Slashdot Mirror
50 Years of the Multiverse Interpretation
chinmay7 writes "There is an excellent selection of articles (and quite a few related scientific papers) in a special edition of Nature magazine on interpretations of the multiverse theory. 'Fifty years ago this month Hugh Everett III published his paper proposing a "relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics" — the idea subsequently described as the 'many worlds' or 'multiverse' interpretation. Its impact on science and culture continues. In celebration, a science fiction special edition of Nature on 5 July 2007 explores the symbiosis of science and sf, as exemplified by Everett's hypothesis, its birth, evolution, champions and opponents, in biology, physics, literature and beyond.'
I had a friend and former roommate who was in an apartment fire. He was sleeping in bed when his cat woke him up by clawing at his face. He startled awake and saw that the ceiling was covered in flames. He escaped, certain that he was moments away from death.
Luckily he made it out alive. But he suffered severe PTSD for a few years afterwards. He would just be walking to the grocery store and be suddenly struck with the terrifying reality that he wasn't walking to the store at all -- this was the final hallucination of his mind moments before he perished in the apartment fire. Instead of his past flashing before his eyes, this was his mind's final, desperate attempt to comfort itself, by creating a reality where he lived out the rest of his life.
I try not to think about it because it's creepy. If I really start to think about it I get terrified.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Quantum immortality.
Note that this is not a very exciting kind of immortality. Especially since a goodly number of worldlines coming from here will produce computronium. At least some of which will simulate you, yes you personally for an unspeakable amount of subjective time (possibly infinite if even one non-zero probability path leads to that outcome), during which you will in some cases experience what can only be described as "as close to a literal heaven as you can get", and in other cases "as close to a literal hell as you can get", and the full range of things in between. If Quantum immortality is "true", there are things worse than death, and we will more or less all get to experience them on some worldline.
Note further that it is not meaningful to wish that "you" will end up in one of the good cases; if QI is true, all cases lie in your future equally. "You" will end up in the good and the bad and the inbetween, all at once. Perhaps some people consider this a form of escapism, but it is also fairly horrifying if you follow the implications out beyond "In some very real sense, I can not experience death."
Going beyond the semantic issue, the GP seemed to be implying that consciousness is something special, some unknown part of nature.
However, suppose that you ask a person if they are sane. Should you believe their answer? The only means you have to evaluate the experience of your own consciousness is your own consciousness itself. If your consciousness wasn't some supernatural thing but instead was a little program in your brain to fool you into protecting your existence above all else by creating the illusion of being something special and supernatural, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Now consider everything that we know about reality. Does the universe work more like a precise machine or more like some transcendental mystical metaphysical drug hallucination? Consider everything we know about the mechanics of the brain. It is organized a lot like and its components are a lot like a computer. Is this a description of a ghost trap or of a computational device?
The Earth sure does look flat, though, doesn't it?