are in this universe.
For example, there are universes where bad explanations are true. And in these universes, we would have no way of making progress. And there are universes where I'm not interested in how we create knowledge, or aware of what makes "Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you" a bad explanation.
Scott do you even care that the multiverse renders scientific rationality impossible?
DeleteHere's Dr. Gordon's last powerpoint:
The End Of Materialism?
* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
* In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
* In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
* Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
http://vimeo.com/34468027
Or Scott is all that matters to you is that you maintain your nihilistic atheism no matter what?
Born,
DeleteThat's a loaded question, along the lines of...
Do you even care that the multiverse tortures puppies?
Do you even care that the multiverse beats up kids for their lunch money?
All of these statements make the assumption that they are true, as part of the very same statement.
* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
False: In the MWI, all universes share the same laws of physics. Each has the world constantly splitting, but otherwise obeying all the same rules.
* In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
False: In the MWI, there are only some universes where bad explanations are true. So, in these specific universes, everything merely "appears" to be magic because we cannot perform science.
* In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
Attempts to take this seriously, as if it's true in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, lead to significant problems.
* Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
Except the premises are false. Again, it seems your understanding of the MWI is superficial at best.
Born: Or Scott is all that matters to you is that you maintain your nihilistic atheism no matter what?
Again, it's unclear how the the MWI is necessarily atheistic. Apparently, anything that disagrees with the Bible is atheistic?
Scott, let's repeat this once again:
DeleteQuantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Stacking a ‘random infinity', (parallel universes to 'explain away' quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity', to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics.,,, You simply cannot support your MWI 'probabilistic' position Scott.
See above. Apparently, you can't even tell that the link you're posting doesn't agree with your position, as Wallace is a MWI proponent.
DeleteScott see link at bottom, by Sturman, for a critique of your, and Deustch's, severely misconceived MWI.
DeleteMoreover, I certainly have a far more cohesive, substantiated, view of reality that this completely unsubstantiated MWI tripe you push:
reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment:
That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its 'infinite' information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon 'disappeared' from the 'material' universe when the entire information content of a photon was 'transcendently displaced' from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. 'transcendent' information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist.
That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. Hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. Yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of in regards to quantum entanglement and teleportation's relation to time; this ‘timeless’ travel achieved at the speed of light is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).
Delete"An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality"
Akiane Kramarik - Child Prodigy -
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586
Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order.
"The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude."
Prof. Henry F. Schaefer
Thus this infinite transcendent quantum information, which is shown to be the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.
The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914
Further notes:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video (notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/34084462
Irreducible Complexity really wrecks the whole multiverse edifice.
ReplyDeleteEvidently, say no more.
DeleteWhere does energy come from to create all the infinity of universes in the multiverse scenario?
ReplyDeleteDo universes appear by following some physical rule?
Does logic work in every universe for examle 2+3=5 in our universe , can 2+3=20 in another universe?
Why people think seriously about the multiverse idea?
Eugen,
ReplyDeleteWhich multiverse theory are you referring to? There are many and each would have different consequences.
As usual, Cornelius' post is parochial as it only takes into account a narrow scope of the subject at hand, by not even mentioning this significant difference.
This appears to be by design, as part of his agenda.
Scott, It appears your hero Deustch has made some very profound errors in his reasoning for a multiverse. No wonder he is 'nearly alone' in his thinking:
ReplyDeleteThe Parallel Universes of David Deutsch
(As argued for in Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality) - A Critque by Henry R. Sturman
Excerpt: 1.The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch's argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
5. Deutsch's argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html
Born,
ReplyDeleteSturman is arguing that Deutsch cannot disprove that spooky behavior on the small scale happens because it could be possible that, "that's just how quantum mechanics works"
This is bad a explanation along the lines of species have the adaptations they do because "that's just what God must have wanted."
On the other hand, Deutsch provide an hard to vary explanation for what we observe on the small scale. And this explanation is accepted by a significant number of the top physics in the field of quantum mechanics.
Furthermore, Sturman seems to think Deutsch's argument is flawed because it on the slit experiments rules out the possibility that the universe we see around us constitutes the whole of reality
However, Sturman's argument is parochial in that doesn't account for how Deutsch explains how we create knowledge. Specifically, while falsification is important, what is key is that an explanation is hard to vary. In other words, Sturman seems to think we have no choice but to throw up our hands and say that we can have no better expansion than "that's just how quantum mechanics works"
BTW, you can read the entire thread on the article, here, in which the assumptions in the article are addressed in detail.
For example, Sturman's position doesn't explain why observation causes collapse. "That's just how quantum mechanics works." However, the MWI does, in that the act of observation causes the universes to become un-similar enough that they can no longer participate in the experiment. This ends the interference.
So, in summary, the MWI explains more phenomena and simplifies quantum mechanics into multiple universes that observe classical physics, but interfere with each other on the small scale.
Scott, you completely miss the point once again. MWI is falsified from direct empirical evidence. Just because you refuse to see the evidence, nor Deustch's fatal flaws, does not matter one iota!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs Shor's algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation?
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe - our Universe - is a quantum system, not a classical system. So it is normal for quantum systems in a single Universe to behave just like the quantum computer running Shor's algorithm. On the contrary, if we only use the classical computers, we exponentially slow down the computer relatively to what it could do. In this sense, Deutsch's "argument" shows that the many-worlds interpretation is just another psychological aid for the people who can't resist to incorrectly think about our world as being a classical world of a sort. (Many more excellent answers are on the site)
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10062/is-shors-algorithm-a-demonstration-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis looks like a pretty old blog, and I'm not sure anyone is still subscribed to be able to read this comment, but let me start with this: First off, I was raised Catholic, I am absolutely not an atheist, but I think the idea of the multiverse got misconstrued somewhere. There's a very big difference between the mutliverse theory in science fiction (Star Trek, Fringe) and multiverse as a working theory. So, when physicists talk about a multiverse they don't necessarily mean an "infinite number of possible universes." Essentially they're describing an observation of the universe where different regions can act independently of one another, (move in different directions, have slightly different laws of physics, different actions of photons) but these regions exist within the same "Universe". Imagine a bubble bath, where each bubble is separate and independent of the other and yet they exist within the same body of water. THAT is the multiverse theory. It's certainly not as exciting as TV makes it out to be. As a side note I fully believe that the more we understand about our Universe the more we can come to appreciate God. I also think it's naive to reject the idea of God. The Bible was meant to be understood by mankind, whom cannot comprehend the mind of God.
ReplyDelete