>>17088568
Its no less retarded than reality existing

>>17088594
So one universe is just as retarded as 10^500 slightly different universes?

>>17088595
Yes lol. Why is that strange?

>>17088596
Where does all the energy come from? Where does it go? Is it spread out over all the universes or is energy created when a million new universes are created when a quantum computer adds 2+2?

>>17088597
My point is that the universe existing as it does now is no less illogical than any other variant you can think of. Nobody cant answer those questions about 1 universe, let alone multiple.
However, there is a tendency for us to realise at some point that there is a new frontier/horizon that makes the old one look small

>>17088598
Not at all. The Universe is pretty consistent, we don't see paradoxes or events happening outside of the constraints of physical laws as far as we understand them.
Otoh, MWI gives rise to discrepancies and infinities that we do not observe, directly or indirectly.

>>17088607
I never implied that our universe was inconsistent. Not once

>>17088610
we can explain it very logically, unlike all the other wacky interpretations

>>17088613
Explain its origins or quantum mechanics logically then

>>17088568
there are actually 0 universes
>he thinks he actually exists
LOL

>>17088568
The problem with MWI isn't even the "many worlds" part, it's that they literally have no physical description for what it even means. You can't just count worlds like 3 worlds for A and 2 worlds for B if you get a 60%/40% split, because most quantum probabilities are a fucking mess of irrational numbers all over the place. So instead you have to cope with some vague nonsense about how this branch is "thicker" than that, while adding zero physical description regarding the defining attributes of a "thick" or "thin" branch.

>>17088614
Big Bang & QCD
yeah, they're limited descriptive theories, deal with it.

>>17088619
>limited descriptive theories
Oh, just like everets theories? Yeah, deal with it

>>17088622
No, those are theoretical interpretative frameworks.
Everett doesn't explain anything, he proposes a different formulation of previous theories.

>>17088568
Yes obviously you are right. Bell fucked the mainstream physicists over sooooo hard, they had to invent these ridiculous arguments just to keep their fictional Copenhagen interpretation in combination with relativity. Bohm/de brogli mechanics in combination with a lorentzian Aether solves these problem very naturally. You don't even get many other weird quantum effects. >>17088596
>>17088598
Your philosophical arguing is on 60 iq level. "lalala the universe we live in is as strange as 10000000 new universes starting to exist right now"

>>17088628
I honestly dont even get the point of your thread anymore. You cant explain the origins or foundations of one universe, and then have the gall to balk at the idea of there being more than one, or something that is shaped in a way where they arent separate, and different possibilities are no different to the idea of past/future existing as possible directions, something a being on a level above our understanding could navigate.
The point I was making before was that for how things usually turn out for humans, we get scope mogged constantly by limited thinking and references.
You're limited by computers and sim theory bullshit into thinking that the question is about "where is all the energy" coming from without understanding what energy fundamentally is or where it comes from.
If a universe can exist, then so can a copy. If a copy can exist, then why not any amount? You think its a hardware issue? What hardware? What if holographic universe is real and the universe we see is just 1 viewpoint in a multidimensional prism? Who the fuck knows, but you dont

>>17088633
>Your philosophical arguing is on 60 iq level.
Anyone making declarative statements about something (by definition) beyond our universe is a fucking moron, and so are you
>lorentzian Aether
Kek, eat a dick you baseddough intellectual faggot.

>>17088568
dumb physicists discover bit shift rotations wow

>>17088634
>>17088636
We can measure lots of things of our universe. We can measure NOTHING of the proposed 10^x new universes. This is NOT "the same level of strangeness" or some bullshit you invented. One is physical, the others vague fever dreams. And yeah if course you hate on the aether I wonder why...

>>17088642
>We can measure lots of things of our universe
But not its actual origin, which is the the whole fucking point in relation to potential other universes or timelines/branches. We are n=1 and inside the only example
>And yeah of course you hate on the aether I wonder why...
Probably Jews
>One is physical, the others vague fever dreams.
Oh, you mean like le Aether?
>This is NOT "the same level of strangeness" or some bullshit you invented.
Ok, simplify it then. If our universe exists, can just 1 more exist? Does that sound logical? Why? If you say yes, I would disagree because "I mean come (the fuck) on.
>>17088568
>No, there is not some gargantuan number of universes being created every second with copies of everything including humans and their brains, etc.
This is such a funny way of thinking lol. As if our brains are the most complicated thing that could be rendered by le great cosmic computer or something

>>17088568
The universe is made from expanded energy collapsed back in and then split off with an individual. It keeps going and making more universes after ours until the energy is used. That's just one node, we are surrounded in a circle of nodes firing off at different times. Let alone we are in just one animal.

>>17088568
Once completely unfalsifiable and straight up USELESS "theories" like this sci-fi garbage started generating academic discussion, the proof that the Faustian culture has reached the limits of its creativity has been presented.

