Alternate Reality: The Science Behind the Fiction

Alternate Reality: The Science Behind the Fiction

What if you hadn't hit the snooze button this morning, or stopped to say hello to the new secretary? How would life be different?

Read Full Article

A very interesting theory, but I should mention that its more like a hypothesis than a theory. The problem lies in that we cannot, yet, prove or disprove it. In fact we don't even know how to begin doing that, in fact we /can't/ prove or disprove it, and therein lies the problem.

I mean time is really really confusing, and using phase space mental experiments and the like give us no definitive idea as to what it is or why it is the way it is, consequently the many worlds hypothesis serves only to immunize certain aspects of quantum mechanics. Not that it needs immunization, we seem to have quite a handle on it as is... but its very unscientific to use such a convenient solution; it hampers progress in understanding how time works.

I've always thought the infinite worlds theory is crap.

The usual interpretation is that parallel realities appear based on some decision or event.

First let's take decisions. Whether I decide to order a one or another kind of pizza isn't just random. What I decide at the end depends on my taste, on what I ate before etc. If I had too much salami in the past few days, I'll probably want something different. Maybe I had too much salami already because I couldn't find anything else in the fridge. I have an empty fridge because of some other reason. Or maybe a neutrino hits a particular neuron in my brain and puts in motion something that will result in me getting a taste for Hawaiian pizza. And that neutrino also didn't just appear out of nowhere. It was thrown out of a star for a reason too. Or maybe I just want a Hawaiian pizza because I saw a girl that reminded me of another girl who once wore a hat made of pineapples.

Essentially what I decide at the end is more like another step in a linear sequence of events and not just some random decision. Not saying that free will doesn't exist, but why would THIS create a parallel reality?

Okay now move to events. Dice roll. Does a dice roll result in a random number? Of course not. It depends on the force with which you roll the dice, how you held it before, the angle, the surface where it lands, the gravity etc. I'm sure someone has already built a robot which can roll a particular number on a dice every time. So where's the randomness here?

Okay now the double slit theory. I know that recently the theory has been getting more ground with newer experiments, but here's another thing I never understood. They used to check which way the electron passed by destroying the electron and creating another one in its place. Hey I'm not a quantum physicist but since when does measurement = destroy and replace? Weird. There has to be something else going on here, but the original experiment seemed kinda bullshit.

Oh yea and Schroedinger actually meant the experiment as a joke to make a hyperbole out of the theories. Poor guy now he's remember as if he meant is seriously.

Sgt. Sykes:
Essentially what I decide at the end is more like another step in a linear sequence of events and not just some random decision. Not saying that free will doesn't exist, but why would THIS create a parallel reality?

Well, yeah, that's kinda the problem with free will - Without something like Quantum Mechanics (Which doesn't provide choice anyways, just nondeterministic outcomes) or a belief in a soul (Which is really just a handwave rather than an explanation unless you explain HOW the soul dodges the standard cause->effect thing) free will is apparently just an illusion caused by the way the human brain processes things. This is terrifying and does not bear thinking about for long periods of time or else you find yourself curled in the fetal position muttering things about effects always having causes.

Sgt. Sykes:
Oh yea and Schroedinger actually meant the experiment as a joke to make a hyperbole out of the theories. Poor guy now he's remember as if he meant is seriously.

Yay! Somebody else knew this and said it before I did

Sgt. Sykes:
I've always thought the infinite worlds theory is crap.

The usual interpretation is that parallel realities appear based on some decision or event.

First let's take decisions. Whether I decide to order a one or another kind of pizza isn't just random. What I decide at the end depends on my taste, on what I ate before etc. If I had too much salami in the past few days, I'll probably want something different. Maybe I had too much salami already because I couldn't find anything else in the fridge. I have an empty fridge because of some other reason. Or maybe a neutrino hits a particular neuron in my brain and puts in motion something that will result in me getting a taste for Hawaiian pizza. And that neutrino also didn't just appear out of nowhere. It was thrown out of a star for a reason too. Or maybe I just want a Hawaiian pizza because I saw a girl that reminded me of another girl who once wore a hat made of pineapples.

Essentially what I decide at the end is more like another step in a linear sequence of events and not just some random decision. Not saying that free will doesn't exist, but why would THIS create a parallel reality?

Okay now move to events. Dice roll. Does a dice roll result in a random number? Of course not. It depends on the force with which you roll the dice, how you held it before, the angle, the surface where it lands, the gravity etc. I'm sure someone has already built a robot which can roll a particular number on a dice every time. So where's the randomness here?

Okay now the double slit theory. I know that recently the theory has been getting more ground with newer experiments, but here's another thing I never understood. They used to check which way the electron passed by destroying the electron and creating another one in its place. Hey I'm not a quantum physicist but since when does measurement = destroy and replace? Weird. There has to be something else going on here, but the original experiment seemed kinda bullshit.

Oh yea and Schroedinger actually meant the experiment as a joke to make a hyperbole out of the theories. Poor guy now he's remember as if he meant is seriously.

I've always heard that Schroedinger was giving a somewhat humorous layman's explanation of the idea. But I always thought the "many worlds" idea was more about the effects of actual quantum events. If a quantum exists in both a left and a right state, but each will give different results, then it creates a universe in which the quantum particle went right another where it went left. Of course, this means dice rolls and the like will only be effected if a quantum particle can change it, so the various worlds would appear identical to a human observer.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here