1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/introducing-the-paracast/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

April 9, 2017 — Paul Eno

Discussion in 'Talk About the Show' started by Gene Steinberg, Apr 9, 2017.



  1. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    5,230
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    I think it is that clear-cut. You are not another "you" living in "another universe" at another time. You're the "you" living in this universe now. By branching off from the original you, any other "you" is just a copy, who goes on to have their own independent life and existence. Or if not by branching, then they are created by parallel evolution. There's no way around it that I can see in your explanation.
     
  2. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    99
    First you have to bear in mind that nearly all of the descriptions that you hear about this theory are worded very badly, and are usually based on wildly inaccurate misunderstandings of it. For example, the various universes don't interact at all - there's no possibility of "crossovers" like we heard about in this show, because that's not an aspect of the mathematical definition of the quantum wavefunction.

    Everett's interpretation is based on the idea that the universe is defined by its total wavefunction. So all of the different possibilities expressed within that one wavefunction are simply facets of the one true reality that's the sum of all of those possibilities. There aren't "many worlds" or "many universes" - rather, all of those universes are simply facets of the one universe, like the facets of a single diamond. They don't exist - they can't exist - without each other.

    So there are infinities of facets of the one universal wavefunction where the part that's "you" and everything that you can perceive, do not diverge....where the component of the universal wavefunction that we call "you" remains exactly the same, and only other parts of the universe diverge (often in vanishingly minute ways). In Everett's interpretation, "you" are defined by your collective wavefunction: the iterations of "you" are just aspects of that one whole, which is in turn an aspect of the one whole universal wavefunction. It's as if your wavefunction is the "real you" and all of the various permutations of your wavefunction are just reflections in a house of mirrors.

    It's a totally different way of looking at reality, and one that I don't believe for a second, but in this model your wavefunction is the only "true reality," and the iterations are just facets, shadows, echoes, reflections...however you want to look at it.
     
    Usual Suspect likes this.
  3. mike

    mike Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    7,737
    Likes Received:
    5,410
    Richard C Meredith did a great trilogy called the timeliner trilogy.

    Essentially for every possible choice the universe branched. Well worth a read for sci fi fans.
    The characters didn't travel "up" and "down" time aka Doctor Who, But rather "skudded" sideways across the timelines.

    But the universe also periodically dropped branches of low potential. an excellent fresh view on parallel universes and time travel.
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  4. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    5,230
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    Thanks for the reply. I see what you're saying and I think you're also absolutely correct not to believe it. It's pure nonsense. Also, as you suggest, the language and interpretations are also easily co-opted to suit the agendas of various quantum-woo mongers. Here's a relevant article:

    If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com

    There's also key reason besides the math and science that makes it impossible for there to be more than one "you". Even if each version of "you" is an exact duplicate made from what is assumed to be the same particles coexisting in two or more places, each version of "you" will still have a different experiential view of their world, and because our worldview and consciousness are considered to be key components of who we are as persons, multiple consciousnesses and worldviews = multiple persons. We do not experience all universes as a single infinite hive mind. Consequently multiple separate persons ≠ one person, and therefore they cannot be the same person.

    Or to revisit the diamond analogy you used, a facet on one side of a diamond is not the facet on the other side, even if they are part of the same diamond at the same time. Or if we use the branch analogy, a leaf on one branch is not the same leaf on a different branch, even if they both exist on the same tree at the same time. All leaves and all facets are independent even if they are alike and part of a larger common construct.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  5. William Strathmann

    William Strathmann Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    170
    Location:
    A Holy Mountain
    Well said. Thanks for your thoughts. The reason I asked is that the other day I came across this remark by physicist Frank Close who self-describes as a "21st century atheist":

    There is no reason to believe that our inflationary universe is, was, a one-off event. There could be many other such universes that have erupted in similar fashion to this but which are beyond our awareness. When confronted by the astonishing range of coincidences in the nature of the forces, the masses of the fundamental particles, even in there being three dimensions of space, but for which the conditions for life would have almost certainly not have arisen, one is forced to wonder why our universe has turned out so conveniently for us. One line of conjecture among scientists is that there are multiple universes, potentially an infinite number, with their own parameters and dimensions; one of these happens to be just right for life, and that is where we have evolved. So welcome to the multiverse, though I am sceptical whether such conjectures can be tested within the realms of science.

    Close, Frank. Nothing: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 136-137). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

    I think Close's conception of "multiple universes" originate simultaneously, and not sequentially as in Eno's conception. Perhaps a moot point. Evidently grappling with infinity in the physical world, one way or another, stimulates these "many world" conjectures. I am not particularly inclined to either Eno's or Close's ideas. On the idea of the uniqueness of each individual, I think I'd tend to agree with Ususal Suspect.
     
Loading...

Share This Page