Reminder that Many Worlds is an **interpretation** and not a theory. It is a philosophical way of thinking about Quantum Theory, but whether you use Many Worlds or Copenhagen or etc makes no difference to the predictions of Quantum Theory. it’s pure philosophy. Criticizing Many Worlds or whatever other interpretations you want to criticize is like criticizing the Ancient Aliens interpretation of the pyramids—yes ancient aliens making the pyramids is stupid but that doesn’t mean the pyramids don’t exist or are wrong or aren’t just fucking big stone triangular prism shaped buildings

>>17088701
/thread

>>17088645
We can even sense this universe. It is there. The origin is not the point, it's a strawman. Yes we have n=1. But I even disagree that just because our universe exists that another one has to exist or that's it's logical. That is always an additional assumption. Not absurd yet but additional. That 35624646 new universes spawn per second by splitting from ours is philosophically pure rage bait, not even serious. And the aether hate is retarded, of course light needs an aether.

>>17088701
That's a good point and correct but two things. For once I thought physicists always say philosophy is not physics? Why do they suddenly engage in pure metaphysics suddenly? But forbid it for an aether? And secondly not just random philosophy, the most retarded "philosophy" ever. Rage bait is the best description.

>>17088568
OP is a faggot in all of them

>>17088822
>Why do they suddenly engage in pure metaphysics suddenly?
They're stuck and they hope it might open up new avenues. Plus it looks good, augments their image.

>>17088568

No new universes are being created. The one 'universe' is a state in a Hilbert space and it evolves in time according to some unitary operator. That's it, and it's just standard quantum mechanics. The problem people have is reconciling their conscious experience of the world with this picture.

>>17088822
> I thought physicists always say philosophy is not physics?
Because it's not pure philosophy, it's still very much physics. Taking a theory and pushing it to it's extreme logical limits is often a good stress test of the theory and can lead to new ideas and understanding.

Many Worlds though is likely hokum because of the "measure of existence" fudge factor proponents had to add to work around the fact MW breaks a fundamental axiom of quantum mechanics: that the wavefunctions in each branch are no longer normalised.

>>17088595
>10^500
But that must be rookie numbers.
Every quantum particle in the Universe splitting off into an alternative Universes every passing unit of Planck time? Then that happening all over again in the next Planck time in every alternative Universe. And this has being going on for 15 billion years? The number of alternative Universes would probably make Graham's number look vanishingly small by comparison.
Someone do the math. Its beyond me.

Like >>17088594 said, yeah, in principle why not? Like here I am a conscious entity on this speck of orbital dust, scratching my balls while eyebrow mites feast on my dead skin cells, having just been outside to look at the stars with an approximate knowledge of their relative distances from me, fully aware that one of my direct ancestors was a fucking fish swimming in the Devonian Oceans some 400 million years ago. Oh look, there's a cat crossing the road, it pauses when it sees me and then hurries on.
Now if that outlandish shit can happen then fuck anything is possible.
But yeah my gut feeling is its bullshit.
And that bothers me.
Guess I am not getting any sleep tonight. Again.
And there I was already to cruise off to bed thinking about boundaries conditions between existence and non-existence. Well, fuck me I guess.

>>17088617
Exactly. How do I know if the branch I'm in is thick or thin? They would all look the same. Every time there is a decoherence event, the particles all interact the same way just in slightly different locations (or energies or whatever).

>>17088633
>Bohm/de brogli mechanics
Are stupid. There are no particles. Everything is waves. Everett is right about that. He's just wrong about the implications.

>>17088634
He's not OP. I am.

>If a universe can exist, then so can a copy.
OK, but it's not like the new copy has existed since the big bang. It was created when an electron hit a detector, or a quantum computer completed a calculation, etc. One universe became many, all at once. Just because of one interaction. Where did the energy come from for this to happen?

>>17088701
But it makes predictions like a theory. So does Copenhagen. They are hypotheses if anything. They can be wrong. They can be disproven or falsified.

>>17089412
Correct, but why call it "Many Worlds"? Anyway, the "interpretations" are all trying to reconcile the fact that when there is a decoherence event, there is a seemingly random measurement or observation (within the bounds of probability).

My own pet "interpretation" is that decoherence actually happens, unlike in Many Worlds, but it's not instantaneous and random as described by Copenhagen.. It's ridiculously fast, on the order of 10^-20s, so and it's not per se random. It's deterministic, but so complicated that it can't be calculated for each interaction. Sort of like a chip falling through a really big Plinko board. It's very hard to determine where each chip will land, but you can calculate a distribution of many chips based on the wavefunction.

>>17089422
>>17089422
>Every quantum particle in the Universe splitting off into an alternative Universes every passing unit of Planck time?
No, the universe only splits when there is decoherence. Or whenever the Copenhagen interpretation would say "the wavefunction collapses."

