Yes. But what we see is not that one real world, but "classical projections" of it. And of them, there exist several. Especially measurement results are only relative to each projection, and there exist in general other projections with different results. That is, "parallel worlds". The question is, can they have any kind of effect on our measurement. If they can, they are not parallel worlds. if they can't, they are not part of science. Besides, a superpositioned universe and many classical ones are not the same as a concept, which is the only way parallel worlds might exist.
Of course the whole point of MWI is to get rid of the collapse... If you're talking of our observations as a "world" you state that every branch is a world, and in every branch, the universe behaves as if the wave function collapse, isn't it?
So even if we can't directly measure the other branches, it doesn't mean they don't exist. The question is not if we can "directly measure" other branches, but do we (our branch) have any kind of relations with them. Do they have any effect on us? If so, we might be able to test it. I'll accept the possibility that the universe is not a classical one, anyway.
I think many people get misled into thinking of "many worlds" as being parallel realities where any crazy thing you can imagine is "out there somewhere." This isn't the case. Each branch evolves deterministically. As for me turning into a giraffe, I've never said it is probable, just that it's possible. I'll give you the fact that it's extremely improbable. For a different example, it is possible for the atmosphere to divide into to layers, nitrogen below and oxygen above, it is just extremely improbable (no matter what the laws of thermodynamics will tell you, they are mostly statistical). In a similar manner, there is a chance (an extremely slim one) that I will turn into a giraffe (a small one, as I am human), you just need many particles moving in specific directions all at once.
First, why the fact that the universe is in a superposition means there are many-worlds? It seems to me as if it means there is one world, but it's not classic. Is one superpositioned universe the same as many classical "universes"?
Second, If we will accept that there are many worlds what does it mean? If we can't interact with them in any way, they don't exist (or so says William of Ockham). If we can interact with them, we should change the terminology, because they are part of the universe, as implied from its name, and they are not parallel, as they meet each other.
Last, even if there are many worlds, I think the article is misleading as to the difference. They take them as different in the manner of branches of decisions like "will it be an accident or a near miss", instead of using every thing as a branch "will I change into a small giraffe". We can, of course, go much further, as we are talking of the possible ways of the universe's wave function (which we can't possibly understand without a model greater then the universe) to collapse, which might result in "scenarios" we can't imagine.
Mathematicians would be a lot less Platonistic, I think, if they'd take courses in semiotics. There's a big difference between the symbol and its referent. Apples exist; but integers exist only when there's someone there to count them. That's why you can have human societies with no conception of "number" at all - where the only "amounts" of anything they can perceive are none, one, and many.
You totally missed it. Apples doesn't exist, if you think they do, define them. Numbers are more real than apples, since the apple is a concept as well, just not so well defined. There is nothing you can say that exists, except for concepts. The only question is whether one might not use some concept, and numbers (as some other mathematical concept, like the realtion) are used everywhere as far as we have seen (that is, by humans and apes). No one ever described an intelligence without numbers, so I'll not treat one as possible until someone will tell me how can it be.
About societies with no conception of numbers, they doesn't exist. There are societies with no concept of a specific number over 3 (1,2,3 are always used), but they have the idea of "amount" and the idea of "more" and "less". They even have the idea of "equal" for large amounts (which they can't describe), which is the base to numbers, they just never investigated more advanced mathematics, just like the greeks never knew of irrational numbers (and I think nagatives a well).
There are many problems with small goverment, and the greatest of all are:
1) Education
2) The economy
2a) Research
The first is about freedom. My children should not be held back because their parents are poor (no matter why they are poor) or stupid. Why would Bill Gates' son get better opurtunities than mine? Now good education is expensive. Very expensive. Who will pay for education for my children? I can't afford it, and it shouldn't be my desicion anyway.
For the second, I remind you of the great depression. There were several reasons to it, but such a crisis is much more probable under a small goverment, and you can see what it took to get out of (very big goverment, especially during the war).
About research, no private organization will get into scientific reaserch. The costs are very high and you can't expect it to get you money within a short period of time (that is, less than a decade). Even then, the risk is very high, most reaserch doesn't give you much. That is the main profit we get from the military. The Internet is a great example.
Galbraith is worth reading as well.
The reason classical capitalism doesn't work is simple. Money is power, and so the rich have the power to become richer, and they will do so, on the expense of the weak - the poor. The only way to stop this is by using some other sort of power, the goverment, which will usually follow the interests of the voters, the poor.
By the way, you can only understand Smith (or Ricardo, Marx, Keynes or, for that matter, Plato) in the context of its time. Smith wrote for those who don't know what capitalism means, to a world where everything was regulated. That is what he knew of and what he tried to change. Don't look for anything regarding macroeconomics in Smith or Ricardo, they couldn't know there is a difference between the micro and macro levels, there was no such difference in their time.
Oh, and the main problem with the west agriculture, is that there is no world-wide regulation. When the market is global, so should be the economical goverment, but it isn't, and the rich (the west) keeps its wealth.
There are many bad voting systems in the world, but the american is the worse by far. Even with only two options the majority might lose (if it's not distributed well among the states), take the 2000 election for example, gore had about 2-million more voters and he lost.
Even if we ignore this, the fact that you choose the president directly (although you don't) does not allow multiple choices. Look what Nader is doing to the democratic candidate over and over again. If you'll have two republicans and one democrat, the democrat will probably win even in Texas.
