The Multiverse

[BobM]

Read this and let's discuss it's impact on the "big" questions: consiousness & time.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

[arcticpenguin]

If you think you are going to explain consciousness with physics, without even considering the biology, I think you are on the wrong track.

[BobM]

?

I wasn't out to "explain" consiousness. But physics could certaintly give us insight into some properties that it must have.

Unlike some folks here, I don't purport to have the answers.

[BobM]

Sorry.

I thought it would be nice to have a thread with actual discussion, since all I've seen here the last few months is "bash the theist" threads.

[c4ts]

Why do we think these other universes aren't merely a reflection of our own?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by c4ts
Why do we think these other universes aren't merely a reflection of our own?

Because of the nature of quantum mechanics, I believe.


Is the multiverse theory falsifiable or even testable?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


Because of the nature of quantum mechanics, I believe.


Is the multiverse theory falsifiable or even testable?

Sorry, I forgot to quote what I was reffering to:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2
One of the many implications of recent cosmological observations is that the concept of parallel universes is no mere metaphor. Space appears to be infinite in size. If so, then somewhere out there, everything that is possible becomes real, no matter how improbable it is. Beyond the range of our telescopes are other regions of space that are identical to ours. Those regions are a type of parallel universe. Scientists can even calculate how distant these universes are, on average.

[BobM]

Is the multiverse theory falsifiable or even testable?You really have to read the whole article to have the full sense of it. Yes, it is falsifiable.

From the article (on page 1):
It is grounded in well-tested theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics, and it fulfills both of the basic criteria of an empirical science: it makes predictions, and it can be falsified.

[c4ts]

There are two tenable but diametrically opposed paradigms for understanding the correspondence between mathematics and physics, a dichotomy that arguably goes as far back as Plato and Aristotle. According to the Aristotelian paradigm, physical reality is fundamental and mathematical language is merely a useful approximation. According to the Platonic paradigm, the mathematical structure is the true reality and observers perceive it imperfectly. In other words, the two paradigms disagree on which is more basic, the frog perspective of the observer or the bird perspective of the physical laws. The Aristotelian paradigm prefers the frog perspective, whereas the Platonic paradigm prefers the bird perspective.

As children, long before we had even heard of mathematics, we were all indoctrinated with the Aristotelian paradigm. The Platonic view is an acquired taste. Modern theoretical physicists tend to be Platonists, suspecting that mathematics describes the universe so well because the universe is inherently mathematical. Then all of physics is ultimately a mathematics problem: a mathematician with unlimited intelligence and resources could in principle compute the frog perspective--that is, compute what self-aware observers the universe contains, what they perceive, and what languages they invent to describe their perceptions to one another.

:D

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


Because of the nature of quantum mechanics, I believe.


Is the multiverse theory falsifiable or even testable?






The idea of the Multiverse is prone to Occam's Razor.

[Frostbite]

I read that article. Makes me brains leak out me ears. :confused:

[BobM]

The idea of the Multiverse is prone to Occam's Razor.It certaintly is. Again, I urge you to read the article before you comment. I started this post with the article to start a meaningful discussion rather than having a debate filled with dogma and predetermined opinions.

From the article (page 8 (hey! you made it farther than Dark Cobra):
What Says Occam?
[snip]
So should you believe in parallel universes? The principal arguments against them are that they are wasteful and that they are weird. The first argument is that multiverse theories are vulnerable to Occam's razor because they postulate the existence of other worlds that we can never observe. Why should nature be so wasteful and indulge in such opulence as an infinity of different worlds? Yet this argument can be turned around to argue for a multiverse. What precisely would nature be wasting? Certainly not space, mass or atoms--the uncontroversial Level I multiverse already contains an infinite amount of all three, so who cares if nature wastes some more? The real issue here is the apparent reduction in simplicity. A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds.

But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler.

It continues, on page 9.

Please, read first, then respond.

[BobM]

c4ts, precisely. That's why I posted it here. It's an article about the fundamental nature of the universe.

[c4ts]

So what do you guys think? Does mathematics really exist, or is it just an arbitrary creation of the human mind?

[scribble]

But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler.


Can someone with more brains explain this to me? My ******** detector is going off.

I mean, take his example: the single number can be output by a completely trivial one-line computer program, no matter the length of the number. To print the entire set takes significantly more operations. (Although he's correct in saying it's also a trivial problem.)

Is it ever possible to claim the generator is more simple than the generated? The generator, by definition, must contain all the information about the generated, as well as additional information for the actual act of generating.

At any rate, he seems to confuse the 'simplicity' of the generator (the program) with the 'simplicity' of the generated (the set of all numbers). The two are seperate entities.


-Chris

[scribble]

Oops. Double post.

