Emile comments on How Many Worlds? - Less Wrong

2 Post author: smk 14 December 2011 02:51PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (64)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Emile 14 December 2011 03:27:35PM 18 points [-]

How many ink blots are in this picture ?

For "many worlds", imagine that evolving in time, with fuzzy borders.

The Many Worlds Interpretation doesn't imply a countable number of worlds that suddenly branch, it's more like a fuzzy continuum; talking of branching worlds and timelines is just a high-level abstraction that makes things easier to discuss.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 December 2011 03:38:56PM 11 points [-]

How many ink blots are in this picture?

This is a really good analogy to explain what a wrong question is.

Comment author: prase 14 December 2011 04:37:42PM 3 points [-]

talking of branching worlds and timelines is just a high-level abstraction that makes things easier to discuss

It rather seems to me an imprecise analogy which makes thinks harder to discuss. But I agree with the general sentiment.

Comment author: Thomas 14 December 2011 04:13:21PM 0 points [-]

Not countable many, but continuum many? Is that what you say?

Comment author: Emile 14 December 2011 04:53:03PM *  -1 points [-]

Maybe - I'm not sure of what you mean by "continuum many" - you mean like real numbers? I was thinking more of something like "roughly countable, though the count will depend on which definition of "world" (or "blob") you use", or even better, "it doesn't really matter".

Comment author: Thomas 14 December 2011 07:45:19PM -2 points [-]

Yes, I mean as many as real numbers. Or maybe even more, I don't know. I am asking you, who is telling us that:

The Many Worlds Interpretation doesn't imply a countable number of worlds

(Of course, MWI is popular, but I agree with those who say - it's just ridiculous.)

Comment author: smk 14 December 2011 03:37:43PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for answering!

I guess I was confused by this:

What about the Ebborians? The Ebborians, you recall, have brains like flat sheets of conducting polymer, and when they reproduce, the brain-sheet splits down its thickness. In the beginning, there is definitely one brain; in the end, there is definitely two brains; in between, there is a continuous decrease of causal influence and synchronization. When does one Ebborian become two?

Those who insist on an objective population count in a decoherent universe, must confront exactly analogous people-splitting problems in classical physics!

Heck, you could simulate quantum physics the way we currently think it works, and ask exactly the same question! At the beginning there is one blob, at the end there are two blobs, in this universe we have constructed. So when does the consciousness split, if you think there's an objective answer to that?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 14 December 2011 04:00:34PM -1 points [-]

That is a somewhat useful analogy, but it can be taken too far. But it seems to me to be saying the same thing (though perhaps not as clearly) as the inkblot above:

Can you really count it? Not really!

Comment author: smk 14 December 2011 04:27:20PM 2 points [-]

I thought that when it said "At the beginning there is one blob, at the end there are two blobs" it was saying that the "worlds" did eventually become discrete, you just couldn't tell exactly when.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 14 December 2011 05:01:09PM *  -1 points [-]

When you mix regions of stability and chaos, eventually things settle down into relatively discrete zones... along some directions... while being smeared out all over the place in others.

Edited to add: Are these downvotes from people who know quantum mechanics or dynamics in phase space, or is my comment just making people confused again (a bad thing to be sure), or what? I can probably fix it, but it'd be best to know what about it needs fixing.

Comment author: bogdanb 15 December 2011 10:10:49PM 2 points [-]

No idea why whoever downvoted you did so, but here’s why I think I felt your comment was not useful to me, or much less useful of what it could have been if you happen to know what you’re talking about (I don’t so I can’t tell):

Your statement states a fact without any explanation, examples or pointers to such. If you had said something like “When you mix regions of stability and chaos, things never settle down into discrete zones... it’s all smeared out all over the place.” — then the effect of reading it would pretty much have been the same unless I already knew about the subject enough not to need your comment.

Imagine someone not having any education in astronomy saying something like “I thought the sun and stars turn around the Earth”, and you commenting “Actually, the Earth spins around itself, and it turns around the sun, while the other stars pretty much go every which way.” Unless the first person knew you were a good astronomer, they don’t really learn anything. And even if they did believe you knew you to be an expert on what you were talking about, they might learn it as a rote fact, but won’t really understand much.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 16 December 2011 09:45:58PM 0 points [-]

Oi, if that's the problem I'll just call a halt. Chaos theory is kind of like quantum mechanics: done right, it's tough, and done easy, comes out horribly wrong.

Comment author: bogdanb 27 December 2011 12:28:30AM *  1 point [-]

So... your comment was an attempt at “done easy”, or was it “tough”?

(It occurs to me that the line above would be normally interpreted as snarky. My intent was half friendly joke, half “if you have that opinion about Chaos theory, what did you try to achieve in your earlier comment?” I just don’t know how to express that in written English...)