No Soup for You! Only one reality.

[Elixir]

​

From Sci-Am. Kind of a 'well duh' thing but cute and timely.

This is Our One and Only Reality​

In troubling times, some people may wonder about the idea of multiverses–where other versions of us and our reality are playing out, but perhaps differently–and whether we’re in a particularly bad iteration. The real question, writes George Musser, author and contributing editor of Scientific American, is not whether there are other so-called timelines: according to quantum physics, there almost certainly are. The real question is why we experience only one reality (for better or worse).

On the nature of our reality: Human comprehension–and perhaps life itself–could not accommodate the knowledge of every possible outcome of existence, Musser speculates, especially considering their infinitudes.

What the experts say: One of the key insights of physicist Hugh Everett, originator of the multiverse-spawning "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, concerned the consequences of humans being part of the reality we hope to observe. Because we are embedded in the system, Everett argued, we can never observe other branches of reality firsthand. "Rather than holding open all possibilities, a mind must settle—at least tentatively—on one," writes Musser. "The effort required to make that choice—and, from there, to act upon it—may be key to giving us at least the subjective feeling of free will."

 

[DBT]

The 'subjective feeling of free will?" Uh, oh, I hope that doesn't set off another round of free will debate.

 

[pood]

I’d have to read the whole article to see exactly what they are driving at, but if Many Worlds is true, it creates a strange state off affairs both for determinism and free will. On this account, if confronted with a choice between Pepsi and Coke, according to the Born Rule the chance of one or the other emerging is 50/50. But of course the Born rule only really applies to the subjective experience of a single branch induced by wave-function collapse. But the MWI only comes into play if there is no wave-function collapse. So at the moment of choice between Pepsi and Coke, there is now one branch where I choose Pepsi and another where I choose Coke. Both versions of me will have the feeling of having freely chosen what they did. But notice that hard determinism claims that there is only one possible outcome of a fixed set of antecedent states. (I think I’ve shown this to be false, but put that aside.) If MWI is true, then it must be the case that a fixed set of antecedent states produces not just one possible outcome, but all possible outcomes.

 

[pood]

Goddamnit, I was halfway through that article when I pressed a link, and it took me to popup that said I had to subscribe to SciAm to read the link. When I hit the back button, I got the same popup for the article I was only half done reading.

Some people who have subscriptions are able to gift articles to non subscribers. Can you do that, Elixir?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’d have to read the whole article to see exactly what they are driving at, but if Many Worlds is true, it creates a strange state off affairs both for determinism and free will. On this account, if confronted with a choice between Pepsi and Coke, according to the Born Rule the chance of one or the other emerging is 50/50. But of course the Born rule only really applies to the subjective experience of a single branch induced by wave-function collapse. But the MWI only comes into play if there is no wave-function collapse. So at the moment of choice between Pepsi and Coke, there is now one branch where I choose Pepsi and another where I choose Coke. Both versions of me will have the feeling of having freely chosen what they did. But notice that hard determinism claims that there is only one possible outcome of a fixed set of antecedent states. (I think I’ve shown this to be false, but put that aside.) If MWI is true, then it must be the case that a fixed set of antecedent states produces not just one possible outcome, but all possible outcomes.

That's not how I see Many Worlds. As you say, it makes the odds of every choice even and that's clearly not what happens. Thus if Many Worlds is true the choices are at a far deeper level. Coke vs Pepsi isn't a choice, it's the result of a multitude of choices at the atomic level that came before.

 

[Swammerdami]

Three things occurred to me as I browsed this thread:

(1)

... if confronted with a choice between Pepsi and Coke, according to the Born Rule the chance of one or the other emerging is 50/50....

How do you figure that? Probabilities of bifurcations (per the "Born Rule") can be 80-20 or 99-1 or whatever. What's special about 50-50?

This leads to a follow-up question: In a Many Worlds Interpretation both branches of a bifurcation lead to equally real realities. In that case what does a lop-sided bifurcation probability even mean? If the 99% branch and 1% branch of a bifurcation are both instantiated, then what do those probabilities even mean?

This seems like an argument AGAINST that version of Multi Worlds. Has that argument ever been made?

