tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post6683070423035313456..comments2024-02-16T05:17:21.690-05:00Comments on No Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons (Reloaded).: Euthenising the UniversePeter Wattshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06160557746794936786noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-27021136615545915292007-12-27T14:39:00.000-05:002007-12-27T14:39:00.000-05:00I was having beers with a couple of guys whose edu...<I>I was having beers with a couple of guys whose education in such things is far more recent than mine, and they tell me I got the whole model wrong: that many-worlds does not entail infinite proliferation of universes at each decision point, but rather a simultaneous proliferation of all possibilities at the beginning of time. So the timelines extend from t=0 like spokes on a wheel, not (as I'donegaishimasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290038148012768539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-9753376299866994002007-12-21T17:19:00.000-05:002007-12-21T17:19:00.000-05:00Keith said... These could be big problems. But wha...<B>Keith said...<BR/></B><I><BR/> These could be big problems. But what's the alternative? Observation (conscious or not) collapses the wavefunction? That way lie silly questions. Many-worlds at least is deterministic.</I><BR/><BR/>I was having beers with a couple of guys whose education in such things is far more recent than mine, and they tell me I got the whole model wrong: that many-worlds Peter Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160557746794936786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-63767734770682201232007-12-17T11:23:00.000-05:002007-12-17T11:23:00.000-05:00Nngg. I wrote in an unclear way.When I say "probab...Nngg. I wrote in an unclear way.<BR/><BR/>When I say "probability" I mean in the classical sense. So you flip a coin. Two different timelines. 50% of your mass one way, 50% the other, 100% of the time.<BR/><BR/>The observer and system lose mass, but they all lose the same amount down to the electrons, so who notices? Mass is relative, after all.<BR/><BR/>And yeah, in an instant each universe is onegaishimasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290038148012768539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-11996874928994140582007-12-14T23:18:00.000-05:002007-12-14T23:18:00.000-05:00I thought the whole point of the many-worlds inter...I thought the whole point of the many-worlds interpretation was that it avoided the "probabilities" issue entirely; every possible alternative happens with P=1.0, which necessitates the proliferation of universes to accommodate the existence of all those alternatives. And I don't see how you could just divvy up the mass of the parent universe between daughter parallels; given the rate of Peter Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160557746794936786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-14997346225344389802007-12-14T13:20:00.000-05:002007-12-14T13:20:00.000-05:00My hand wave explanation is that if a branch occur...My hand wave explanation is that if a branch occurs with 20% probability to universe A and 80% probability to universe B, then 20% of the original mass winds up in universe A and 80% of the original mass goes to universe B. This idea has problems, not sure if they are serious.<BR/><BR/>You could probably build a toy model with two interacting particles. Pretend that one is the "observer" and the onegaishimasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290038148012768539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-1167765142018102012007-12-10T17:36:00.000-05:002007-12-10T17:36:00.000-05:00Sal said... re the Many-World hypothesis: i rea...<B>Sal</B> said...<BR/><BR/><I> re the Many-World hypothesis: i read a fascinating time-travel book a few months back which beautifully neatly eliminated all the paradox stuff by positing that the whole branching idea ran _backwards_</I><BR/><BR/>That does sound like a cool twist, although I don't see what paradox it resolves -- doesn't the many-worlds interpretation resolve causality Peter Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160557746794936786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-55634728900001344322007-12-03T16:52:00.000-05:002007-12-03T16:52:00.000-05:00iirc, it was written in the 50s or 60s or thereabo...iirc, it was written in the 50s or 60s or thereabouts, by one of that tiny band of sheer geniuses that sold far far less than they should have. don't think it was sladek -- might have been kornbluth?Salhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04241907951700887861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-26282915575185860202007-12-03T16:49:00.000-05:002007-12-03T16:49:00.000-05:00re the Many-World hypothesis: i read a fascinating...re the Many-World hypothesis: i read a fascinating time-travel book a few months back which beautifully neatly eliminated all the paradox stuff by positing that the whole branching idea ran _backwards_. ie, that the universe's probability wave was collapsing forward in time to a single certainty, rather than expanding forward in time.<BR/><BR/>the sheer elegance of the consequences was Salhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04241907951700887861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-13527003379895283362007-12-02T01:52:00.000-05:002007-12-02T01:52:00.000-05:00That link didn't come out right, did it? It's at h...That link didn't come out right, did it? It's at http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ under "Astronomers Destroy Universe"onegaishimasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290038148012768539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-20726397203248673772007-12-02T01:49:00.000-05:002007-12-02T01:49:00.000-05:00John Baez wrote a post on this very topic December...John Baez wrote a post on this very topic December the first...<BR/><BR/>http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/12/astronomers_blamed_for_death_o.html<BR/><BR/>... taking the various news services to task for being a wee bit sensational and (far more importantly) explaining the paper in terms which I can pretend to mostly understand.<BR/><BR/>The part that really stumps me is that Baez asks onegaishimasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290038148012768539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-15336452071701267172007-11-30T21:09:00.000-05:002007-11-30T21:09:00.000-05:00"Ah. I see it now."That it took so long is undoubt..."<I>Ah. I see it now.</I>"<BR/><BR/>That it took so long is undoubtedly because you were walking around with your eyes closed. Just don't ask me which was the cause, and which the effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-16848507198476883982007-11-27T21:10:00.000-05:002007-11-27T21:10:00.000-05:00Good call gioppe - when this article showed up on ...Good call gioppe - when this article showed up on Drudge, I too thought this was the reclusive Australian's novel come true, albeit without the shutters around the solar system.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00884756478000974073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-4371738633887501562007-11-26T17:17:00.000-05:002007-11-26T17:17:00.000-05:00Okay then, what am I missing here? Lines like "Ha...Okay then, what am I missing here? Lines like "<A HREF="http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19626313.800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end.html?feedId=space_rss20" REL="nofollow">Have we hastened the demise of the universe by looking at it?</A>" and "we may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy" sure look like they're talking about Peter Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160557746794936786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-43707010063510704602007-11-26T16:13:00.000-05:002007-11-26T16:13:00.000-05:00I should also point out that the popular conceptio...I should also point out that the popular conception of what constitutes "observation" in quantum mechanics is often poorly understood. Conscious observers are not favored, nor are they they only things capable of causing collapse. We are, after all, part of the universe, and if <B>we</B> are able to cause a collapse, then so is the rest of the stuff in the universe. It is possible to exploit thisARhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695255436104873832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-13821190659630996382007-11-26T16:02:00.000-05:002007-11-26T16:02:00.000-05:00As a physicist myself, I'm just not getting the sa...As a physicist myself, I'm just not getting the same thing out of this as you seem to be. It looks to me like it's saying that the observations imply that the universe is in a particular quantum state; not that the act of observation itself <I>caused</I> that state. In fact, the commentary you linked quotes a saying exactly that.<BR/><BR/>If anything, observation would serve to delay any ARhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695255436104873832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5740787063649889480.post-52457510393382101322007-11-26T13:47:00.000-05:002007-11-26T13:47:00.000-05:00A bit like Greg Egan's Quarantine it seems.A bit like Greg Egan's <EM>Quarantine</EM> it seems.gioppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07775546597927446849noreply@blogger.com