[BobM]

Can someone with more brains explain this to me? Doh! I was hoping someone here could better explain that one to me. I see what he's getting at, for a very large number, the specific number would be more "complicated" to generate than a generator that creates ALL numbers.

I'm not sure about the math/information theory behind it, and how accepted it is.

But take the mandlebrot set for instance.. the generator is very simple.. but the generated is infinite.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BobM
Doh! I was hoping someone here could better explain that one to me. I see what he's getting at, for a very large number, the specific number would be more "complicated" to generate than a generator that creates ALL numbers.

I'm not sure about the math/information theory behind it, and how accepted it is.



Well, I like this argument, and I won't mind losing when the folks with bigger brains show up.

But I'd like to put forth the thoughts that

A) a number is simply a measurement, a value of how far something is from something else. All numbers are equally simple. The 'for a very large number' part seems irrelevant.

B) No matter how large the number, the generator to output all numbers will be more complex than a generator to output just one number. You can take me at my word as a computer programmer, or if you wish I can explain in depth why I know this to be so.

C) A process is more complex than a simple measurement. A measurement is a property, a description -- a label. A process, such as a generator of labels, requires infinitely more assumptions about nature. Attaching a property to a thing only requires that you believe things exist and they have properties. Running a process for labeling things requires entire systems of distinction and -- well, frankly the difference seems so huge and obvious to me I'm having trouble defining it. Once again I wish for bigger brains. OR less intoxicated ones.

But take the mandlebrot set for instance.. the generator is very simple.. but the generated is infinite.

Arrrrgh. Pet peeve, Bob -- nothing personal. The generator for the mandelbrot set is easily described, it is sublime, it is concise, it is most definately *not* simple in any sense of the word -- either the typical intellectual meaning, or the uncomplex ocham meaning.

Indeed, to even have a hope of understanding the generator for the mandelbrot set, you must have more mathematical education than most college graduates. You must have a knoweldge of many different entities that are required before you even have the system of mathematics to describe the generator.

Anyone with a scientific or mathematical background probably would have the required skills, though -- don't think i'm saying it's horribly beyond the grasp of mortals. I'm just saying it's far from simple.

-Chris

[BobM]

A google for "algorithmic information content" revealed this (http://www.mulhauser.net/research/tutorials/complexity/complexity.htm). I haven't even tried to digest it yet.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BobM
A google for "algorithmic information content" revealed this (http://www.mulhauser.net/research/tutorials/complexity/complexity.htm). I haven't even tried to digest it yet.

Hey, nice find. They're discussing the very thing we were using as an analogy! Only they're looking at it on a much more interesting level. I've just begun to look over it, but thanks for finding it.

-Chris

[BobM]

Also this (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/dijon.html).. discussing the crux of the multiverse issue as well. (haven't read it over yet.)

Two philosophical applications of algorithmic information theory (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/dijon.html)

[Shroud of Akron]

not that i am qualified to make a valid point on the infinite realities theory, but isn't it possible that with infinite space, you could just end up with infinite diversity. isn't that like saying, and i quote "A large sequence of numbers surely MUST repeat."

[BobM]

not that i am qualified to make a valid point on the infinite realities theory, but isn't it possible that with infinite space, you could just end up with infinite diversity. isn't that like saying, and i quote "A large sequence of numbers surely MUST repeat."
I think part of the idea is that there may be infinite space but only a finite number of possible states.

Also, alot rides on the question of whether math is "real" or real.

[Theodore Kurita]

One question.


Why is the level 3 multiverse more controversial than the level 4 multiverse?

I mean the level 3 multiverse is based on the theory of Quantum Mechanics! Why is it under fire so much???:confused:

[BobM]

Why is the level 3 multiverse more controversial than the level 4 multiverse?

I mean the level 3 multiverse is based on the theory of Quantum Mechanics! Why is it under fire so much???

Level III is the standard "many worlds" interpetation of QM. It's "under fire" because it WAS the basically the only MWI.

That's why it's funny that it turns out that the Lvl III MWI isn't useful.

[clk]

Originally posted by ((^-_-^))

I mean the level 3 multiverse is based on the theory of Quantum Mechanics! Why is it under fire so much???:confused:

Didn't you say that Cybershaman was based on the theory of Quantum Mechanics? Here's your quote:


Ernie Vega the guy that program "Cybershaman" based all of his equations on Quantum Chaos Models! He just took the idea and realized that this Quantum Chaos can also be used to do subtle Casual Manifestation. Here is the webpage that will explain all on nonlinear physics! Here it is: http://physics.clarku.edu/~akudrolli/nls.html


Why is Cybershaman so controversial? After all, it's based on Quantum Mechanics, right? Dumbass.

