alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) (12/08/84)
The "Many Worlds"-interpretation of reality seems to have the nice property that "messages from the future" is not such a counter-intuitive notion in that model as in more traditional ones. If we receive such a message, we simply do not know which one of the possible futures sent it ! Since all possible events occur in parallel the violation of "causality" caused by such a message would not be such a big deal. Has anyone got any pointers to some understandable text about the model for amateur philosophers-physicists like myself ?
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/10/84)
There are several ways one can look at the Many Worlds interpretation. Some suggest that whenever and observation takes place, that splits reality off into n worlds, one for every possible observation. Of course, with your standard probability wave, n is infinite. But now you must add in the materialist viewpoint that says that mind is just an example of matter (for the best defense of this, see Godel, Escher, Bach) in which case there is nothing special about an "observation" by a mind. That means any possible particle interaction is an observation. (The same consideration applies to the "collapsing wave function" interpretation as well.) So really what it boils down to is that essentially everything is happening everywhere at all times. Ie. the set of total universes, all of which exist, is worked out by taking every quanta of space and deciding whether there is a particle there or not, and possibly what type of particle it is. Now, to be a mind, or any other information gatherer, you must discern information, which is to say, you can't see all the universes at once. If you did, you would not really be seeing information, oddly enough. So to be aware is to be limited in your view!! A mind is simply that which follows a single path of information gathering. The patterns in the universe don't exist outside of your mind, for the patterns of the universe ARE your mind. If this sounds like Zen or other eastern mythology, you are right. And lately a lot of physicists have been taking up Zen. Whether they are right or not remains to be seen. Experminents like Aspect's seem to show that the theory of local variables is false, and one of the simplest paths from that fact leads to the argument above. Other paths lead to the "low level reality doesn't exist" paradigm, the "FTL is possible and happens all the time" paradigm and the "it's all part of one big system" paradigm. Take your pick. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (12/10/84)
In article <753@ttds.UUCP> alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) writes: >The "Many Worlds"-interpretation of reality seems to have the nice property >that "messages from the future" is not such a counter-intuitive >notion in that model as in more traditional ones. If we receive such a >message, we simply do not know which one of the possible futures sent it ! >Since all possible events occur in parallel the violation of "causality" >caused by such a message would not be such a big deal. >Has anyone got any pointers to some understandable text about the model >for amateur philosophers-physicists like myself ? (At the risk of offending scientific world-views...) About once or twice a year I seem to have quite precognative dreams. The first time I recognized it, I was so shook up (since such a thing is impossible) that I just blocked it out of my mind refusing to admit the event. After about a year I lost some of my fear and investigated a little deeper into what was going on. I started writing my dreams down and dating them regularly. The biggest problem (after I got over my scientific prejedices about refusing to admit such things were possible) is determining how conclusive an event was predicted via dream content. But, to the point. I have a fascination with any physical theory which would admit to the possibility of precognition. Any good references would be appreciated. To: those who think precognition impossible. I once did too. Without evidence to the contrary you *should* think it impossible. Whether or not you would come to the same conclusion with the same experiences I had - I think would vary from person to person. To: those who think they have had precognative dreams (or waking experiences) feel free to contact me. Working at Motorola and other high-tech places has shown me most people are too afraid to mention their situations in front of others, but once they don't feel threatened it is quite enlightening to see the number that have experiences. (Of course the difficult part is determining how genuine the experience is. For most cases there is no way to tell.) To: those who wish to debate the possibility, perhaps net.philosophy. Motorola Semiconductor Dave Trissel Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}|ut-sally|oakhill|davet
rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) (12/12/84)
+--------------- | From: alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) | The "Many Worlds"-interpretation of reality seems to have the nice property | that "messages from the future" is not such a counter-intuitive | notion in that model as in more traditional ones. If we receive such a | message, we simply do not know which one of the possible futures sent it ! | Since all possible events occur in parallel the violation of "causality" | caused by such a message would not be such a big deal. | Has anyone got any pointers to some understandable text about the model | for amateur philosophers-physicists like myself ? +--------------- No, but I find it interesting that there have been several science-fiction "time-travel" stories recently for which the "punch line" of the story is that causality isn't ever violated because the "Many Worlds" view is correct. (A' sends back a message, which A (an "earlier" A') receives, acts on, and grows up to be A". Oops!) Rob Warnock UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 Envoy: rob.warnock/kingfisher USPS: 510 Trinidad Ln, Foster City, CA 94404
serge@rna.UUCP (12/18/84)
/***** rna:net.physics / ttds!alf / 2:47 pm Dec 8, 1984*/ The "Many Worlds"-interpretation of reality seems to have the nice property that "messages from the future" is not such a counter-intuitive notion in that model as in more traditional ones. If we receive such a message, we simply do not know which one of the possible futures sent it ! Since all possible events occur in parallel the violation of "causality" caused by such a message would not be such a big deal. Has anyone got any pointers to some understandable text about the model for amateur philosophers-physicists like myself ? /* ---------- */
serge@rna.UUCP (12/18/84)
On the question of the many worlds interpretation and precognition I would like to suggest the books of the turn of the century philosopher/scientist P.D. Ouspenski. In his books "Tertium Organum" and "New Model of the Universe" he puts forward some very interesting speculations on the matter. I will try to summarize his theory about time , space and perception. The basic premise is that time is imperfectly percieved space. For instance, we see the world in three dimensions with movement and change occuring in the fourth dimension of time. However, from a fourth dimension standpoint, a human life, for example, is a static four dimensional object. Taking this further, at the fifth dimension we can "see" all of the possible lives of a person or motions of an given object. The tree of all posibilities for that given entity. At the top of this hieracrhy we have eternity where there is no time, only space. This theory is supported to one degree or another by various observations. Examples of the lower dimensionality of the perception in animals is given by various examples as is higher dimensional perception in humans during enlighted or dream states. Mind you, this is not science and Ouspenski comes right out and says so leading to an interesting discussion of phenomena and noumena, the unseen behind the seen. At any rate it makes for stimulating reading especially if you think about the historical context of this work, the turn of the century upheaval in science and politics both of which are directly addressed by Ouspenski. -this too shall pass Serge Sretschinsky