Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 4:15 am
Within a few lines, you claimed there are "infinite worlds."
Given 1) MWI being true, and 2) infinite space, yes. Even without MWI, with any local interpretation there are infinite worlds since a world can only be as big as a past light cone.
Then, just a couple later, that there is only a finite number of these that are "within our past light cone."
There is one world within our past light cone. One cannot measure more than one.
Other worlds are within different past light cones. Given the finite hypervolume of our past light cone, there are only a finite number of distinct states a light cone of that size could be (distinct wave functions it could have). Hence there being only a finite number of possible states of a given light cone.
So are the "worlds" you see to be relevant to this question infinite, or are they finite?
Depends on which question is being answered. You asked 'how many'. That is infinite if the size of the universe is infinite, even if MWI is not true. Then you asked about the probability of any one outcome (say, a habitable Earth of our kind), and concluded infinitely improbable (infinitesimal I presume), rather than the correct answer of 1 which is the odds of rolling infinite dice each of finite number of sides, and getting a specific number to come up on some of them.
Remember that under MWI, every possible world is real, so not only are there infinite rolls, but every number comes up on each roll.
So: either you're imagining there are infinite worlds (which you rightly point out is never demonstrated, and cannot be, by definition)
Yes, any local interpretation implies ("imagines" as you put it) infinite worlds, given infinite space, something else "imagined". Sufficiently distant worlds have no impact on us and have nothing to do with us being here. Closer worlds are related (we share common parts of a mutual past) and those worlds arguably do have relevance.
So not only is any possible world very likely (infiinte/some large finite number),
That's why you want to say "infinite." I get that. But now you cannot, because an infinite number of alternatives would always mean infinite OTHER ways things could be, and no single outcome being any more likely than any other...all infinitely unlikely, in fact.[/quote]No. Finite number of alternatives. I never said otherwise. The dice are finite sided, but there are infinite dice. Read what I said.
MWI says [the worlds] all exist,
Which is, of course, infinitely unlikely, and as you've already admitted, has no "demonstration" at all.
There is no demonstration of MWI being the correct interpretation, nor has it been falsified. That makes it as likely as any other, and given its raw simplicity (the shortest list of premises), that puts it pretty high on the list of reasonable interpretations. You've not in any way justified your opinion of this interpretation being infinitely unlikely, except that any naturalist theory contradicts your stance since you're not a naturalist, but you must beg your stance in order to draw that conclusion. I've never seen a logical argument from you that doesn't beg or just plain assert your conclusion.
If there was even one universe other than this one
A world is not a separate universe. It's all one structure.
Langan wrote: "Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained: if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality; and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality..."
OK. Pretty standard realist fare, and it doesn't contradict MWI which is also a realist interpretation. That quote, in the context of MWI, says all the worlds are inside reality. In the context of your view, it says that the supernatural mind/soul/whateverYouCallIt is part of reality/universe despite not obeying naturalistic physics as is currently known.
For the record, I don't favor realist interpretations. There are problems with realism for which I've never found a solution.
For example, there could be a world in which everything is the same as ours, and yet your coffee cup is a micrometer closer to your elbow...and another which is exactly the same as ours, but the coffee cup is two micrometers closer, or 1/2 a micrometer, or is an undetectable shade darker than the brown of your mug...and so on.
Most of those are well in the range of being distinct. A micron is hardly a Planck length. The cup cannot be a shade darker without being composed of a different material, which would be a distinct difference. Point is, a world differing in only undetectable ways would very much meet your criteria of being "a habitable Earth of our kind". I mean, that criteria allows the entire sky to be different. Only the solar system needs to be similar, not the entire visible universe. So the number is quite finite.
"Physical laws"? What guarantees that physical laws present in this universe are present in all universes?
Under MWI, all worlds are part of this universe with its laws. Yes, if a structure (say one with 5 spatial and 2 time dimensions and totally different physical constants) is considered to be a different universe (some define "universe" as "all that is"), then sure, maybe there's one with laws that allow a Superman.
If there's a limiting prinicple, then we don't have infinite possibilities
Non-sequitur. The integers are limited and don't include say 2.63, and yet there are still infinite integers. So maybe 2.63 is the Superman of the integer universe: Possible, but not possible here.
And we're back to the question of whether or not an Intelligence would be necessary to assign the physical laws to the universe.
And how do the physicists solve that problem? Do you know?