Lucius E.E

Oops well I guess you're right. It's not just the atoms but the experiences, yes.

Thank you for that video. Very interesting, this coincides with what I believe precisely. Other than the means at which it occurs may vary(quantum fluctuations, string theory, etc) Yes however Hoopla's Universe still requires a beginning, see the following link here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf It's easy to see that even if you have a static/eternal seed that eventually creates a "first" Universe, just the act of there being a "first" anything which doesn't repeat means that must have been a beginning.

I would do the same. However in regards to this question; if someone told me they "saw" god, whatever that may imply, I would be quite curious as to what they meant by it, and if they were under the influence of any mind altering substances. As I know that a god doesn't exist I would respond by letting them know they're delusional and need to get a grip on reality.

This one if fairly interesting, after doing a bit of reading it would appear as though it is very similar to the Copenhagen interpretation except instead the quantum world and classical world are both capable of breaking standard linear predictability after interaction. Unless I'm misinterpreting it, please correct me if I'm wrong; I like this interpretation as well.

You're fine; I fully comprehend what you're saying. Empirically the only interpretation as of right now we know to be correct is Copenhagen which is observable, and Many Worlds is just speculation as we cannot see this. I completely agree with you. I was just stating my own interpretation of Many Worlds which could work with Copenhagen without the need for a Multiverse that exists simultaneously.

I would imagine this is the most held view when talking about quantum interpretations. In many ways I posted this to be a plausible means of explaining a method by which the main idea behind Many Worlds could be incorporated into Copenhagen. Also would like to add to my original responce and say that perhaps someday we could test this; we just may not have a viable means of doing so now. Also just because it cannot be tested yet doesn't automatically mean it's not plausible. For example many physicists believe in string theory as it answers many questions and it's a direction science may be pointing towards, although it has been around since the late 1960's. We're just now coming up with methods to test string theory.

I'm not sure yet on how this would be tested, or if it ever could be tested. How is it different? It simply makes it plausible for Many Worlds and the Copenhagen to both be correct, at the same time. The wave function collapse occurs via probability while all possibilities eventually happen with a nonzero quantum mechanical probability. Thus making both interpretations accurate minus the Multiverse. Oops, lol! Thank you for the correction. If you don't like any of them, do you have a stance on quantum interpretation?

I'm going to start this thread off with a quote I pulled from a blog post about this very topic written by a physicist named Luboš Motl, and I will post the link down below along with a video of Prof. Lawrence Krauss. He had this to say: "At any rate, we may prove that the probability that the electron exists in both mutually exclusive states simultaneously is zero. It can't happen. The derivation is identical for any other mutually excluding alternative properties of any physical system." - Lubo's Motl I'm going to preface this by stating the obvious. Many Worlds and Copenhagen appear to be quite incompatible. I feel as though the central reason for this is the deterministic Many Worlds VS the random probability of Copenhagen. Now within the Many Worlds interpretation the wave function collapse doesn't matter, as all possible outcomes will occur. According to the Many Worlds all outcomes exist simultaneously, even though they don't have to, and I will explain why. After much though I now think it may be possible that there doesn't need to be a Multiverse for Many Worlds to be correct, although now it would make the name a bit of a misnomer. Now to explain my line of thinking. First before I begin let me say you should watch the video down below, and perhaps even read Lawrence's book or at least understand the concepts of causality and how it may not apply outside of this Universe. I also linked a forum thread that I started down below that goes into more detail about the way I look at the beginning of existence and the Universe(Hint: There isn't a beginning). My point here is simple, everything finite(like our Universe) needs a cause even if it goes on forever(although the Universe will die eventually). If you follow this logic then eventually you would need to reach a point of no beginning and no end. Let's for simplicity say that this point is the quantum vacuum that very well may exist outside of the Universe, contained within is virtual particles and random quantum fluctuations, Lawrence goes into much more detail about this topic in his book so I recommend you read it if you want more detail. This may be the beginning or perhaps it is some other cause, but ultimately the cause must undoubtedly have no beginning and no end to it.To put it simply if there's no beginning and no end then everything is random(nothing is linear) and thus everything repeats at some point. Take this illustration and quote for a better mental picture: "As viewed by cosmologists, there is no such thing as infinite time. The eternal universe had no beginning, not one an infinite time ago. No matter how many years you go into the past, it took a finite time to reach the present." Now how does this apply to the quantum interpretations? Well since the above is clearly TL;DR I will do my best to sum my conclusion up quickly.... In Many Worlds all possibilities are determined and exist simultaneously. Perhaps instead; what if there is only one Universe that exists at a time, but reoccurs at the Universe's death with the random potential for any possible given quantum wave function collapse, and these probabilities happen randomly as per the Copenhagen interpretation, however all possible outcomes do occur as in the Many Worlds interpretation due to the never ending time, and infinite repetition; they just do not exist simultaneously. What do you guys think? Edit: **I also would like to add if any moderators find it necessary to move this thread over to the speculations section, please do so.** Luboš Motl's Blog Post on Many Worlds - http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/simple-proof-qm-implies-many-worlds.html Lawrence Krauss on Infinity and Quantum Fluctuations -

