Philosophy Now Forum

Why don't we re-think the Many World's Intepretation to a fit a deterministic universe?

According to the Many Worlds-interpretation, the universal wave function splits the universe into two branches for every event.
By re-thinking it, I mean we live in one branch, and we can trace it all way back to the root. But other branches of that same wave function have other values.

In short, radioactive matter has always either decayed or not decayed, it depends on the branches of the wave function we're living in, and to which root branches we can trace our history to.

The world may be deterministic, but not neccessarily causal in a classical newtonian sense.

For example, consider the superposition of the spin of a photon.
It's both spin up and down, until you measure it.

But what if the spin has already had the spin independently of whether you measure it or not, yet without the causality of that spin?

Think of the world like a lot of various ways the game of chess can evolve, though without the rules that guides a classical game of chess:

In one world/branch of the wave function (of the same universe, but not the same world) the games evolved with first the king in the center. Next we have all the peasants scattered randomly. And so forth, that is to say the universe plays a game of chess with its particles, without obeying the classical rules of the game, that is causality (causality is equivalent to the rules of the game of chess, on which moves can follow another move).

In short, there may be no causality, just random yet deterministic locations and spins of each particle.
They can still be entangled though, as they're part of the same wave function. Add all the particles randomness together, and you have the totality of the wave function.

This way, the world can be both random and deterministic simulatanously.
Nothing caused anything. Causation is an emergent phenomenon arising when we add up all the possibilities of these fluctuations compared to each other.

Does this make any sense?

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:32 pm Why don't we re-think the Many World's Intepretation to a fit a deterministic universe?

According to the Many Worlds-interpretation, the universal wave function splits the universe into two branches for every event.
By re-thinking it, I mean we live in one branch, and we can trace it all way back to the root. But other branches of that same wave function have other values.

It's only a thought experiment, which cannot be true since it brakes the most simple and fundamental understanding of the universe; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Given an infinite number of events in any given moment the "many worlds hypothesis Demands that an infinite number of worlds is being continually created in every moment ex nihilo.
This is absurd.

In short, radioactive matter has always either decayed or not decayed, it depends on the branches of the wave function we're living in, and to which root branches we can trace our history to.

The world may be deterministic, but not neccessarily causal in a classical newtonian sense.

For example, consider the superposition of the spin of a photon.
It's both spin up and down, until you measure it.

But what if the spin has already had the spin independently of whether you measure it or not, yet without the causality of that spin?

Think of the world like a lot of various ways the game of chess can evolve, though without the rules that guides a classical game of chess:

In one world/branch of the wave function (of the same universe, but not the same world) the games evolved with first the king in the center. Next we have all the peasants scattered randomly. And so forth, that is to say the universe plays a game of chess with its particles, without obeying the classical rules of the game, that is causality (causality is equivalent to the rules of the game of chess, on which moves can follow another move).

In short, there may be no causality, just random yet deterministic locations and spins of each particle.
They can still be entangled though, as they're part of the same wave function. Add all the particles randomness together, and you have the totality of the wave function.

This way, the world can be both random and deterministic simulatanously.
Nothing caused anything. Causation is an emergent phenomenon arising when we add up all the possibilities of these fluctuations compared to each other.

Does this make any sense?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:19 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:32 pm Why don't we re-think the Many World's Intepretation to a fit a deterministic universe?

According to the Many Worlds-interpretation, the universal wave function splits the universe into two branches for every event.
By re-thinking it, I mean we live in one branch, and we can trace it all way back to the root. But other branches of that same wave function have other values.

It's only a thought experiment, which cannot be true since it brakes the most simple and fundamental understanding of the universe; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Given an infinite number of events in any given moment the "many worlds hypothesis Demands that an infinite number of worlds is being continually created in every moment ex nihilo.
This is absurd.

As far as what I've understood about the Everettian world view, energy is still conserved. The many world branches of the wave function gets "diluted" or - as Sean Carroll puts it in "Something Deeply Hidden" p. 148: "Worlds get thinner as branching proceeds."

Momentum is always conserved, and one is still able to derive the Born rule from the Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation.

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:05 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:19 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:32 pm Why don't we re-think the Many World's Intepretation to a fit a deterministic universe?

According to the Many Worlds-interpretation, the universal wave function splits the universe into two branches for every event.
By re-thinking it, I mean we live in one branch, and we can trace it all way back to the root. But other branches of that same wave function have other values.

It's only a thought experiment, which cannot be true since it brakes the most simple and fundamental understanding of the universe; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Given an infinite number of events in any given moment the "many worlds hypothesis Demands that an infinite number of worlds is being continually created in every moment ex nihilo.
This is absurd.

As far as what I've understood about the Everettian world view, energy is still conserved. The many world branches of the wave function gets "diluted" or - as Sean Carroll puts it in "Something Deeply Hidden" p. 148: "Worlds get thinner as branching proceeds."

Momentum is always conserved, and one is still able to derive the Born rule from the Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation.

So to conserve energy each causal moment dilutes the energy to share it out equally amongst an infinite number of possibilities, which in turn are further diluted amongst another infinite number of possibilities every moment.
Really???

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:12 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:05 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:19 pm
It's only a thought experiment, which cannot be true since it brakes the most simple and fundamental understanding of the universe; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Given an infinite number of events in any given moment the "many worlds hypothesis Demands that an infinite number of worlds is being continually created in every moment ex nihilo.
This is absurd.

As far as what I've understood about the Everettian world view, energy is still conserved. The many world branches of the wave function gets "diluted" or - as Sean Carroll puts it in "Something Deeply Hidden" p. 148: "Worlds get thinner as branching proceeds."

Momentum is always conserved, and one is still able to derive the Born rule from the Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation.

So to conserve energy each causal moment dilutes the energy to share it out equally amongst an infinite number of possibilities, which in turn are further diluted amongst another infinite number of possibilities every moment.
Really???

I haven't read the entire book yet, and I might have missed some important information.

philosopher wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 3:43 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:12 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:05 pm

As far as what I've understood about the Everettian world view, energy is still conserved. The many world branches of the wave function gets "diluted" or - as Sean Carroll puts it in "Something Deeply Hidden" p. 148: "Worlds get thinner as branching proceeds."

Momentum is always conserved, and one is still able to derive the Born rule from the Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation.

So to conserve energy each causal moment dilutes the energy to share it out equally amongst an infinite number of possibilities, which in turn are further diluted amongst another infinite number of possibilities every moment.
Really???

I haven't read the entire book yet, and I might have missed some important information.

ROTFL

philosopher wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 3:43 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:12 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:05 pm

As far as what I've understood about the Everettian world view, energy is still conserved. The many world branches of the wave function gets "diluted" or - as Sean Carroll puts it in "Something Deeply Hidden" p. 148: "Worlds get thinner as branching proceeds."

Momentum is always conserved, and one is still able to derive the Born rule from the Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation.

So to conserve energy each causal moment dilutes the energy to share it out equally amongst an infinite number of possibilities, which in turn are further diluted amongst another infinite number of possibilities every moment.
Really???

I haven't read the entire book yet, and I might have missed some important information.

Sean Carroll is pretty good at knowing stuff and indeed explaining stuff, so don't get me wrong when I suggest parallel universes being created at the point of any binary decision - indeed infinitely - is indeed bollocks.

Understand there would also include a universe where you are burning in hell forever. HELL O. Nice place to hang out.

So.

I am interested in whether determinism is more of an atheist thought philosophy over that typically of theist thought?

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:32 pm Why don't we re-think the Many World's Intepretation to a fit a deterministic universe?

According to the Many Worlds-interpretation, the universal wave function splits the universe into two branches for every event.
By re-thinking it, I mean we live in one branch, and we can trace it all way back to the root. But other branches of that same wave function have other values.

