5

I think both summaries of yours are wrong, and both quotes are simpler (but even more profound imo) than you think. In the first, Tegmark is saying the MUH predicts only mathematical structures exist. A dinosaur president is a perfectly fine mathematical structure, so it could exist in the MUH. Only mathematically undefined things can't exist. Such as an ...


4

But classical computers rely on quantum processes too, which underlie the function of semiconductors. You can't just say 'wooo quantum things are weird the brain is weird, therefore they are the same, woooo'. "the brain is likely to have different patterns of electrical activity in each of the branching worlds." Why? You are assuming brains are ...


3

While forcing does certainly have serious foundational consequences, I think this is a situation where bringing forcing into the picture makes things seem more mysterious and powerful than they actually are. Really there are two basic ways we can attach a modal logic to (roughly) a family of structures which are relevant to your OP; one yields a ...


3

I wonder what's happened to the concept of faith... Look, science is ultimately functional. It wants theories it can 'do stuff' with; it wants understandings that give it insight into the pragmatic workings of the world. Faith concepts may be a lot of things, but they are not pragmatic and functional in that mundane, materialistic, pedantic sense. Many ...


3

Couldn't MWI predict universes with different fundamental laws of physics (as a level-4 multiverse hypothesis would do, like string theory)? No. To understand why, you need to really grok what MWI is. You seem to be under the impression that MWI posits that each time there's a quantum event of a certain type, the universe actually splits into two or more ...


2

The following question assumes a multiverse of universes, infinite time and the ability of intelligent agents to create entire other universes: Would this mean that after an infinite period of time, at any given moment, any universe created would more likely be from an intelligent being rather than chance? If one can answer "yes" to a similar scenario, ...


2

You might be misunderstanding the Everett ("many-worlds") interpretation of quantum mechanics. On the Everett interpretation, there's one universe, and its change in time is described deterministically by the Schrödinger equation. But observers inhabit different "worlds," meaning that they will give different macroscopic/classical reports of events. One ...


2

I will attempt to make your argument more concise: P1: Free will exists. P2: The theory of infinite universes is true. C1: (From P2) Therefore, there exist an infinite number of unique universes. C2: (From C1) Therefore, in at least one of those universes I must freely commit a specific self-deprecating irrational action (e.g. cutting my leg off). C3: (...


2

The answers to both "some kind of platonism" and "infinitely many universes instantiating mathematical structures" is no. Born is closer to Hegel than to Plato, and even further from Tegmark than from Plato. His views are described more systematically in the book Physics in My Generation (1966), the chapter Symbol and Reality: "In every field of ...


2

According to Wikipedia the association of Occam's razor to many worlds goes back to Hugh Everett who originated the idea of many worlds in 1957: Since the wavefunction merely appears to have collapsed then, Everett reasoned, there was no need to actually assume that it had collapsed. And so, invoking Occam's razor, he removed the postulate of wavefunction ...


2

Max Tegmark answers the question Is the physical world isomorphic to some mathematical structure? with the claim that "The physical world is completely mathematical" and "Everything that exists mathematically exists physically." (page 1) This would be a claim than any physics model, as a mathematical structure, exists in some universe or somewhere ...


2

Yes, we can imagine that two worlds with distinct physical laws both exist, but that's not part of what's usually meant by many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The basic idea is that the worlds of the many-worlds interpretation all share the same physical laws because when you "open the box to look at Schrödinger's cat", the two worlds d ...


2

This is actually something my brother and I explored over 30 years ago! While every decision is a point of divergence, some decisions, action OR reaction, have a greater impact. The decision to get up 10 minutes late, and you pass a severe accident in the exact spot that you would have been had you left on time is a point of divergence. In one "stream", 'you'...


2

I don't subscribe to religion, but if I were to argue it, I would probably say something to this effect: Life is impossible without a god. If there is life, then there must be a god. If a universe does not have life, that universe might not have a god. We live in a universe with life. Therefore: our universe has a god. This argument runs into a few ...


2

Are there philosophies or philosophers that argue consciousness in the brain arise due to a superposition of the different patterns of electrical activity just before they decohere into the different classical worlds? I don't have an answer to the literal questions, just some observations about why such an approach may not make much sense. I. Despite some ...


1

Your wish that there were no evidence to support the unlikelihood of the universe is unjustified wishful thinking. The values of the constants of the universe, things like the Baryon number, and the relative strengths of the various forces, are not set by any physics-based constraints we know of in the Standard Model. Instead, we actually have good reason ...


1

The simplest argument is (simply) that if the constants of nature were slightly different, we wouldn't be here to register that fact. So however improbable our universe may be, we are nonetheless and indeed here. Regarding your assertions "I see no reason to believe any other configuration of constants is possible" and "but we have no reason ...


1

Your comments "I do not believe in anything until it has strong and concrete evidence, especially experimental evidence" and "I believe in B-theory because it is a physical fact about the universe and it has experimental evidence (general/special relativity" Do not agree with: "A-theorists are aware of these criticisms, and there are ...


1

Your question covers quite a range of issues. When we are just imagining possibilities, we can choose what to hold constant and what to consider a variable. In the example you give of imagining light travelling at 10 mph, we could imagine all the other laws and constants of physics remaining as they are. This is because as far as we currently know, the ...


1

Short Answer According to WP: Many-minds interpretation: The many-minds interpretation of quantum mechanics extends the many-worlds interpretation by proposing that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the mind of an individual observer. The concept was first introduced in 1970 by H. Dieter Zeh as a variant of the Hugh Everett ...


1

Maybe Tegmark is referring to descriptions like, "Two universes otherwise identical, where in one of them everything is a nanometer to the right of where everything is in the other." Or, "A universe containing a being who has power over all universes" (IDK if Tegmark allows for transworld deity but he seems to need to rule out at least ...


1

"Impossibility" assumes a fixed logic frame, preceding the possible existence of any universe. Logicians consider Logic itself to be contingent -- IE there are potentially infinite versions of logic. So "impossible" carries its own caveat: "within X logical reference frame". https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/logics/


1

The quote you link to (here's a link for those in the US since google books links are sometimes country-specific) doesn't seem to be basing this on any other writings of Hawkings besides the one they quote on p. 121, rather they seem to be inferring that Hawking thought the laws of physics were needed to protect the laws of logic based on his argument about ...


1

A key characteristic of the cosmological multiverse model is the fact that the individual universes are causally disconnected. This means that events in one cannot ever be detected in another, and that causes in one cannot have effects in another. This means that an actor in one universe cannot in any sense be responsible for actions undertaken by his or ...


1

Max Tegmark references Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" from a collection of Wigner's essays, Symmetries and Reflections in "The Multiverse Hierarchy" (page 12): In a famous essay, Wigner (1967) argued that “the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the ...


1

Wikipedia describes paraconsistent logic as follows: A paraconsistent logic is a logical system that attempts to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or "inconsistency-tolerant") systems of logic. Max Tegmark has four ...


1

The Many Worlds Interpretation cannot predict universes with different laws because it is explicitly crafted to not do so. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum physics which is designed to provide an interpretation of what quantum mechanics could mean to a classical (non-quantum) observer. It is formulated to do that and ...


1

No, there can be infinitely many universes without there being a universe that contains each possibility or a world for every possibility. For example, an infinite number of possible worlds differ only with respect to one irrational number generated at a particular moment by an isolated random number generator. To cover every possibility, you’d need an ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible