Seraphim

By Jesse

Well, if one believes that experiences affect your current self because of the physical traces they leave in the brain (like memories), then a physically-identical copy would act like it had exactly the same experiences as you. If not, then the math that was used to calculate a physically-identical copy of you would probably be within a certain distance could also be used to calculate the most likely distance to the nearest region of space that not only is a perfect copy of earth now, but also has been a perfect copy of earth for the last X years.

Well, IF my copy does have my experiences and thinks like me, then why should it exist in the first place?

I mean, I created by double based on some experience by (just say for sake of discussion) ripping the fabric of reality into two. Like that of a person with multiple personalities in a single mind YET each personalities may not interact with each other.

I created my double by this experience only to have the copy repeating everything I do ... my misery, mistakes, discussion etc. Frankly speaking, I don't see why I need to create another copy just to repeat the same mistakes I make now.

In mathematical term, let assume that we are a set of numbers which for some reason, some certain numbers got ripped out from the original set. Will this copy make the same numbers as the original had? Will we make the same number to replace the ones we lost only to lose it again and repeat the process?

The whole senario is like that of a Fussion chain reaction, one event leads to another and that leads to another and it goes on and on. And NO, that doesn't make sense because then, Universe or Multiverse could be like a large book with each universe as a page. My opinion anyway.


by Wounded King

Which particular multiverse scenarion did you have a problem with? The many worlds QM interpretation doesnt suppose that there exist people in other universes who just happen to look like you, they were you up until the quantum event that made their universe diverge from yours.

As for the argument based upon the supposition that the universe is infinite and has an equal distribution of matter throughout, these seem to be rather large assumptions.

The very existence of Multiverse with ANOTHER "me" there is the one which doesn't make sense.

I do agree with the probability that there maybe other lifeforms in other worlds besides Earth but another "Me" in another universe, sitting in front of a PC and typing the same thing I'm doing now ... I don't know .... doesn't make sense why it should exist in the first place.

theyeti

Actually, you probably do. Some proteins, like lens crystalins and histones, remain the same from birth or have extremely slow turn-over.

There's another angle too: every time you inhale it's almost certain that you breathe in at least one atom from Julius Caesar's dying breath. This is because atoms are so incredibly tiny that a single breath contains astronomical numbers; and when you spread them all over the Earth, you end up with one atom every cubic centimeter or something like that. This means that you almost certainly contain atoms that were part of your body 10 years ago, were excreted, and have since been reincorporated through breating, eating, or drinking.

None of this changes your point of course. Just thought it would be a fun thing to share.

theyeti

Wounded King

Dear Seraphim,

You seem to feel that these things must have a purpose, this is not necessarily the case. In the type I and II models the multiple universes are simply theoretical consequences of an infinite and isotropic universe. Given that we don't even know conclusively that our own visible universe is isotropic this seems like rather a large assumption.These models do seem needlessly wasteful, all those identical copies of you, but when you have infinity to play around with any amount of waste is comparatively trivial.

In the case of the type III model, basically the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the existence of these duplicates is a neccessary result of the fundamental nature of the universe, every thing which can possibly happen does happen, not because there is an infinite amount of anything but because all of the quantum interactions which have even the slighest probability of occurring do occur, this would certainly produce an incredibly vast array of universes, but not neccessarily infinite, that would depend on the length of existence and nature of the multiverse.

TTFN,

Wounded

Seraphim

By Wounded King

You seem to feel that these things must have a purpose, this is not necessarily the case. In the type I and II models the multiple universes are simply theoretical consequences of an infinite and isotropic universe. Given that we don't even know conclusively that our own visible universe is isotropic this seems like rather a large assumption.These models do seem needlessly wasteful, all those identical copies of you, but when you have infinity to play around with any amount of waste is comparatively trivial.

Yes ... it is a waste in my opinion IF something like a parallel universe exist because WE want it to exist.

This also give rise to two other question which contributes to why I don't think it exist or maybe it is different that what we imagine.

