Slashdot Mirror
There Is No "You" In a Parallel Universe
StartsWithABang (3485481) writes "Ever since quantum mechanics first came along, we've recognized how tenuous our perception of reality is, and how — in many ways — what we perceive is just a very small subset of what's going on at the quantum level in our Universe. Then, along came cosmic inflation, teaching us that our observable Universe is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the matter-and-radiation filled space out there, with possibilities including Universes with different fundamental laws and constants, differing quantum outcomes existing in disconnected regions of space, and even the fantastic one of parallel Universes and alternate versions of you and me. But is that last one really admissible? The best modern evidence teaches us that even with all the Universes that inflation creates, it's still a finite number, and an insufficiently large number to contain all the possibilities that a 13.8 billion year old Universe with 10^90 particles admits."
has nothing to do with "parallel" universes...
Those universes aren't what people usually mean by 'parallel'. Usually they're thinking of a universe which at some point in the past was identical to this one.
These orthogonal universes obviously aren't going to have duplicates of anything here.
And the support for Big Bang style cosmic inflation (universe ballooning up from nothing in a trillionth of second) is sparse. (As opposed to the normal expanding universe we see that even old Steady State theory said existed.)
If cosmic inflation happened, everything real far away should be in its infancy, but we see sprial galaxies 13 billion years away.
Quasars are supposed to only be in the beginning of the universe in early times according to the Big Bang, and there are 2 of them within 800 million miles of us which should not even be possible. http://www.sdss.org/news/relea...
So we have old structures very far away well-developed with plenty of metal, which shouldn't happen.
We have "newer" structures nearby, which shouldn't happen.
Add to the fact there are no metal-free stars (Pop III) ever seen, it is difficult to see what aspect of Big Bang Theory holds true. Astronomy might be better off if it were discarded because a number of the popular conclusions double-down on bad science and result in wild goose chases (dark energy only need exist to support the Big Bang because only the Big Bang says expansion must be accelerating.)
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Show me one other alternate universe. Is that so much to ask?
worse, you've been rejected 482,360,237,103 times.
Table-ized A.I.
There goes my alternates chance with Kate Upton.
FYI: There's a theorem called the Universal Invariance of Supermodel Fornication in Closed Kleene-Star Domains which shows that with high probability, unless you've had sex with one in this universe the sum over all universes of the probability of you ever having sex with a supermodel is precisely zero.
Laymen refer to the theorem by its acronym: UISFCK*D.
So now we are making predictions about speculations and guesses to say, there is no you in a parallel universe. Call me a skeptic but I would like a molecule of proof that such universes even exist before you start on speculations about what exists in them.
Not saying that the parallel universe concept is correct but his argument just dismisses a particular type then states there aren't any.
Well, it kind of does, depending on exactly how you define the term. One of the implications of inflation theory is that the original superluminal inflation is still going on, and will always be going on, and what we consider to be "the universe" is but one tiny bubble of "stabilized" space that decayed from the inflationary energy, and is presumably surrounded by a nigh-infinite number of other bubbles with different physical laws that will never interact with each other because the space between them is still full of self-replicating inflationary energy expanding faster than light, and which is perpetually spawning still more bubbles as the false-vacuum spontaneously decays into lower-energy states to trigger a chain reaction. You could easily consider every one of those other "bubbleverses" to be a parallel universe, with it's own physical laws and causality that will never intersect our own.
Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of parallel universes posited by the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which absolutely would spawn a potential infinitude of "other yous" with every quantum "decision". And neither has anything to do with the third major posited type of parallel universe which stipulates that our universe is a 4-dimensional membrane existing in within the 11+ dimensional metaverse posited by many QM theories, and that other membranes likely also exist, and may occasionally collide with our own, causing "big bangs" from the release of energy on impact.
