Here's an interesting articles on Parallel Universe theories in Quantum Physics.Multiverse by Max Tegmark (pdf)
I think this could be a fun discussion. The article may hurt your brain a little so read it slowly.
A question to start it off:
ARISTOTELIAN PARADIGM: The subjectively
perceived frog perspective is physically real,
and the bird perspective and all its mathematical
language is merely a useful approximation.
PLATONIC PARADIGM: The bird perspective
(the mathematical structure) is physically real,
and the frog perspective and all the human language
we use to describe it is merely a useful approximation
for describing our subjective perceptions.
I think this could be a fun discussion. The article may hurt your brain a little so read it slowly.
A question to start it off:
ARISTOTELIAN PARADIGM: The subjectively
perceived frog perspective is physically real,
and the bird perspective and all its mathematical
language is merely a useful approximation.
PLATONIC PARADIGM: The bird perspective
(the mathematical structure) is physically real,
and the frog perspective and all the human language
we use to describe it is merely a useful approximation
for describing our subjective perceptions.
Which camp are you in, why?
8 comments:
interesting and odd topic.
I am going to have to start off by saying that I don't understand this all that well. Also the second article is cut short. Just when it started talking about Greg Egan, (the author of "Diaspora").
OK, I am in the camp that neither are "real" or at least neither are the whole of reality. Also both are real in that they both are true, insofar as their respective scopes allow. It is like how Newtonian Physics is true, sure it does not explain everything, but what they do attempt to explain they do well. If I throw a ball up I can calculate how long it will take to come down. These simple physics equations actually turn out to be wrong when placed in odd situation, (very small, very fast, etc.) but they were true for a time. Now when will we find that the current equations are simply just better approximations? (ie. the wave function). If we never do find better equations or answers, I feel that they still are simply approximations for reality.
I don't think math=reality. But what do i know I am not a mathematician or a physicist. It is amazing however that these crazy equations have proven to be predictive. Blows the mind actually, or is it all confirmation bias? I am rambling now.
If I had to chose one I would say the frog's perception is real and that the math is a good representation. Because the frog's subjective view is real to him. I have a very hard time accepting the Type I and II multi-verses in which just because there is infinite space that at some point all combinations of particles are possible.
Am I not understanding this? Do the particles have to be "normal" Sure it boggles the mind to think that a mere 10 to the 10 to the 28 meters from me I am typing this same exact thing. And you only have to go 10 to the 10 to the 92 meters to have another you reading it too. But even this crazy situation is understandable according to our understanding of reality. But if the basic premise is that this is so because probabilities make it so, in other words because the particles can only be arranged in so many ways, then somewhere there should be gummy bears going super nova and chickens turning into gold. Or am I missing a key point that physical laws are constant through type I multiverses? Is this a type 4 mulltiverse that I am imagining where "everything" happens. Hope you could follow that.
I would like to add one more assignment to the discussion that I think is pertinent.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344
Very interesting talk.
This speaks to the questions that Aaron brought up. What is real? Does how we interface with the real, affect what is real? Does it actually "define" what is real? Is there an ultimate perspective? For example God's perspective. Would his be the ultimate. According to what we are taught yes probably it would be.
Are we as humans capable of answering the question that Aaron poses? Are we capable of understanding the answer even if it was presented to us. Or can we only understand allegories and mathematical representations of the real.
Well that was a lot of rambling. Summing up, I side with the frog if i have to side with any perspective. Even though it doesn't answer as much it answers it in a way we can understand and in a way that is real to us. Now are there some tran-multi-versal entities out there that can comprehend the birds view? Is it more to them than a mathematical construct. Do they see the multiverse? Who knows.
Anyways respond and let me know what you think of the video.
I suppose that I would ultimately have to subscribe to good old Plato here as I do think that there is a TOE that unifies everything. Now will it ever be useful or understandable to us? Or is it queerer than we are capable of supposing? In the end I say they are both real, and useful in different ways. We are frogs because we live in middle world, maybe someday we will become birds, then that will be real as well as the frog reality.
One last thought. earlier I said I don't think math is equivalent to reality. Now I think I have to amend that by saying that our current math is not equivalent to reality. But it may well be that math is reality, we just don't have the full equation yet, therefor as of now our math is not reality. And our math is not really approximating true physics but it is actually approximating true math. Which is the same thing. :)
I tend to think of the bird perspective as reality. We are limited by what our physical senses can interpret but our minds can comprehend beyond our senses. In fact we take for granted that we are able to translate the unperceivable into the perceivable (i.e. an electromagnetic signal interpreted by a receiver interpreted by our eyes and ears as people moving and talking on TV). Math (albeit far from predicting a TOE) shows us that there is reality out there and though we can't physically interact with it some of it can be translated for our perception.
Also I'm a proponent of Level III multiverse. Though I don't have any answers or ideas yet for how those other universes affect ours. I don't buy that the multiplication of universes due to events constitutes waste. No more so than the empty space between everything does. Just that we haven't come up with the idea (math) that can explain the implications.
I haven't finished the video yet but will post my ideas about it when I do.
Video was pretty good. I liked the mind game of thinking about ourselves in the past...was that me since none of the particles that existed in the past me exists in the now me. Therefor I must be independent of the mater that composes me.
I think the logic of it has a lot of holes as obviously the particles of the past me transferred information to the particles of the now me. How that's done and if it necessitates a quantum level parallel universe interaction is an interesting question. Or in other words can the information we store in our minds be encoded within the physical limitation of our brains? At first though I'd say easily...but thinking about all the potentialities that become thoughts that become actions is huge, not to mention reactions and instincts that go on int the background.
I found it interesting to think of ourselves as waves that pass through the matter that is currently our bodies. Just like a wave in the very understandable medium of the ocean. Is the wave made of energy or water? Is it both. Are we made of some sort of wave traveling through the medium of our physical bodies? I suppose this could be thought of as our spirit. However, could that wave reside in another body? Again we are taught yes in the resurrection. Now here is the really crazy question. Could we house the wave in a different body? Science fiction style.
I guess what I took overall from the video was that we are designed/set up to perceive a certain portion of the whole of reality. Whereas other beings are made to perceive that same portion through different means. Are there beings that can perceive other aspect of reality that are, as put forth in the video, queerer than we can suppose?
In response to the gummy bears going super nova I'm not sure that would happen in level I. level I has the same laws of physics. level II is the one with different constants and IV with the different equations.
In response to the paradigms I tend to lean towards the frog but still have a hard time completely accepting it. "Because the frog's subjective view is real to him". But may not be real to the next frog. Its like the tree that never really falls because no one is around to observe it. I think mathematically it is still happening whether our subjective consciousness experiences it or not. But then is it ever real? Like it said in the article that leads to constant regress which can get annoying at times. All in all interesting and confusing stuff.
Meghan,
Yes I agree "real" only feels comfortable or believable when perceived by the frogs senses...but without the bird view would we be able to expand the frog view into the "new frog" reality?
Radio waves are not real (i.e. we can not sense them) unless someone with a bird view perspective of reality creates a radio. The bird view allows us to remove our incorrect perception of reality and expand our senses to encompass more of the bird view of reality.
Anyway, that's why I tend toward bird view being real. It's the the belief that their is more to reality than what we can sense, based on our expanding "new frog" reality.
Post a Comment