1. What about you guys? IF I created my own universe, then do you guys exist in it?
IF No, then it is illogical because I do interact with you all here and that contributes to some of my understanding (but nothing physical) of this world.

If Yes, then why do you exist there in the first place? To enable you to exist in my copy of the world, I must know you in detail as well to make a copy of you.

UNLESS of course that a single parallel universe exist at ONE given time where multiple copies could co-exist in a single place while each live life their own ways according to their master copy. Something like a Nucleus with US (as charged particles) revolving around it ... my opinion anyway.

In the case of the type III model, basically the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the existence of these duplicates is a neccessary result of the fundamental nature of the universe, every thing which can possibly happen does happen, not because there is an infinite amount of anything but because all of the quantum interactions which have even the slighest probability of occurring do occur, this would certainly produce an incredibly vast array of universes, but not neccessarily infinite, that would depend on the length of existence and nature of the multiverse.

But we don't understand fully about the existence and nature of the Multverse (heck ... we don't even have a clear understanding of our own, much less another universe), do we?

The above statement give rise to two questions which we should be quite familiar of - Free will.

IF you state that "anything that COULD exist, will exist" then that means we don't have free will otherwise we will be here for eternity.

We must have limited options to generate limited outcomes which then generate limited results (in this case, multiverse following whatever possible outcome maybe) and there our copies (or even ourselves IF you believe in reincarnation) could live life according to our own actions (something like Karma).

IF we don't have a free will, then the possible outcome is different and random, thus causing a random number of multiverse to appear and also random numbers of copies of ourselves.

Wounded King

You are quite right seraphim, if we live in a many worlds type multiverse then there is no such thing as free will. But we cannot distinguish what happens as a result of having free will from the consequences of living in that form of multiverse.

You seem to think that multiverses are a form of solipsism, you talk about creating a universe yourself. I don't know where you think this comes into things. These multiverses are not something we construct, they are a result of the nature of the multiverse itself.

This sounds rather like the many worlds model, except there is no 'original' universe, merely a vast multidimensional structure of quantum probability.

johngalt

I've always been fascinated with this theory. I don't think we will find out the truth of the theory for many thousands of years in the future. It is cool to think that there may be another me, or thousands of me, depending on how many universes exist. I really don't understand how we would GET to these universes though. Yes, it looks good on paper, but actually trying to get to another universe would be tough, if there are any.

Seraphim

by Wounded King

You are quite right seraphim, if we live in a many worlds type multiverse then there is no such thing as free will. But we cannot distinguish what happens as a result of having free will from the consequences of living in that form of multiverse.

If there is no free will, then we will continue to exist in a multiverse without an end. We could continue to create multiverse by the mistakes we make and we could continue to exist without means of ending it all. An eternity without an end .... horrible way to live.

You seem to think that multiverses are a form of solipsism, you talk about creating a universe yourself. I don't know where you think this comes into things. These multiverses are not something we construct, they are a result of the nature of the multiverse itself.

Well ... how else does it work? Who or what create the multiverse? What is the conditions on which a multiverse could be created OR what is the condition on which we could create a copy of ourselves in a multiverse?

All this questions may not be answered now since we are not technology advanced to that point.

This sounds rather like the many worlds model, except there is no 'original' universe, merely a vast multidimensional structure of quantum probability.

It all must start somewhere ... a single point in time where all this probabilities were nothing more than one.

Wounded King

Dear Seraphim,

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.

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.

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.

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

excreationist

I think the best evidence for parallel universes so far is quantum computation...

From a David Deutsch New Scientist Article:
other stuff
A New Scientist article just about Quantum Computers
Centre of Quantum Computation FAQ

theyeti

I'm sure one of the universes has figured it out. Of course I'd be pretty irritated if another me from an alternate universe came and started meddling in this one. As long as the other me picks a universe in which I'm not upset at my arrival, things will be fine.

theyeti