(2) Sir Roger Penrose, who won a Nobel Prize for "the greatest advance in general relativity theory since Albert Einstein", claims that instances of conscious thought or volition map to quantum wave collapses. He even pinpoints the locations of the quantum phenomena: the microtubules in neurons. There are several sources for this on the 'Net, including a 2-hour YouTube, and this paper: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8393322/

(3) I have become almost a believer in  Quantum immortality -- another idea from Max Tegmark. (It is annoying that Wikipedia's bundles this with Quantum suicide, NOT a prerequisite for the Immortality.)

[Hugh] Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death.

My belief in Quantum immortality stems from the fact that I'm still alive despite a number of close calls. It saddens me that in alternate universes my children grieve for me -- but I'm aware only of the universe in which I survived the near-fatal accident.

 

[pood]

My belief in Quantum immortality stems from the fact that I'm still alive despite a number of close calls. It saddens me that in alternate universes my children grieve for me -- but I'm aware only of the universe in which I survived the near-fatal accident.

It’s not clear why anyone would want quantum immortality. The philosopher David K. Lewis believed in both it and MWI, which of course is a precondition for quantum immortality, and reportedly died (in our branch) a “terrified man.” He explains why here, wherein he likens the plight of quantum immortals to that of the struldbruggs in Gulliver’s Travels, only much worse.

 

[pood]

Three things occurred to me as I browsed this thread:

(1)

... if confronted with a choice between Pepsi and Coke, according to the Born Rule the chance of one or the other emerging is 50/50....

How do you figure that? Probabilities of bifurcations (per the "Born Rule") can be 80-20 or 99-1 or whatever. What's special about 50-50?

My understanding is that 50/50 would apply to idealized cases where only two outcomes are possible, such as spin up/spin down.

This leads to a follow-up question: In a Many Worlds Interpretation both branches of a bifurcation lead to equally real realities. In that case what does a lop-sided bifurcation probability even mean? If the 99% branch and 1% branch of a bifurcation are both instantiated, then what do those probabilities even mean?

This seems like an argument AGAINST that version of Multi Worlds. Has that argument ever been made?

Yes, but the usual answer is that the Born rule still applies to what we should expect to experience in our subjective branch, but provides no guidance on why we should expect to be in this branch and not some other.

Sean Carrol argues that we ought to be able to derive the Born rule from MWI and not just postulate it, and he says he provides a derivation in this paper. It’s only 15 pages but I expect it will take me a long time to work through it, lol.

 

[pood]

(3) I have become almost a believer in  Quantum immortality -- another idea from Max Tegmark. (It is annoying that Wikipedia's bundles this with Quantum suicide, NOT a prerequisite for the Immortality.)

Quantum suicide is a thought experiment to test for quantum immortality. You can test it yourself if you are brave enough, which you will be only if you are absolutely convinced that MWI is true, which of course no one knows.

 

[pood]

Sean Carrol’s quantum banana deal, a form of the quantum suicide thought experiment.

 

[steve_bank]

Hope springs eternal as the saying goes.

Christianity is much simpler. Believe in Jesus and god and you exist forever after death in a wondrous reality.

Quantum mechanics is the gift that keeps on given. I have been watching reruns of Stargate SG-1. Liberal use of QM as plot devices.

People naturally conflate silence and philosophies as truth when it comes from someone with the title of scientist.

As things go beliefs based in QM are no better or worse than any other philosophy.

We all need a working paradigm of how reality works.

Well, if I screwed this pst up in anoter relity 'I' prioablygt it right.

 

[pood]

Hope springs eternal as the saying goes.

Christianity is much simpler. Believe in Jesus and god and you exist forever after death in a wondrous reality.

Quantum mechanics is the gift that keeps on given. I have been watching reruns of Stargate SG-1. Liberal use of QM as plot devices.

People naturally conflate silence and philosophies as truth when it comes from someone with the title of scientist.

As things go beliefs based in QM are no better or worse than any other philosophy.

We all need a working paradigm of how reality works.

Well, if I screwed this pst up in anoter relity 'I' prioablygt it right.

No, it is that science is inextricably bound up with philosophy. I have demonstrated many examples of this in the Why Science Needs Philosophy thread. Of course one can and perhaps should withhold belief in any claim that has not been scientifically tested, but that doesn’t mean a claim is wrong just because it has not been tested. Is string theory science? In any case, I don’t think anyone here is “conflating” science with philosophy — they are already conflated — and no one is doing this just because a scientist says so.