In short, radioactive matter has always either decayed or not decayed, it depends on the branches of the wave function we're living in, and to which root branches we can trace our history to.

The world may be deterministic, but not neccessarily causal in a classical newtonian sense.

For example, consider the superposition of the spin of a photon.
It's both spin up and down, until you measure it.

But what if the spin has already had the spin independently of whether you measure it or not, yet without the causality of that spin?

Think of the world like a lot of various ways the game of chess can evolve, though without the rules that guides a classical game of chess:

In one world/branch of the wave function (of the same universe, but not the same world) the games evolved with first the king in the center. Next we have all the peasants scattered randomly. And so forth, that is to say the universe plays a game of chess with its particles, without obeying the classical rules of the game, that is causality (causality is equivalent to the rules of the game of chess, on which moves can follow another move).

In short, there may be no causality, just random yet deterministic locations and spins of each particle.
They can still be entangled though, as they're part of the same wave function. Add all the particles randomness together, and you have the totality of the wave function.

This way, the world can be both random and deterministic simulatanously.
Nothing caused anything. Causation is an emergent phenomenon arising when we add up all the possibilities of these fluctuations compared to each other.

Does this make any sense?

I am a fan of many worlds view. Anything which is possible could exist. The reality is infinite fold. Therefore, everything is possible.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 1:48 pm Sean Carroll is pretty good at knowing stuff and indeed explaining stuff, so don't get me wrong when I suggest parallel universes being created at the point of any binary decision - indeed infinitely - is indeed bollocks.

Understand there would also include a universe where you are burning in hell forever. HELL O. Nice place to hang out.

So.

I am interested in whether determinism is more of an atheist thought philosophy over that typically of theist thought?

I think you get me wrong, also I might have trouble communicating my thoughts.

What I mean is, I want to save Einstein's objections to quantum entanglement, by proposing superdeterminism in a multiverse.

I think it was in 2018, that a recent experiment was done to rule out superdeterminism, involving entanglement measurements being decided not by random number generators, but through polarizations of photons from quasars.
https://www.space.com/41569-ancient-qua ... ement.html

Now, it's worth mentioning they didn't completely rule out superdeterminism, that the "entangled" states of photons were already pre-existing, with pre-existing spins regardless of when you measure them. But they say it is "highly unlikely".

But "highly unlikely" is not zero.

BUT here's my trick to save Einstein:

1. Forget about spooky action at a distance. Imagine instead all particles pre-existing back to the big bang, to the entire future of the universe and the end (whatever that might be) of the universe, in a block universe.

2. Forget about causality - ie. something causes something else to happen. Forget about that. Think instead of stuff happening as various possible arrangements of particles in the universe on a timeline, without causation and effect. Ie. at some point in a slice of spacetime of our block universe, the pattern of particles looks like this. And in another they look like that. And there doesn't need to be any "reason" or "causation" for why one arrangement of atoms looks like this at time 1 and look like that at time 2 etc.

3. Forget about there being 1 block universe, instead infinitely many block universes.
Add all the block universes all the way up to infinity, and you can calculate the aproximate certainty for something to happen in universe A's spacetime slice configuration/particle arrangements at time [1,2,3,etc.], universe B (same thing), Universe C etc.

Only trouble we'll have is to decide which universe we live in amongst an infinite number of them.
And that's why I don't think my idea can become a theory let alone be put to a test.

Conclusion:

We live in 1 universe, where our entire history and entire future is predetermined, not through causality but through a series of pre-existing configurations or arrangements of particles.

There is no splitting of the universe everytime we do a measurement or collapse the wave function.
Instead, every outcome was pre-determined since the big bang (our big bang for our universe).

There is only one outcome, which we cannot predict because "we're in it", but were we - somehow - able to "step outside" the multiverse, and look at our specific universe, we can predict exactly what happens, exactly what measurement Bob/Alice will get in entanglement experiments and exactly when the double slit experiment turns out as interference patterns - or two bands only on the screen behind.

That's what I am trying to say, and that's what I want to discuss.