I applaud your critique of this, unfortunately ostensible article. The header should read as follows: "178 Nanotube transistors successfully integrated on a single chip wafer" However I do find this to be a magnificent proof-of-concept. Ultimately I feel as though carbon nanotube processors are possible, and in the not so distant future we will see nano computers, and not long after quantum computers. The exponential rise in technology isn't slowing down; it is accelerating every year. Carbon nanotube processors are right around the corner; considering we can already compute basic numerical calculations.

Upvoted, and I agree with you. This shouldn't be in the speculations section. Generally as far as the trajectory of a particle is concerned, it benefits to also have the velocity as they're always tangent. See Here for more information for obtaining a particles trajectory. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#Tangential_and_centripetal_acceleration

I'm sorry if my response came off as snarky, or if I had misquoted you. That wasn't my intention.

Perfect; The online educational industry(E-learning) is booming currently, and is only going to subsume more of the education industry in the next decade. Now in regards to recommendations to online courses these are free course materials from MIT: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biological-engineering/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-90j-computational-functional-genomics-spring-2005/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-03-genetics-fall-2004/ You may also wish to consider getting into this paid course at Berkeley: http://extension.berkeley.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=41578 Hope this helps.

What state do you currently reside in? I may be able to recommend some courses.

I get the feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong but you must not understand infinity. You say the void has always existed and needs no beginning, however you claim the following: "but at any one point, a theoretical impartial observer of the entire scene could observe the number of universes that has occurred since the first one and tally how many had been" If there was a first universe than the void has not always existed. There couldn't be a first as there would be no linear flow of time within a system that has always existed, hence also why repetition is essential. If it has always existed what caused it to begin making a Universe/Multiverse? It must have existed infinitely before it begun randomly creating them. Also it wouldn't be timeless in the sense that the flow of time going forward would be measurable by going back to the first Universe/Multiverse, given that it doesn't repeat, and thus can be seen as a point of linearity. So here you couldn't say time is moving infinitely forward even if it does or is projected/predicted to do so, as by definition infinity is not measurable. Once it is measurable in any way it ceases being infinite and becomes measurable and thus linear. If it produced a Universe/Multiverse within a set period of time, and it truly has no beginning, then it will produce the same Univere/Multiverse given the same or similar amount of time; otherwise it is linear. We can then conclude it cannot be without a beginning as the same event would take place again it it were without a beginning. As a finite amount of time must have taken place before this linear time point as well(if it works in the opposite direction), you just don't know what it is, and are unable to measure it backwards, however with a linear event that occurs once you can measure time forward from the event, and know that a set amount of time before the event took place. So it isn't infinitely reversed either as there was a linear "break point" so to speak. So even if the time before is not measurable it cannot by definition be infinite either as there is a point where it ends, and infinity; by definition, never ends. This automatically disproves anything else you believe until this problem with your thinking is resolved, however I do find your ideas interesting.

Did you actually read my entire post above before writing this? "The probability of a specific event, X, is either 0 or 1 (it either happens or it doesn't and nothing can change that)" This isn't true. If it were all events would occur 50% of the time, and this isn't observed within our Universe; whether deterministic or not. Please elaborate further, or re-read my post above. "You are confusing the "chance" (more accurately, frequency)" No I'm not. Chance is the possibly of a particular event occurring; frequency is the number of said occurrences. "chance" (as you define it)" As Merriam Webster defines it, actually. Chance - Noun: The possibility that something will happen. An amount of time or a situation in which something can be done. The way that events happen when they are not planned or controlled by people. Please Elaborate. Edit: Also if interested please check out this short read on probabilities in physics, and how they can be used to predict events. Given this is a Bayesian interpretation of probability which is less about frequency and more about proposition and hypothesis; contrary to what we were discussing above but still applies. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0310073v2.pdf