>>17088597
>Where does all the energy come from?
Where does the energy for a single Universe come from? Whatever higher order plane this Universe creation event occurred in, why would there be only one?
It's like saying "ok, I believe one leprechaun exists, but an entire clan? Come on now".

Many Worlds interpretation doesn’t say there are multiple universes. The many worlds all share the same energy and matter because they are a part of the same universal wave equation. Many universes would imply energy and matter are being duplicated, aka multiple wave functions. This is a misinterpretation. And even if it sounds ridiculous, it was developed to answer very valid questions raised by QM.

>>17088597
The wave equation. Matter and energy are not increased with the number of worlds. They are all part of the same wave equation.

>>17088568
When the wave do the collapse where do all the loser universe go to? Curious.

Scientists are terrified of everything these days. Atheists scream at you for finding enchantment within nature. They hate the idea of there being alternate timelines due to the implication that their timeline is not le special.

>>17088568
If you assume time travel to the past is ever going to be possible, then you’d HAVE to involve faceted existences. Otherwise you couldn’t time travel to the past at all.

>>17089722
You’re starting to sound like Eric Weinstein.

- ”I don’t think there is a multiverse but that there is an infinite number of ways to view our one universe.”

An alternate universe/timeline is more like an individual facet on a gem. But it’s still a part of that gem. Alternate existences might just be protrusions of a much larger whole.

>>17089696
>There are no particles. Everything is waves.
I disagree.

>>17089699
>No, the universe only splits when there is decoherence.
Decoherence requires an observer outside of the system, doesn't it? How is it possible for the universal wave function itself to collapse when there's nothing external to it by definition?

>>17090067
No, any interaction is sufficient. Decoherence is simply the fact that it's effectively impossible for any quantum systems to remain completely isolated and have no interactions to occur. It's why we never seen quantum effects in our every day experience, we're instead seeing the statistical average of countless small-scale interactions.

>>17088568
>if particles exist in superposition
They don't
>every quantum event splits reality into branches
According to what logic? What mechanism does this?

>>17089725
Why cant I see them?

>>17089733
The universe never splits into winner and loser universes in the first place. It doesn't split IMO.

>>17089722
Has anyone even begun to attempt to write or compute even a toy model of this universal wavefunction after it's been evolving for a few billion years with an astronomical number of branches? It would be ridiculously messy and after a few billion years one way of "looking at it" would look entirely different to other ways (worlds).

>>17089765
Matter is just trapped energy. Energy travels in waves.

>>17090090
>According to what logic? What mechanism does this?
They're saying that the wavefunction never "collapses". Instead it causes an observer's reality to branch into many different "worlds." I agree that "collapse" doesn't happen like the Copenhagen interpretation. I think that there could be a non-instantaneous process for decoherence and the resulting discrete quantum state is determined by that process and isn't necessarily random.

>>17088568
5

A wave is just an orgy of potential particles.

That’s literally it. Higher dimensions are a super-positioned, holistic whole.

>>17090186
>They're saying that the wavefunction never "collapses". Instead it causes an observer's reality to branch into many different "worlds."
That sounds like the ramblings of a /sci/ schizopost.

>>17090186
>Matter is just trapped energy
Thats just a philosophical statement. I dont agree. In fact not even mainstream agrees

>>17090186
>They're saying that the wavefunction never "collapses". Instead it causes an observer's reality to branch into
>>17089722
>Many Worlds interpretation doesn’t say there are multiple universes.
many different "worlds."
So in short its nothing more then incoherent schizo rambling to avoid to having get rid of the holy locality.

>>17088568
>How many universes are there anyway?

It think it may be a bit like https://libraryofbabel.info/
>If completed, it would contain every possible combination of 1,312,000 characters, including lower case letters, space, comma, and period. Thus, it would contain every book that ever has been written, and every book that ever could be - including every play, every song, every scientific paper, every legal decision, every constitution, every piece of scripture, and so on.

There is no "multiverse" in the sense that would make contextual sense to you, because the universe and time itself doesn't exist as you recognize it. But rather the universe always exists as a sea of unlimited potential states the universe can be in, all pre-ordaned, written, cataloged, and archived for all eternity, and the only thing that gives it any meaning is a spirit viewing these states/pages, as if they were reading the pages of a book, and the only way our spirits can make sense of the chaos and randomness of it all is because of our perception of "time" which is merely us flipping through the pages that are similar and matching. Our perception of reality is merely just us flipping the pages of the cosmoses largest choose your own adventure book, except none of us knows how to read it

>>17090626
>the only thing that gives it any meaning is a spirit viewing these states/pages
Define "spirit"
You're just making up an undefinable, unfalsifiable god figure to give justification for your retarded crackhead fantasy without actually having to explain any of the mechanics behind it.

>>17088568
it sounds like philosophy or religion, not science. what kind of experiment would verify the hypothesis?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds&ra=m

>>17090857
NTA, what name do you give the warmth inside after praying/meditating? What is that?
>inb4 an empty vessel has no idea what the fuck