Parallel Universe Reality

[Electron]

It now appears to be the case that Hugh Everett III offers the only alternative to
The Copenhagen Interpretation .
The Double Slit Experiment confirms Superposition of the particle in all possible states.
This has been accepted by the academic world and now the upshot is ,that we exist independently, in many different scenarios , in a multiple universe
condition.

This has implications for ethics ,since we will take a number of routes and exist with each separate outcome.

Anyone who replies to this post will reply, will not reply ,will reply in support ,will reply with conjecture and all these variable states exist in an embodied form in a real universe.

[Arising_uk]

Hi Electron,
What implications for ethics?
p.s.
Is this interpretation like the many-world semantics of the modal logic of necessity and possibility??

[Aetixintro]

It's funny you post this in the metaphysics section since the Copenhagen interpretation really only says something about physics and thus this looks better in the Philosophy of Science section... maybe, in a possible world, in a parallel universe.

I've replied... booh, booh...

[Edit, 01.05.2010:] I've changed "buuh" to "booh" because it has been meant to express something scary and not something belittling. [End of edit.]

[Electron]

It's funny you post this in the metaphysics section since the Copenhagen interpretation really only says something about physics and thus this looks better in the Philosophy of Science section... maybe, in a possible world, in a parallel universe.

I've replied... buuh, buuh...

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Maybe someone will move it to that section.

[Electron]

Hi Electron,
What implications for ethics?
p.s.
Is this interpretation like the many-world semantics of the modal logic of necessity and possibility??

The implication for ethics is "choice of action" but in superposition there exists all possible choices.
This means a variety of choices is exercised in separate universes.

I don't know about the last question.

[Arising_uk]

The implication for ethics is "choice of action" but in superposition there exists all possible choices.
This means a variety of choices is exercised in separate universes.

So? As I assume this 'superposition' collapses to the choice and I appear to be the one making them and suffering the consequences and rewards. So why would ethics change at all to the being who believes this Everett III alternative?

I don't know about the last question.

Not sure if I can do this and hopefully RB will step-in but Necessity means the 'thing' is true in all possible worlds, Possibility means it is true in at least one possible word, and this is where I get lost as what are Contradictions? Impossibility, i.e. not true in any possible world(?). Anyway thats about the best I've got.

[Electron]

So? As I assume this 'superposition' collapses to the choice and I appear to be the one making them and suffering the consequences and rewards. So why would ethics change at all to the being who believes this Everett III alternative?

Everett's view is that the superposition does not collapse but decoheres.
It does collapse,however,when observed but that would mean that the moon does not exist
unless someone measures or observes it and Einstein could not accept that.

[Electron]

Necessity means the 'thing' is true in all possible worlds, Possibility means it is true in at least one possible word, and this is where I get lost as what are Contradictions? Impossibility, i.e. not true in any possible world(?).

It has to conform with probability.

[Arising_uk]

It has to conform with probability.

Which I guess rests upon a bedrock of Logic?

But apart from this, why do you think there are ethical consequences involved in such thoughts?

[Electron]

It has to conform with probability.

Which I guess rests upon a bedrock of Logic?

But apart from this, why do you think there are ethical consequences involved in such thoughts?

Things happen in accordance with their probability.

In ethics both Freud and Einstein did not believe in choice. Who you are and what you are is an accident.

[Aetixintro]

I've written about probability (separate between statistics and prediction, and between finite sets, unknown sets and infinite sets) and you can check it yourself here:
http://t-lea.net/Evolution.html, from Opinions on Physics, a little down on the page.
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#PSST, from The Power of a Single Span of Time - an Instance - Contrary to Hume on Induction - The Refutation of the Problem of Induction.
One remark: I'm generally very skeptical to "laws" expressed in probabilities. They're always underdetermined in my view. One person has noted that when you get down to the singular case, the case is always 100% to itself, ie. every case will happen necessarily. You certainly don't express gravity as probability. Clearly there are problems of predicting new knowledge and probability is not the way to go. However, you may make good evaluations of research projects and these can be expressed in probabilities in hindsight.
http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#SSP, from the Suggestion to Solution of the Paradox of the Ravens.
It may seem that I agree with probability here in the Bayesian sense, but I don't. I only agree with the 1. stage that says: it is indeed logical to make confirmations and non-confirmations at the same time, so that a white cup confirms non-white items/objects out of a set of objects in case they're not all white (simply because you know the whole set of objects, otherwise this wouldn't be a determined/limited set). Conclusion, IMO: probability is useless to determine new knowledge, make revelations with. It is only a tool in some cases (heuristics) to give direction to tweaking and as an avenue to look further. I think this makes good sense and it makes people healthily sceptical when they see probabilities expressed somewhere (in scientific papers).

[Edit, 01.05.2010:] I've added ", and between finite sets, unknown sets and infinite sets".

[Electron]

I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.

Is it not more embarrassing that the alternative to the many worlds hypothesis is the Copenhagen Interpretation ,which states that the moon does not exist if no one looks at it?

Einstein said that this was absurd.
Those who believe in the many worlds hypothesis are among the greatest minds in physics
I will give you just three.

1. Richard Feynman
2. David Deutsch
3. Steven Hawking

If you wish to refute these academics with a detailed argument, I would be very pleased to hear it ,but ,so far, your only contribution is that you think it is a silly idea.

[Aetixintro]

...which states that the moon does not exist if no one looks at it?

You should mind that indirect observation (tide-water) entails the moon and simply having seen the moon by a regular pattern, considering the existance of laws of nature, is also consistent with indirect observation. So, no, I don't think CI says that the moon doesn't exist if you're not observing it directly. Only the people with a narrow interpretation of CI can make such an inference from it.

(I'm only in support of CI in this sense and certainly not the narrow sense.)

So this is partly my contribution!

[Arising_uk]

Things happen in accordance with their probability.

Philosophically this is a problem as everything happens with the probability of one but I think I understand what you mean, is it that Physics has given up the idea of something being 'true' and now thinks of events, i.e. 'particle' interactions as being only probable?

In ethics both Freud and Einstein did not believe in choice. ...

Well Freud is hardly a scientific recommendation? And I'll have to check my memory of the only book I've read by Einstein about his ethics but, I'm not sure his 'god doesn't play dice' is an argument for him not believing in choice for the ethical human?

Who you are and what you are is an accident.

Philosophically it depends upon what you mean by "accident" and "Who you are" and "what you are"?

[Aetixintro]

Besides, who I am may not be an accident at all, but follows beautifully down the family tree of life and genetics, from ancient ancestors to my parents (and to myself) today...