Answerer

Hey guys, most of you seem to be ignoring the fact that MWT is not the only quantum interpretation. From what I know now, all other theories too had the same possibility as MWT of being correct or wrong. So, we must not ignore them entirely.

excreationist

According to David Deutsch, closely related parallel universes are constantly interacting through "quantum interference". This can be exploited using quantum computers. (see my earlier post in this thread)

The proper abbreviation seems to be "MWI" (Multiple Worlds Interpretatiom). Anyway, they aren't really equal - I think MWI explains quantum computers in a simpler way, and it doesn't rely on "observers" like the Copenhagen interpretation does. According to Wikipedia, "the Copenhagen interpretation is the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics". [i.e. it is the most widely believed one?] - but according to an MWI FAQ, most of the 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" polled believed in MWI (58%) or thought it was a possibility (13%). And there are a few other interpretations... I think some people on this board like the "transactional" one.

Wounded King

Dear Answerer,

Whether many worlds is representative of the true workings of QM is irrelevant. The point is that the many worlds interpretation was the one which formed the basis of the type III multiverse in the original article.

I was not aware of any of the other interpretations being able to produce a multiverse consistent with this model, so within this discussion we can ignore them entirely, if you feel that they are then please elaborate.

Answerer

I'm trying to understand the "Many mind Interpretation" now, perhaps later I could find in it, some consistence with the current model.

Wounded King

I dont really see much difference between many minds and many worlds. It may be that the label many worlds is misleading, but both theories seem to say that all the possible quantum interactions do happen and that we are merely limited in percieving them from our perspective as subjects of these interactions. Many minds just seems to be a different way of saying the same thing so as to avoid confusion with the sci fi concept of parrallel universes compared to a true ramifying multiverse.

David Deutsch has an article on the topic here

Seraphim

by Wounded King

It is quite clear from the article that these are not theoretical future developments but models for the universe as it exists now. Unless you have been sneakily slipping off to the beginning of time and setting up the multiverse then it is unlikely that the nature of the universe is due to any human agency.

I guess you're right. I must have mix it up with another theory or something.

The fact that we cannot at the moment determine the exact mechanism of the creation of the universe is fine, we can however understand certain conditions are neccessary for the universe to function in a certain way. The author of the article makjes his assumptions about the nature of the universe fairly explicit. Some of those assumptions may not hold water, I myself am not convinved that our universe is infinite and isotropic, requirements for the first model.

And what are those conditions which are necessary for the Universe to function properly?

It seems hardly that we should have any effect on the Universe by itself by nothing more than existing. It's like a fishing trying to change the current of an ocean by swimming against the tide.

There is some argument as to whether the universe actually has to start somewhere, I would agree with you that it does. As you suggest at the very initial point there may well have been a drastically reduced number of possible QM interactions, but since we really dont know what there was before the big bang we dont know what possibilities may have been open to it. Perhaps it only had one possible way to act, the one that lead to the universe being created. It is all purely speculative however.

Speculation is fine. Science probably begins with speculations and then experiments.

However, it seems to be illogical to think that Big Bang could have caused multiverse ... unless the expansion of the universe is simply one of many. Multiverse born out of the same universe but split into various portions of matter which then condensed into what we called Universe. Speculations also, or maybe just plain imagination.

None of the models require human intervention, Im not sure why you seem to think they should.

Never mind ... got mixed up with various concepts of Multiverse I had seen in movies and TV. I've seems to thought that the multiverse appeared due to results of individual's choice. You can blame Hollywood for that.