[ExI] Many Worlds (was: A Simulation Argument)

[Mike Dougherty]

On Jan 8, 2008 6:42 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm going to confess my shameful failure to understand a key aspect
> of the Many Worlds Interpretation.
> [snip]
> Does anyone see the problem here? It's so basic that I must be making
> an elementary mistake, but I have never been able to see what it is.

I doubt I can explain it any better than the next person.  I wonder if
this observation adds value:  Something you wrote reminded me of a
tesseract as described in A Wrinkle in Time.  That was one of the
first books I read that discussed higher-dimensional objects*.
Particularly interesting was the visualization of a 3D object casting
a 2D shadow to understand that a 4D object casts a 'shadow' in 3D.
Perhaps the shadow particles in orthogonal universes are alternative
views of the same higher-dimensional construct.  Maybe MWI is a
best-fit way to discuss a Singularity we are not able to describe more
directly?


* it was many years later that I read Flatland.  Written in 1884, it's
a brilliant treatment of multiple dimensions.  It's also interesting
to observe how the math is timeless in counterpoint to the commentary
on Victorian society.