BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:22 AM

True. But

I will luve thee still, my dear,
While the sands o' life shall run

involves a metaphor. It's quite hard to speak in any context, scientifc or not, without falling into (or rising up to) metaphor. Which of course I just did in that sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:06 PM

But the point here is not seeking &/or identifying instances of metaphor; but whether Mr Sprockett was correct in claiming metaphorical status for the MWI postulate. So far as I can see, hawking, Everett, et al, intend it to be accepted as a statement of the actual, or at least the probable. Where have they calimed any metaphorical, rhetorical, symbolic, allegorical, tropic [ie trope-ic] or whatever status for it, please, Mr Sprockett?

& I should be obliged if you would kindly desist from addressing me in such patronising & peremptory locutions as

"Stop playing the C P Snow game".... "Don't play dumb..."

I am unaware of any authority you might claim for such modes of address.

I reserve the right to play whatever I choose. So I have thought of a nice little game for you to play: you go & hide, and nobody comes to look for you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:08 PM

Corrections -

Hawking
claimed

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:46 PM

The Documentary claims without a hint of allegory that two universes were created when young Everett decided to take the trip to see his dad.

It fails to mention the putting on the left sock first universe he creates every day or the putting on the socks after coffee, or the no socks that day universe, or the trillion universes created every time someone plays chess past the 10 move, etc etc.......

The sheer insane celebration of mundane trivial happenstance that the theory described in the documentary describes boggles my mind! And not in a good way.

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 02:01 PM

The goodness or badness of 'mind boggling' probably relates to how we choose to view it, don't you think, Jack? (And, of course, each choice creates another universe).

But I'd rather have my mind boggled than remain static.

I think that this concept of parallel worlds, just like most quantum theory, realize does combine the scientific and the spiritual.   

Sort of like how "guest" combines the metaphorical and the real by devising scientific experiments to test metaphors.

Brilliant (at least in the universe I'm most aware of).

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 05:25 PM

Grammatical correction to last message: should read "I think that this concept of parallel worlds, just like most quantum theory, really does combine the scientific and the spiritual.

Also, since the "insane celebration of mundane trivial happenstance that the theory described in the documentary describes 'boggles' Jacks mind", and I was questioning whether that had to be a bad thing, I looked up "boggle".

bog·gle
/ˈbägəl/
Verb

    (of a person or a person's mind) Be astonished or overwhelmed when trying to imagine something: "the mind boggles at the spectacle".
    Cause (a person or a person's mind) to be astonished in such a way: "the inflated salary of a CEO boggles the mind".


Seems to fit.

But maybe 'toggle' might be more positive and less overwhelming.

Verb
Switch from one effect, feature, or state to another by using a toggle.


Certainly all this discussion and celebration toggles my mind. Keeps it flexible.   What more could one ask?

In fact, maybe we can use a toggle to put ourselves into a parallel universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM

It does actually seem clear that Everett did actually see the proliferation of multiple worlds as real, as does, for example David Deutsch when he wrote The Fabric of the Universe.

Take it too seriously and the idea makes me nervous. But then the more I take anything too seriously about Life the Universe and Everything, I tend to start feeling nervous. It all seems too unlikely. Even with one universe...

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:09 PM

"I reserve the right to play whatever I choose"

Moi aussi (no I'm not saying I'm antipodean). We can play this for fun in various ways, or contrariwise in some other way: if you want to talk abour science, fine, we'll talk about science. If you want to play word games, I like them too. But a self- proclaimed literary man, active in the 1950s, who doesn't know (and hasn't read) The Two Cultures? Tirez l'autre jambe as on probably doesn't dit en France. And the "authority" for "patronising" you? You ain't the bloomin' Queen Mother.

You say common sense is offended by the various interpretations of quantum effects. Not the first time science has overthrown common sense. Until the 16th century, it was obvious that the sun, moon, stars and planets went round the world. Just little niggling faults in the description, like Mars going backwards, eventually made that simple idea untenable. Just as little niggles, like black body radiation, falsified Newtonian physics, or rather "relegated" it to an incomplete description of the way things are*. And in sorting those little inconsistencies out, this whole thing about quantum indeterminacy came about (a bit like Kepler being forced, against his own will and everyone else's, into making orbits elliptical instead of circular). It's there; it's undeniable. What it means is another matter. Hawkings and the rest work on the assumption that there's SOMETHING out there (otherwise they wouldn't bother being scientists), but whatever they say about it, it has to fit the facts (the well- attested maths of quantum science). Both the Copenhagen interpretation and MWI fit the facts, and there are several other less fashionable metaphors that also fit. None of them are comfortable to common sense.

Though some a little more than others: someone said up there that he didn't notice the Universe doubling in mass every time a decision is made. Quite right, each multiple Universe is a completely different one with its own mass. We could discuss how we happened to end up in this... this.... this one (they must split at an alarming rate, and the set of them must make Borges' Library of Babel look like a bookshelf). Other pictures don't require such fecundity. The pilot wave idea starts from the observation that photons move at the speed of light, so they don't experience time. Hence they have "all the time in the world" to explore the possible paths, through, say, a pair of slits, and find that two have equally minimal action (the shortest physical route), so take both- and interfere with themselves (ooer missus).

As I said before, I can't say if it fits the facts, because my maths isn't up to it, but it sounds a bit less frightening than an infinity of Universes, and a bit less solipsistic than Copenhagen.

*It's still the most useful way to do sums about 99.999% of physical effects as experienced by humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 01:00 AM

Where did I say I hadn't read The two Cultures? Of course I've read The Two Cultures. And Leavis's reply. And the consequent brouhaha, in which I think a letter of mine appeared in The Obserever [or was it the Sun Times?].

I have never proclaimed myself "a literary man", whatever that may be. I happened to have worked for a long time as a theatre and folk critic. 1970s-present, not the 50s.

It was the peremptoriness of your tone I found objectionable. Can't imagine what you imagine gives your jejune assumptions any warrant to address anyone in that sort of fashion.

Jack is obviously one who likes to set up his own 'truths' as Aunt Sallies, to knock them down to his own consummate satisfaction.. So, as my late wife would have put it, Jack: "Play your games". Just don't expect anyone else to take any notice.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 04:45 AM

I enjoyed the documentary Larry. I did not fully buy into the science.

I will be very very interested in the results and methodology of any experiments designed to examine Everett's theories,














i nb

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 11:23 AM

Same here, Jack! Good science (and maybe even good theology) is 'exploration'! I've little doubt that the science behind this theory is of questionable credibility. But questions are good.

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 03:52 PM

Questionable credibility? Very much so. But does the fact something isn't credible mean it's not true?

When you get down to it, it's very hard to find any idea about how everything happens to exist, and what everything is made up of, which is comprehensible and credible. They all involve believing something pretty incredible.

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 05:48 PM

Here here! (or is it hear hear!).

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:16 AM

"When you get down to it, it's very hard to find any idea about how everything happens to exist, and what everything is made up of, which is comprehensible and credible. "

I don't think that is true at all at the macro level. We are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms.

It is at the sub-atomic level were things go nuts!

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 03:45 AM

Larry ~ from Widipedia

"Hear, hear is an expression used as a short, repeated form of hear him, hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker. In recent usage it has often been misconstrued to be the homophonic phrase here, here, although this is incorrect."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: GUEST,Musket sans pedantry
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:00 AM

where

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:11 AM

Wikipedia. Sorry.

Rather like the sound of Widipedia, mind. Wonder what some of its entries might be...

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:03 AM

As I said Jack, "when you get down to it"...

Subject: RE: BS: Parallel Worlds version-Quantum Theory
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:44 AM

Indeed!!!