Any one of those, or even all three, might exist, but so far as I know only the first is a necessary implication of currently accepted cosmological theory, and thus it has sort of inherited the "parallel universe" crown.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Remember, if you meet anti-You, just bow, not shake hands.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
This idea that every possible choice I make spawns a whole other universe where I made a different choice has always seemed ludicrous. This sort of thing implies that my choice of every word in this sentence causes a universe -a whole universe with planets and black holes and telemarketers and tofu- to pop into existence, just because I decided to use 'tofu' earlier instead of using "marmalade" or some other word.
This means either the theory is wrong, or that causing a universe to exist is completely trivial and of no particular meaning. Which in turn implies that THIS universe that we live in is just a casual happenstance of some being's choice. Which means the big bang and everything else that we know and that every human being has ever known about anything is just absolute pap.
That may be the case but it's easier to accept the theory is just wrong.
Sig for hire.
It is possible to create extremely complex systems by combining very simple building blocks. A game like chess has rules you can explain to a child but takes a lifetime to master. Fractals are complex images computed by repeatedly applying a simple mathematical function. People can be complex even if they are built from nothing but physics.
You're assuming that if people consist of nothing but physics, that physics would be able to explain people. In other words, that the properties of the building blocks would explain all properties of a complex system. I think that is not the case, certainly not in practice and perhaps not even in theory.
First of all, deriving the properties of the whole from the properties of the components could be too difficult for people to perform in practice. Half a century of AI research might sound like a lot, but it is really far from an exhaustive search. Even a much simpler problem like computer chess hasn't been fully solved; it took half a century just to get chess algorithms at the same level as human players, but they're still far from perfect.
Second practical problem is that tiny variations in the configuration of building blocks can have big impacts on the system as a whole. For example, weather systems are chaotic. In a computer program, changing a single instruction among millions can have big consequences. So studying physics would at best give you the ability to predict how an unconfigured brain works (like an embryo's?), not an arbitrary brain that has formed lots of connections based on the experiences of the person in question.
A reason to doubt deriving all behavior is possible in theory is that there are unprovable statements in math. So even if you know all the rules, for non-trivial rulesets (such as arithmetic) you cannot prove all the consequences of those rules.
Different matter distributions == a universe in which said parallel universe which is inherently different than what we see around us.
I think there is some confusion over what "parallel" universe means. This is generally taken to be a universe which has been an exact parallel of our own universe up to some point after which it diverges i.e. everything is the same up to some point in time. In the quantum multiverse interpretation of QM this happens for each possible result of collapsing the wave function.
I've never heard of this ever being associated with multiple 'universes' from inflation because QM requires that the universes interact before they separate (this is how it explains the self interference of a single particle) whereas inflation requires that the universes be causally disconnected after their creation i.e. inflationary universes are just different universes, not parallel ones. So I think the author of the article got himself rather confused.
Even if an infinite number of universes exist, that does not imply that any of them are remotely similar to ours. For that implication to hold you must also assume that our universe is finite, or at least a drastically lower order of infinite such that the total number of possible states that our universe could be in is substantially less than the total number of universes that exist with the same geometry and physical laws.
Of course meaningfully comparing different orders of infinity isn't something you can do with high-school arithmetic, but it's a pretty common thing to do in advanced mathematics.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Nonsense. Just because we don't understand something today doesn't mean there is no explanation. At present we don't even have a comprehensive physics based understanding of chemistry for compounds more complicated than H2 - the mathematics becomes far too complicated far to quickly for even our most advanced supercomputers to simulate. Nor do we have more than the most flawed and simplistic understanding of the chemistry driving the cellular mechanisms of even the most basic bacterium. To say today that physics is incapable of explaining intelligence is like a caveman saying that physics is incapable of describing the path of a thrown rock. At the time it was true, but the problem was not that mystical forces were governing the world, but simply that cavemen did not yet understand the rules governing the world well enough to describe even such simple things.
Obviously that's not to say that mystic forces *aren't* in play, only that it is far to soon to say anything at all on the subject. So far as I'm aware; however, we've yet to see a single shred of evidence that any such mystical forces exist. At least nothing that can survive a double-blind study. Though there is a case to be made that magic may by its very nature be difficult or impossible to "catch in the act", so to speak.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.