ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (08/11/83)
Andrew, don't you think it's a little self centered to assume that
the universe we currently inhabit is the original (as your numbering
system implies)? Why should this universe be 0? Why not another
universe? Perhaps this universe is just a shadow universe, ala
Zelazny's Amber series. I propose that we number our universe 42.
After all, that IS the answer.
Ariel Shattanwex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/11/83)
Isaac Asimov wrote a book about the possible interchange of matter between our universe and a universe with different physical laws (I think it was that the weak nuclear force was stronger than the magnetic force or somesuch). The book was titled "The Gods Themselves," and wasn't too bad (as Asimov goes).
eric@aplvax.UUCP (08/11/83)
While 42 does have a certain ring to it, why should there be an absolute numbering system? After all, aren't they distributed universes? Then when you wished to travel, communicate, or refer to another you would have to negotiate the numbering scheme that each uses. The alternative, a common numbering system, requires an outside agency to oversee new numbers, and we all know how well that works! eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
israel@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/16/83)
Obviously the way to number alternate universes is not with an absolute
numbering scheme, but instead by relative transformations. For example,
a computer is a good example of a separate universe, and I am currently
on the "umcp-cs" universe. There are transformations from our universe
called "aplvax", "rlgvax", and "seismo", among others, so I can
reference the universes "umcp-cs!aplvax", "umcp-cs!rlgvax", and
"umcp-cs!seismo". I can reference alternate beings like
"umcp-cs!aplvax!eric" and "umcp-cs!rlgvax!guy" (fictional beings if
ever I've seen any!).
A referencing scheme then just needs the base universe and the list of
transformations to get to the target universe. Of course, if you can't
get to the destination universe (physically or informationally) then you
don't need to reference it.
Some examples of referencing characters in other universes are
(using the base universe "this universe") "startrek!kirk" (general
character reference), startrek!"the day of the dove episode"!kirk
(kirk in that episode), "earth!1974!Bruce Israel"
(me when I graduated high school),
"Time Enough for Love, by RAH"!second-to-last-section!Ted Bronson
(Lazarus Long, fighting in WWII), etc.
All we need is a general mail facility for this, so I could do
mail "site!<two-months-ago>!idiot"
Don't post that request on net.general, put it on net.auto instead!
...!umcp-cs!"August 15, 1983"!"7:54 p.m."!israel
--
~~~ Bruce
Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland
{rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)mclean%NRL-CSS@sri-unix.UUCP (08/17/83)
From: John McLean <mclean@NRL-CSS> Another use of alternate universes besides the "many world" interpretation of quantum mechanics is in semantics. For example in modal logic (the logic of necessity and possibility), Saul Kripke formalized Leibniz's suggestion to treat "necessarily p" as meaning that p is true in every universe accessible from this one and "possibly p" as meaning that p is true in some universe accessible from this one. Depending on the different requirements one places on the "accessibility" relation, different logical laws are true of necessity. For example, if accessibility is transitive (i. e., if w2 is accessible from w1 and w3 is accessibly from w2, then w3 is accessibly from w1), then anything that is necessary is necessarily necessary; and if accessibility is symmetric (i. e., if w2 is accessible from w1, then w1 is accessibly from w2), then anything that is possible is necessarily possible. The use of alternate universes has also been suggested for a semantics of counterfactuals (i. e., contrary to fact conditionals such as "if I were you, I would have not done that"). David Lewis has suggested that such statements are true if they are true in the universe that is most similar to ours in which the antecedent of the conditional is true. This leads us back to quantum mechanics since one suggested interpretation of probability statements of the kind found in quantum mechanics is in terms of counterfactuals. John
gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (08/18/83)
This personal note is in reply to a query sent by G. Skinner to net.physics
seeking comments about the prospects for the existence of alternate universes.
He seemed to be asking for the opinion of physicists (eh?). Almost at the
same time that this challenge appeared, R. Forward posted an article in this
news group listing several references that discuss alternate universes and
quantum mechanics by a few practicing physicists. My degree says physics but
my specialty is thermodynamics. I have not read any of the references given
in the Forward article, but I thought that I might launch into the melee.
Alternate universes are not standard topics for consideration in the
graduate education of physicists. In fact, more than three spatial dimensions
are not covered in graduate school. Only recently, with the introduction of
some promising grand unification theories (GUTs) have more than three
dimensions been considered tolerable.
Science has many explicit and implicit assumptions built into it. One
says that the subject of science, in my case it is physics, is capable of
being understood by the human mind (even though it may only be collectively).
Another is that the best theories describe the greatest number of phenomena
with the fewest number of assumptions. This is also known as Occam's razor.
For a successful theory, one that describes alot without serious violations,
the assumptions that go into that theory are granted ontological status (the
belief that they exist and are worthy of study).
Alternate universes have not been found necessary for the description of
physical phenomena. This does not prove that they don't exist, but merely
that they are unnecessary for theory building. Since they are not used,
most physicists (including me) would vote that alternate universes do not
exist. It may be entertaining to read stories that use various universes as
vehicles for the action or moral, but there is insufficient motivation to
begin a search for any alternate universe. Whether or not our existence
is the alternate universe of someone else's imagination lies completely
outside of, and violates another assumption of, physical science.
And now, I return to my ivory tower....
