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