If you want more candidates, you'll have to choose the electors nationally, and then allow (publicly, not only legally) them to vote for other candidates, if the one they suppose to vote for obviously fails. Then you might get many (that is, more than 2) candidates, who might even inform you of theirs second best options etc.
Of course, the parties will never allow such change, as they will lose power.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll accept the possibility that the universe is not a classical one, anyway. I think many people get misled into thinking of "many worlds" as being parallel realities where any crazy thing you can imagine is "out there somewhere." This isn't the case. Each branch evolves deterministically. As for me turning into a giraffe, I've never said it is probable, just that it's possible. I'll give you the fact that it's extremely improbable. For a different example, it is possible for the atmosphere to divide into to layers, nitrogen below and oxygen above, it is just extremely improbable (no matter what the laws of thermodynamics will tell you, they are mostly statistical). In a similar manner, there is a chance (an extremely slim one) that I will turn into a giraffe (a small one, as I am human), you just need many particles moving in specific directions all at once.
First, why the fact that the universe is in a superposition means there are many-worlds? It seems to me as if it means there is one world, but it's not classic. Is one superpositioned universe the same as many classical "universes"?
Second, If we will accept that there are many worlds what does it mean? If we can't interact with them in any way, they don't exist (or so says William of Ockham). If we can interact with them, we should change the terminology, because they are part of the universe, as implied from its name, and they are not parallel, as they meet each other.
Last, even if there are many worlds, I think the article is misleading as to the difference. They take them as different in the manner of branches of decisions like "will it be an accident or a near miss", instead of using every thing as a branch "will I change into a small giraffe". We can, of course, go much further, as we are talking of the possible ways of the universe's wave function (which we can't possibly understand without a model greater then the universe) to collapse, which might result in "scenarios" we can't imagine.
Mathematicians would be a lot less Platonistic, I think, if they'd take courses in semiotics. There's a big difference between the symbol and its referent. Apples exist; but integers exist only when there's someone there to count them. That's why you can have human societies with no conception of "number" at all - where the only "amounts" of anything they can perceive are none, one, and many.
You totally missed it. Apples doesn't exist, if you think they do, define them. Numbers are more real than apples, since the apple is a concept as well, just not so well defined. There is nothing you can say that exists, except for concepts. The only question is whether one might not use some concept, and numbers (as some other mathematical concept, like the realtion) are used everywhere as far as we have seen (that is, by humans and apes). No one ever described an intelligence without numbers, so I'll not treat one as possible until someone will tell me how can it be.
About societies with no conception of numbers, they doesn't exist. There are societies with no concept of a specific number over 3 (1,2,3 are always used), but they have the idea of "amount" and the idea of "more" and "less". They even have the idea of "equal" for large amounts (which they can't describe), which is the base to numbers, they just never investigated more advanced mathematics, just like the greeks never knew of irrational numbers (and I think nagatives a well).
There are many problems with small goverment, and the greatest of all are: 1) Education 2) The economy 2a) Research The first is about freedom. My children should not be held back because their parents are poor (no matter why they are poor) or stupid. Why would Bill Gates' son get better opurtunities than mine? Now good education is expensive. Very expensive. Who will pay for education for my children? I can't afford it, and it shouldn't be my desicion anyway. For the second, I remind you of the great depression. There were several reasons to it, but such a crisis is much more probable under a small goverment, and you can see what it took to get out of (very big goverment, especially during the war). About research, no private organization will get into scientific reaserch. The costs are very high and you can't expect it to get you money within a short period of time (that is, less than a decade). Even then, the risk is very high, most reaserch doesn't give you much. That is the main profit we get from the military. The Internet is a great example.
Galbraith is worth reading as well. The reason classical capitalism doesn't work is simple. Money is power, and so the rich have the power to become richer, and they will do so, on the expense of the weak - the poor. The only way to stop this is by using some other sort of power, the goverment, which will usually follow the interests of the voters, the poor. By the way, you can only understand Smith (or Ricardo, Marx, Keynes or, for that matter, Plato) in the context of its time. Smith wrote for those who don't know what capitalism means, to a world where everything was regulated. That is what he knew of and what he tried to change. Don't look for anything regarding macroeconomics in Smith or Ricardo, they couldn't know there is a difference between the micro and macro levels, there was no such difference in their time. Oh, and the main problem with the west agriculture, is that there is no world-wide regulation. When the market is global, so should be the economical goverment, but it isn't, and the rich (the west) keeps its wealth.
There are many bad voting systems in the world, but the american is the worse by far. Even with only two options the majority might lose (if it's not distributed well among the states), take the 2000 election for example, gore had about 2-million more voters and he lost.
Even if we ignore this, the fact that you choose the president directly (although you don't) does not allow multiple choices. Look what Nader is doing to the democratic candidate over and over again. If you'll have two republicans and one democrat, the democrat will probably win even in Texas.
If you want more candidates, you'll have to choose the electors nationally, and then allow (publicly, not only legally) them to vote for other candidates, if the one they suppose to vote for obviously fails. Then you might get many (that is, more than 2) candidates, who might even inform you of theirs second best options etc.
Of course, the parties will never allow such change, as they will lose power.