 

[pood]

Einstein didn’t use scientific testing or mathematics to work out relativity theory. He worked it out over ten years by daydreaming, philosophizing, speculating, playing. It began when he was sixteen and imagined what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. It ended when he was standing on a train platform and saw a train rushing past and in an aha! moment realized that Newton was wrong about time and space. No science or maths at all, no testing, just daydreaming and philosophizing. He worked out the maths later, and the empirical tests came later than that. When someone asked what he would say if the tests showed his theory wrong, he said something to the effect of, “I’d be sorry for dear God, because the theory is right.” Which is another point, the (philosophical) falsification criteria is not really of all that much use, contra Popper.

 

[pood]

Einstein also dreamed up the spooky-action-at-a-distance thought experiment intended to discredit the QM he helped dream up also. It wasn’t testable for decades. When it was tested, Einstein lost. Unless he didn’t. (MWI, superdeterminism).

So it goes. Metaphysics and science together.

 

[pood]

In Chapter Four of his book, Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints, Prof. Norman Swartz explains not only why the attempt by the logical positivists to exclude metaphysics from science failed, he explains why it is impossible to do so. Particularly instructive is his discussion of Newton, who, like Einstein, just dreamed it up. As Swartz explained, he posited the concept of mass — nowhere did he observe or test it.

 

[Swammerdami]

Einstein didn’t use scientific testing or mathematics to work out relativity theory. He worked it out over ten years by daydreaming, philosophizing, speculating, playing. It began when he was sixteen and imagined what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. It ended when he was standing on a train platform and saw a train rushing past and in an aha! moment realized that Newton was wrong about time and space. No science or maths at all, no testing, just daydreaming and philosophizing. He worked out the maths later, and the empirical tests came later than that. When someone asked what he would say if the tests showed his theory wrong, he said something to the effect of, “I’d be sorry for dear God, because the theory is right.” Which is another point, the (philosophical) falsification criteria is not really of all that much use, contra Popper.

.

But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

 

[steve_bank]

From another thread Pood thinks that modern science today is a branch of Natural Philosophy.

Both science and philosophy are categorical catch all terms used in conversation. Nyer scnce or phsopshy are soe nd of acve agent, it redefs to people .

It is all human thought and imagination which is a natural part of how our or brains worki.

Daydreaming is philosophizing is prophylaxis? Laughable.

From AE's bio I read he credited an uncle with teaching hum what we today we call creative visualization.

Not just science. I knew a program manager who said she manged multiple projects by visualizing them as intersecting surfaces.

The creative is in mathematics? Poetry by an individual, not science.

Pood, if it will make you feel better get a lab coat, a pocket protector filled with pens, and safety goggles and call yourself a scientist.

You can not reduce human creativity and invention to a philosophy or set of rules or metaphysical abstractions.

Some people express a belief in speculation on QM as an article of faith as would a Christian on heaven.

 

[Politesse]

The 'subjective feeling of free will?" Uh, oh, I hope that doesn't set off another round of free will debate.

There's no real debate among the learned, only rhetorical therapy for those who struggle to accept reality.

 

[pood]

From another thread Pood thinks that modern science today is a branch of Natural Philosophy.

Both science and philosophy are categorical catch all terms used in conversation. Nyer scnce or phsopshy are soe nd of acve agent, it redefs to people .

It is all human thought and imagination which is a natural part of how our or brains worki.

Daydreaming is philosophizing is prophylaxis? Laughable.

From AE's bio I read he credited an uncle with teaching hum what we today we call creative visualization.

Not just science. I knew a program manager who said she manged multiple projects by visualizing them as intersecting surfaces.

The creative is in mathematics? Poetry by an individual, not science.

Pood, if it will make you feel better get a lab coat, a pocket protector filled with pens, and safety goggles and call yourself a scientist.

You can not reduce human creativity and invention to a philosophy or set of rules or metaphysical abstractions.

Some people express a belief in speculation on QM as an article of faith as would a Christian on heaven.

I never said philosophy WAS science. I said something quite different.

I’ll leave you with a paraphrase from Shakespeare: There is more in heaven and earth, Steve, than is dreamt of in your philosophy. And make no mistake, yours IS a philosophy, one that Einstein rejected.

I take it you did not read the Swartz chapter on underdetermination. No surprise there.

 

[pood]

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

— Albert Einstein