Patrick Wyant
Bell Labs (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphwops.uci@Rand-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (08/24/83)
From: 750a Ops <ops.uci@Rand-Relay> I haven't tossed in my two cents worth until now because I happened to be in the middle of an "alternate universe" novel. It's called THE BURNING MOUNTAIN and it's by Alfred Coppel (my copy is hardcover, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich). The premise is that the first atom bomb test in July 1945 fails, because the test tower is struck by lightning and so the planned invaision of Japan is carried out. As an alternate universe story, it suffers a little from being too close to the "decisive event," so we don't get to see the long term consequences. It is a very readable book and should be of interest to military and (alternate) history buffs. A question for the network mind: As I began this book, something in themurky bogs at the back of my mind said, "that's true, the tower was struck by lightning." Does anyone know (offhand) if I'm correct? Was the atomic test tower struck by lightning (although not enough to damage the device)? If so, Coppel's decisive event becomes merely a matter of electrical intensity (something to think about). Finally a vague word from the opposition point of view. I begin by asking any reader to preface each following statement by "I THINK" since I am not at all sure of my facts. There is a story written by (I think) Robert Silverberg which takes the view that the stream of history is not that easy to divert. The story is written as a narration by a time agent of some kind and tells about the recruitment of one of their agents. These agents, who are known as "snakes" are people snatched out of time just before they die and the tale is told about one recruit who set out to keep himself from being murdered (by a irrate wife I believe). Well everything he tries fails and so he resigns himself to becoming a snake. It's an interesting story and takes a radically different view from the standard: time-traveller squishes bug by mistake in 3 million B.C. and so the world as we know it vanishes in a puff of temporal smoke. I've got this story at home (somewhere), so I'll pass the title along later. All you Silverberg buffs out there are invited to name it out of hand. /tlj
grindal@utcsrgv.UUCP (David Grindal) (08/24/83)
Re Silverberg's idea that the flow of history is difficult to divert: this same theme occurs in Asimov's "The End of Eternity", in which there are people who live "outside" of time. They can travel between times, and keep their numbers up by recruiting youngsters from the various centuries. (This book has some interesting gramatical adaptions, including word like "upwhen", "downwhen", "When are you?", ...). These people, known as the Eternals, perform two roles. They use their time travelling to act as intermediates in commerce between centuries. They see their main task, however, as adjusting history for the "benefit" of mankind as a whole, such as eliminating wars etc. They find after a while that if they make a change in the 100th century, the reprcussions of the change begin to fade after 40 or so centuries. (The Eternals deal with centuries from 19 (1900) to 100,000 and higher). In other words they find that the flow of history is difficult to permanently divert. As an aside, we also find by the end of the book that by continually changing history for man's benefit, they have also bred the initiative and drive out of man, as well as postponing numerous scientific advances (eg. the first nuclear explosion is in the 43rd century instead of the 19th) David Grindal (...!utcsrgv!grindal)
lfd@whuxlb.UUCP (08/25/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-448900:whuxlb:9100016:000:184
whuxlb!lfd Aug 25 10:53:00 1983
The Change War between the Spiders and the Snakes is in a
series of stories by Fritz Lieber, including the (short)
novel, "The Big Time."
Lee Derbenwick, BTL WH (...!whuxlb!lfd)brucec@tekecs.UUCP (Bruce Cohen) (08/26/83)
The story describing the difficulty of changing history is called, appropriately enough, "Try and Change the Past," by Fritz Leiber. It's one of a series of stories about what Leiber calls the Change War, a battle between two groups known as the "Snakes" and "Spiders" (for reasons which no one in the stories ever discovers, as far as I remember). The war is fought throughout time and in every solar system in at least two galaxies. Other stories in the series: Damnation Morning (short story) The Big Time (novel - barely) The Oldest Soldier (short story) There's another story, whose title I can't recall, though I read it more recently than the others. It involves some of the characters from "The Big Time" in a plot to kidnap Queen Elizabeth I and replace her with a Spider agent. Bruce Cohen UUCP: ...!teklabs!tekecs!brucec CSNET: tekecs!brucec@tektronix ARPA: tekecs!brucec.tektronix@rand-relay
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (09/02/83)
Just tonight I read Fritz Leiber's "The Big Time". It is set in "the Place", a sort of R&R joint for people involved in the "Change Wars". The Change Wars are fought over a very long period of time between the "Spiders" and the "Snakes". Each group is trying to change "history" so that they will "win" in the far distant future. I'm not sure if it was originally written as a play, but it is obvious that it could be very easily produced (as it was, here at the lowly U of Utah, last year, Leiber himself actually came to the premier). I won't say more, except that I thought it was *excellent*. Probably not available in bookstores, but check your public library. =Spencer
JAF@MIT-SPEECH@MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (09/18/83)
From: Joseph A. Frisbie <JAF at MIT-SPEECH at MIT-MC> If a new universe is created for each outcome of every decision, it would seem you'd run out of stuff eventually. One cure for this would be to have just as many universes converging as diverging at a given moment. Another alternative would be to have converging universes. You start with an infinite number (at the big bang say) and as time goes along, the individual universes expand and merge. If you believe in entropy, then as the entropy of the universe increases, information that makes it distinct from all the other universes is lost. At the end, the universe ends in one homogeneous, lukewarm soup. One homogeneous soup is just like another. If you believe in cycles, If the universe begins to contract eventually, you can then have the universes diverging (sort of conservation of "volume"). :-) Joe -------