[ExI] QT and SR

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 15 02:11:54 UTC 2008

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> > I don't see why people would have a problem
> > with the possible FTL nature of a correlation
> > in the EPR experiment, or wave-function collapse,
> It's incomprehensible on the theory of SR, that's why.

Sure it is a paradox but that doesn't make it false.

> > but have no problem with the idea of the entire
> > universe being causally split in the mere seconds
> > it takes for someone to make a measurement,
> The whole universe never ends up being split in its
> entirety unless it's of finite extent. The splits
> start locally and speed outwards only at c.

Well that is just about the scariest cosmology I have ever heard of. Violate every conservation law in existense and then have the split come along like the Langoliers and clean up the horror just in a nick of time. If the split was just one iota slower than c, then everything would be cooked from the radiation of exponentially reproducing suns. Unless of course the universe were finite. Of course if the universe *were* finite then implications of MWI would be truly profound.

> > each and *every* time a measurement is made.
> It *is* a horrible zoo; David Deutsch says on p. 213
> of "The Fabric of Reality":
>    "...rely on such things as solid matter or
>    magnetized materials, which could not exist
>    in the absence of quantum-mechanical effects.
>    For example, any solid body consists of an
>    array of atoms, which are themselves composed
>    of electrically charged particles (electrons,
>    and protons in the nuclei). But because of 
>    classical chaos, no array of charged particles 
>    could be stable under classical laws of motion.
>    The positively and negatively charged particles
>    would simply move out of position and crash into
>    each other, and the structure would disintegrate.
>    *It is only the strong quantum interference 
>    between the various paths taken by charged
>    particles in parallel universes* that prevents
>    such catastrophes and makes solid matter possible.

Well this certainly begs the anthropic principle. Talk about balancing on a razor's edge.

> So any solid object is making nearly infinitely
> many measurements each nanosecond, and those "splits"
> radiate away at c, so that the whole fabric of reality
> is a seething jumble of massive interference everywhere.

But Copenhagen is already a seething jumble of massive interference everywhere. MWI is putting that seething jumble into a funhouse hall of mirrors. Although to be honest, the implications of MWI in a finite universe are very bizzare.

Still do not epicycles worry you? I mean Tycho Brahe's epicycles described the solar system just fine from a predictive stand point. They were just a jumbled mess to work with. Kepler's model just used the simplifying assumption of heliocentricity to make the jumbled mess easier to work with. Voila, ugly epicycles became beautiful elipses and everybody was happy. Put the sun at the center of the solar system and the epicycles disappear. Put the mind at the center of QM and many worlds become one and the Langolier-like cosmic censors go back to the abyss. *The mind is first in all things.* thus said Guatama about 2500 years ago. 

Don't you see that an infinite universe that constantly grows incomplete copies of itself like monstrous hair is just like epicycles? 

Another issue I have with MWI is computional complexity. First off, an infinite universe, immediately rules out any simulation-type theories. Turing machines are defined to have a finite number of states. I hope you realize that an infinite universe cannot have a finite number of states. Therefore an infinite universe can neither be a turing machine nor be simulated on one.

That being said, assuming that the universe is finite, MWI grows in computational complexity exponentially versus Copenhagen's which remains steady or perhaps increases linearly due to entropy. I think MWI running on a computer would run out of memory long before Copengahen.

And you really don't want to know what MWI in a finite universe implies. It's not just swallowing a bullet; its swallowing a cannonball. ;-)


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list