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

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Fri Jan 11 01:32:03 UTC 2008


Damien writes

> At 01:33 PM 1/10/2008 -0500,   John K Clark wrote:
> 
>> > Some commentators deny that Everett's model meant entire universes
>> > due to relativistic constraints, if for no other reason.
>>
>>I don't see how relativistic constraints enter into it.
> 
> How can you instantaneously split into two or more versions an 
> *entire universe* with a radius of tens of billions of light years? 

I have to jump in here.  The branching does not occur everywhere
at once. (Translation: the universes don't become distince everywhere
at once.) 

Here is some mental imagery that I've concocted that helps
me see what is going on. Suppose that you had a very large
but thin sheet of plastic held vertically. Now imagine that
forces are able to cause a separation of this sheet into two
thinner sheets starting at a particular point. As you then
pull the sheet into two parts, the speed of the tear is quite
finite.  Thus, for example, a split here takes at least 4.3
years to get to Alpha Centauri. (The rough part is now
trying to imagine many many such splittings based on
different locations occuring.)

Oops.  I see that Rafal has already address this admirably.

But anyway, there is an absolutely glorious picture of splitting
universes in the recent Scientific American that had a mini-bio
of Hugh Everett. They say a picture is worth a thousand words,
but I'd put this one at about ten thousand.

> How could the news propagate everywhere so quickly? But if it 
> doesn't, if this is just a constrained bubble that spreads at c or 
> slower, and attenuates by inverse square and chaotic rambles and 
> stray quantum blurts, how can you say the *universe* has split?

Good point.  I want to blame this bad usage on positivistic tendencies
which desire regarding as yet unmeasured changes as nonexistent
changes.

Lee




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list