[evildave]

I think to boil it down concisely, it's not that big numbers are difficult to represent or that many numbers are easy to generate.

It's getting the RIGHT numbers that's the real trick.

However beautifully your "simple" system describes narrow aspects of reality, there's always going yo be more reality that it doesn't correctly model.

No matter how well we build telescopes and instruments to measure the cosmos, we're always making assumptions based on small samples, and that's at best a flawed way of going about your "discovery" of new things.

Or to simplify it to a greater extent, do you really believe there's a parallel universe "out there" that has an England with good sandwiches? Unthinkable.

[BobM]

Or to simplify it to a greater extent, do you really believe there's a parallel universe "out there" that has an England with good sandwiches? Unthinkable

Is it? You just thought it. If the configuration of matter in your brain is capable of imagining an England with tasty sandwiches, then why isn't a configuration of matter in the universe capable of being it?

What if the universe never changes? What if time is merely movement of consioucness from one configuration to another nearby configuration? Admittedly the configuration where England has good food is unreachable from here.

[BobM]

Scribble...

I thought of an example, maybe.

Large primes. The program to find a specific large prime is a complex algorithm.

The program to find the set of integers that contains that large prime is simple.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by BobM


Is it? You just thought it. If the configuration of matter in your brain is capable of imagining an England with tasty sandwiches, then why isn't a configuration of matter in the universe capable of being it?

That looks like solipsism to me.

[GodIsDead]

I personally believe that the universe is limited instead of infinite. I base this on the observing the microscopic like atoms. Maybe all the universes are held together like atoms which make up something else entirely. I think the microscopic mirrors the macroscopic.

[evildave]

Well, on the sandwiches we agree.

Actually, the algorithm to find a great, big prime number can be quite simple. Just get yourself a "bignum" library and then iteratively "try" numbers then iteratively check modulus against all the numbers less than it until you get one that doesn't have any zero mods. Then you notice "Hey, this takes FOREVER!"

Then the first you skip the evens, since any number higher than 2 is going to be divisible by two. Then you know to only try values up to the integer square root of the prime you're testing. Then you keep adding more and more rules to save time and memory, and it gets complicated.

The algorithm to do the prime check in a reasonable time with reasonable resources becomes very complex.


As for the quantity of universe, my hypothesis is that it's a wrap-around universe, and we've already passed the point where all of the matter has gone past the edge, and the light just hasn't reached us to show it. It'll all crash back together again, even though it's apparently accelerating *apart*, but n-dimensionally, it's accelerating towards a point.

[Dub]

Originally posted by evildave

Or to simplify it to a greater extent, do you really believe there's a parallel universe "out there" that has an England with good sandwiches? Unthinkable.

Never You need to pop-over to Wales for them :D

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by BobM

I think part of the idea is that there may be infinite space but only a finite number of possible states.

Also, alot rides on the question of whether math is "real" or real. i understand this, the point is, however unlikey my assumption may be, given infinite space with finite matter/energy there are infinite possible arrangements or states of matter/energy.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BobM
Scribble...

I thought of an example, maybe.

Large primes. The program to find a specific large prime is a complex algorithm.

The program to find the set of integers that contains that large prime is simple.

I have to disagree, still.

When you find a large prime, you are attaching a label to that number that is 'it's a prime.' And the cost of finding that label, as you said, is quite high.

Printing all numbrs is irrelevant to the problem of finding primes -- you still don't know which one is which. I think this is a red herring, with all due respect.

-Chris

[BobM]

I have to disagree, still.

When you find a large prime, you are attaching a label to that number that is 'it's a prime.' And the cost of finding that label, as you said, is quite high.

Printing all numbrs is irrelevant to the problem of finding primes -- you still don't know which one is which. I think this is a red herring, with all due respect.

I'm not sure I follow. I was just illustrating the principle espoused by the article's author. That an ensemble is sometimes simplier than a specific member of the ensemble. The actual task isn't important here. Be it finding primes or creating the universe(s).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dub


Never You need to pop-over to Wales for them :D

Well, there is that groovy little sandwich bar at the end of High Street Arcade in Cardiff that does a mean roasted mediterranean vegetable ciabatta but I don't think that's a typically Welsh dish?

On the other hand Wales has given us that culinary delight known as "half'n'half"... :D

Otherwise, nothing to add on the multiverse thing. I find the whole idea kind of worrying; it's bad enough there's one of me to think about without having to consider there may be a whole bunch of alternate versions, who I bet are having bags more fun than I am...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by BobM


I'm not sure I follow. I was just illustrating the principle espoused by the article's author. That an ensemble is sometimes simplier than a specific member of the ensemble. The actual task isn't important here. Be it finding primes or creating the universe(s).

Game theory comes to mind.