1. Probability is the measure of the chance a given event shall occur, you can also use this information to quantify how often an event occurs. 2. In a Universe where all events are determined there is no reason you cannot figure out how often particular events take place. In the United States 4,743 pedestrians were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2012. 4,743/12...approximately 395 pedestrians died each month in collisions with motor vehicles in 2012. Even if these deaths were already determined they're still countable and you could obtain a probability of death by comparing this 4,743 versus the total amount of people in the United States whom walk on a regular basis, with some room for deviation of course. 3. Since you can calculate the approximate probability even in a determined Universe, you can then factor in what effects the probability.... perhaps not looking while crossing, and not obeying walking signals. Which I would imagine has some impact on your likelihood of death, predetermined or not. Now we can conclude you're more likely to die by way of motor vehicle collision while not looking even within determinism. Whether or not you look isn't effecting the determinism of the Universe if it is predetermined as your choosing to look or not was already predetermined as well. Since every action and thought is determined anyway, if self preservation is a concern, would you not rather be among the percentage of those whom look while crossing or those who do not? So I say again, you might as well join the percentage of those that look to check for vehicles, or perhaps maybe your genes were predetermined to be more impulsive and you would rather not look. Personally I prefer to look while crossing the road. I have no stance on determinism as well, depends on which of the interpretations of quantum mechanics ends up being the correct one. Edit: While I do understand where zapatos and Strange are coming from in regards to probability in a deterministic Universe, it is simply the measure of chance. While there is no 'actual chance' in a deterministic Universe and everything that is going to happen is already determined; there is no logical reason you cannot measure how often an event occurs and why it occurs that often. ​However when it comes to predicting an event in a deterministic Universe; probability is the best tool we have to do it. Unless you're secretly a psychic.

Shroedingerscat, what you've just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent original post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may Niels Bohr have mercy on your soul.

It does make a difference whether you look or not, because whether or not you look is also determined before you even decide to do it. You might as well look as you would see an oncoming vehicle, your thoughts making you wish to look or not would also be determined. It makes no difference whether one whom believes in determinism look or not, and those that understand it already know this. Not looking you are more likely to be hit as even in a determined world there is a measurable probability of an event happening, so I can say again, simply because reality may be predetermined is no reason to cross a road without looking, regardless of your stance on the matter.

Alright so I have a clearer picture in my head as to what you believe had happened. You say this void occured naturally within the history of the universe, once. However as I already logically argued above this simply isn't possible. Without the big bang there is no Universe, there was never a void within the Universe unless it came first. If the void did produce this Universe, than it exists outside of spacetime, logically speaking it's not possible for it nor to exist outside of time. Everything finite has a cause, would it not then be more logical to say this void reoccurs infinity or exists outside of common spacetime geometry? Does this void abide by the laws of physics? If it occurred naturally within the Universe, how can this be if it had caused the BB? So again I ask of you, what actually caused the void? The Universe running out of matter and energy and dying? Roger Penrose had a similar idea at one point - Links- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/07/penroses-cyclic-cosmology/#.U_xgOvldVAJ http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf Also please keep in mind that this would occur within an infinite cycle, otherwise it wouldn't happen at all, because if it did not it would be finite and thus require some other beginning.

How was the first v-bit formed? I ask again what caused this v-bit/void to exist given that it is finite(has either a beginning or an end)? To further explain my point, I understand what you're saying when you say "one nothing." However if time takes place within this one nothing, this void with a single bit of information, then something must have "created" the first one nothing. One cannot simply say a system that exists within time is finite but has always existed. Unless you say it is a derivative of some sort of "eternal" time, in which case on a long enough timeline(eternal) another "one nothing" shall occur, repeating everything an infinite amount of times.(as I said in the OP) If it does not however, then it is linear and had a definite beginning. You cannot say this "one nothing" simply exists unless it is apart of an infinite cycle.

What is the origin than, of the time taking place in the void? I ask again what caused this v-bit/void to exist given that it is finite(has either a beginning or an end)? You cannot simply say this v-bit exists out of absolute nothing, but is finite.

Most won't but some will, and that's enough. Would be interesting to see how such a scenario would play out. Lol.

Upvoted, and fully agree with this proposition. We would more than likely all be apart of a network communication system that will be encompassing multiple solar systems. Not to mention living in a full immersion virtual reality would never truly be "boring" as one could simply reconfigure the memories in ones head to experience anything they desire, and to what degree. EDIT: Given that the nanotechnology that is currently being worked on can even do what is believed to be possible with it.

We can venture to other planets and live there as well through the use of nanotechnology and Geo-Engineering, did you miss this part of my post? Reproduction will decline dramatically as people live out virtual lives instead of "real" lives, and no longer have interest in reproduction, although it will, of course, still occur. We will eventually migrate to other solar systems, however the ability to do so will take sometime.

No. I believe the main cause for this line of thinking in humans is the linear pattern recognition in their brains. If we took the entire global population and "stuffed" everyone into Texas, it would have a population density less than that of New York City. Texas= 268,580 Square Miles. New York City=27,532 Humans, per square mile. Current Global Population= 7.2 Billion humans. 7.2 Billion/27,532=261,513 Humans per square mile. 261,513 vs 268,580 Even less humans per square mile. Food and resources aren't problems either as this same nanotechnology could supply us with a surplus of both. Also Geo-Engineering is possible on a global scale through the use of nanotechnology as well.