Many Worlds Theory (Interesting Philosophy and Debate)

[Meldread]

I am sitting here and thinking on Many Worlds Theory and its implications. We see how evolution has been accepted by the mainstream world and its impact. What do you think the impact on the world will be as a result to Many Worlds Theory, assuming that it can eventually be proven beyond doubt much like evolution?

First of all, let's think about what it means for us as "individuals". If everything that can happen, will happen and has happened, then that would imply that freedom is simply an illusion. It would imply that we have no choice, that there is only the illusion of a choice.

Think for a moment what that means and think about criminal justice. Can you put a man in jail for a crime he committed when surely he is innocent in another world and just happens to be unlucky enough to commit the crime in this one? Could you even *BLAME* the man for the crime, or would the world he exists in be at fault?

It seems rather silly to ask that question, and perhaps the logical answer is "he is guilty here so he must be punished here". However, that line of thinking hinges on the concept that he had a choice. It hinges on the line of thought that he consciously decided to commit a crime. If freedom of choice is an illusion, then... is he really guilty or simply unlucky?

Many Worlds Theory also brings into play the role of perception and consciousness. What happens to all of the other "us"? Perhaps we are not consciously aware of them, but what about subconsciously? Is there any way to perceive them? We are greatly limited in our perception of the universe through our five senses. We "sense" three spaceal dimensions and one dimension of time. Yet from my understanding of Many Worlds Theory is that it is based around the thought that there are other dimensions out there, as few as 5 or 11 to perhaps an unknown or infinite number. Who is to say that we are not somehow linked - not physically - but somehow mentally linked to those other "us"?

That line of reasoning could go on and spark other debates such as what happens when one of those "us" dies - as they surely do? There has to be a world out there where we live forever, and doubtlessly more than one, what happens when all of the non "live forever" us's die and only the "live forever" remain? When we die is our consciousness simply "transferred" over? Do we ever truly die forever? Surely if I were to die in my sleep tonight there would be a world in which I woke up just fine. Would my consciousness simply be transferred over to that world, and keep being transferred over until I reach a state of "immortality"? (Of course, to the people in that world in which I died I'd seem very much dead, yet to me it would seem that I never died.)

If the above were the case that'd make suicide laughable as each time you attempted it, while you may succeed in our world, you were somehow saved or lived through it in another. Therefore, to you - you never died.

Many Worlds Theory also makes Time Travel less crazy to think about and would eliminate the Grandfather Paradox as well as explain why we don't have a visitor from the future. If in the future Time Travel became possible and someone were to travel back in time, they'd be forever cut off from their world - just as if they died - yet they could still succeed as they would travel back in a parallel world. They could then kill their grandfather, and travel back to their present day future. Of course, upon arriving no one would know him because in that world he never existed (his Grandfather was killed). Especially it ensures that our past can never change, but at the same time it also tells us that our future is already planned - as everything that can happen, will happen, therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that it already has.

I'd like to see a discussion on the things I talked about, as well as other things that could radically change how we view the world around us.

...of course perhaps the most frightening thing of all is the fact that in another world George W. Bush is a great President. Yet in another world, Bush is exactly the same and we are all rabid Republicans and members of Free Republic. That is frightening.

[htuttle]

1. I've never like the 'many worlds' hypothesis

It seems very wasteful, just from an intuitive point of view.

Not that I don't accept that other spatially 'unconnected' 3D universes aren't possible (and likely), I just don't think a new one spawns off every time a subatomic decision needs to be made.

:shrug:

[Meldread]

3. What I'd REALLY like to know is...

...how everything began. We know how our universe began with the Big Bang, but what about the FIRST universe? Where did it come from? Was there an actual beginning of time? For us, obviously time began at the start of the Big Bang. However, outside our universe - outside all universes - what was the beginning like? Did that beginning have a beginning? ...or is time non-existent and past, present and future all in existance at the same time? Still, even if that were the case, that doesn't answer the question of what set things in motion.

I can't even begin to imagine.

[Spinzonner]

12. If time had a beginning, then there is no 'Before'

since the notion of 'before' is dependent upon time. Are you trying to introduce some sort of Meta-time without defining it and examining the scientific implications.

Similar arguments could be made for your notion of 'outside' the Universe as though there were a delineable boundary between universes that is crossable in some sense.

You seem to be limited to non-Relativistic and pre-modern models of reality.

[bananas]

2. Do you watch any tv or movies?

The many-worlds hypothesis doesn't bother most people, it has been the basis for the movies Back to the Future, Terminator, and the tv show Sliders. It was used in episodes of the original Star Trek tv series. These were all very popular and people had no difficulty with the concepts.

If it is proven beyond a doubt, the only ones who will be upset will be the Fundamentalist Physicists, who will want to go back to Newtonian mechanics.

[Meldread]

6. Yes, but...

Yes, Fundamentalists will scream bloody murder that is a given. However, there is a big difference in peoples minds between fiction and reality. It's easy to suspend disbelief, it's something else entirely to accept it as truth.

Go up to almost anyone and strike up a conversation about the possibility of Parallel Worlds and how it is seriously being considered and they'd think you were nuts. They'd likely rank you right up there with folks who claim to be abducted by aliens on a nightly basis.

Hell! Just to prove my point I decided to do a little Google to see how many Americans actually believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.

Taken from Newsweek:
"Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible.

In the NEWSWEEK poll, 93 percent of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Fifty-two percent of all those polled believe, as the Bible proclaims, that Jesus will return to earth someday; 21 percent do not believe it. Fifteen percent believe Jesus will return in their lifetime; 47 percent do not, the poll shows.

When asked if there would be more or less kindness in the world today if there had never been a Jesus, 61 percent of all those polled say there would be less kindness. Forty-seven percent say there would be more war if there had never been a Jesus (16 percent say less, 26 percent say the same); 63 percent say there would be less charity; 58 percent say there would be less tolerance; 59 percent say there would be less personal happiness and 38 percent say there would be less religious divisions (21 percent say more and 26 percent say the same)."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

Most of that is MORE THAN HALF of the United States of America. Many Worlds Theory would basically say to them - to any religion - that their chosen one, indeed their entire religion, does not exist in other worlds. You would basically be telling a Christian that in some world out there Jesus never bothered to show up. You'd be telling Jews that in a world out there Moses remained a slave, or was never even born.

...and you have to remember that you'd be telling this to people who literally believe the Bible is a literal interpretation of history. Those people represent more than half of the United States.

Of course, I think the culture conflict would be the least of it as it could dramatically alter how we view ourselves as people and the way we see the world.

[bananas]

11. Nah - for example, the Mormons

beleive that Christ was bilocating in North America and the Middle East at the same time. They have no problem with Jesus also appearing on other planets in other solar systems in this universe. So they wouldn't have a problem with multiple universes either. I think the Roman Catholic Church has a similar position.
Buddhists and Hindus already have multiple universes.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. Communication between universes would be interesting

If possible - and I would think that proof might even require it.

I would also guess that it would be more common/feasable to have contact with universes that are mostly similar to our own. For example, you won't be hearing from one where life does not develop or is destroyed. There may be a built in bias to contact universes where other beings have the same technolgy and motivation.

I also wonder if there are universes that are more common (or maybe I should say more probable) than others and if that affects communication.

Sharing information - for example: some universes should have cures for diseases that others lack.

Comparative history - Bush lost? How's it going?

Privacy and law enforcement issues - Let's say we discover that in 90 out of 100 universes contacted, an individual has been discovered to be a mass murderer. That does not mean they are an undiscovered murderer in our universe, but is it more probable?

Free will - My take is that we have free will even if "Every possible Me" exists. I still get to choose which "Me" I "Am". With exchange of information, the issue can be examined, but maybe not resolved.

[Meldread]

10. Hmm...

If communication were established between Universes then there would be an equal number of Universes in which no contact was made. If it is even possible, doubtlessly there is such going on right now.

As for free will... that is where the illusion comes into play. It seems the choice we've made is our own, yet if every choice we could make was already made and all of its conclusions and consequences played out throughout a near infinite number of universes, then how can you say that the choice you made in this one is really yours? How can you say it wasn't pre-determined?

Further it makes me wonder about the concept of Time. It seems to us that it is always moving forward, yet could everything that was, is, and ever will be already be in existence right now and we are simply traveling down a pre-determined path? It should be possible if every possibility were taken into account. It would make the number of choices and possibilities staggering and near endless, right up to the point where our Universe ceases to no longer exist.

[Mythsaje]

5. I wasn't expecting to sign on and find this...

LOL...

I work from a many-worlds perspective in my novels. They're a bit on the fantastic side, sure, but I guess one could argue that in an infinite universe, all things are possible.

edited to clarify my meaning...

[bananas]

8. Copyright law would be interesting

Which one of you would hold the copyright to your novel?

[Mythsaje]

14. That would be the one who entered the text originally...

One per universe. LOL

[eallen]

7. There are implications, and then there are implications.

Scientific theories have an odd effect on the noosphere. The implication of MWI, in the strictly physical sense, is merely that people as well as everything else are quantum systems. There is no wave collapse. There is no qualitative distinction between the macro and quantum worlds. "The universe is a ray in Hilbert space." As one of my physics teachers was fond of saying.

It does not make time travel any easier, as far as I understand it. It does not allow any communication between universes, except for the usual quantum coherence and decoherence. According to MWI, one might say that multiple universes share resources in quantum computing. But that doesn't allow any kind of travel between them.

But philosophical implications? Well, now, there is another story. People seem wont to draw all sorts of philosophical implications from all sorts of things. Some draw moral implications from Einstein's theory of relativity, or Gödel's completeness theorems. The funny thing is that those who more understand the theories, at a technical level, generally seem to see fewer philosophical implications in them. Go figure.

:hippie:

[LunaSea]

9. Unusual topic for this forum

Have you checked out Cliff Pickovers Reality Carnival?
There are lots of interesting links on this and related subjects as well as all manner of odd things.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/realitycarnival.html

[Occulus]

17. That link led me on a VERY interesting journey.

Thank you.

By the way, here's where I started; it's a link on the right hand side of the page at the link you gave ("People near death see silver cord"):

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research12.html

which led me here:

http://www.near-death.com/dennis.html

and here:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research15.html

[Dudley_DUright]

13. Hugh Everett's' ideas are interesting, but most physicists

don't take them too seriously and do quantum mechanics using the Copenhagen interpretation.

[eallen]

16. Not so!

First, there are few operational cases -- arguably any -- where there is a difference in how quantum mechanics would be done with the MWI as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation. That's why they are called interpretations. That said, David Deutsch published a paper that presents a gedanken that would experimentally differentiate between the two, using a computer to observe a quantum event that, according to the Bohr interpretation (arguably) should collapse the wave function, but that, according to MWI, would be entangled like any other physical system. The interesting thing about MWI is that in such cases, it is MWI that tells physicists "calculate things as you would normally." The key difference between MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation is that MWI treats the observer as just another physical system, adhering to QM, while Copenhagen differentiates the observer as having some special property that causes wave function collapse.

Physicists take MWI as seriously as they take any interpretive scheme. Including Copenhagen. If MWI has done anything, it has shown how odd it is to accept wave collapse as something serious, especially as relevant experiments always seem to push when it can be said to occur further and further away. Chasing wave collapse seems to be very much like chasing the aether. MWI can be viewed as the contrary claim, that maybe this mysterious wave collapse never actually occurs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. There was an article about that theory in the Scientific American a while

back, and after reading it, my mind stayed boggled for quite some time.