Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site looking.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Many worlds interpretation. Message-ID: <226@looking.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 00:00:00 EST Article-I.D.: looking.226 Posted: Mon Dec 10 00:00:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:36:49 EST References: <753@ttds.UUCP> Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont Lines: 39 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