Do you think its possible we are living in a holographic universe?

[colton]

Siro/colton,

Both of you seem to be assuming in your discussion that human decision making would be a type of even that triggers a split into alternate universes in a many-worlds scenario. I don't pretend to understand the details, but it that accurate? What about human decision-making would trigger such a split?

It's not only about human decision making, that's just what I've focused on. The many worlds scenario holds that EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE outcome that can happen, does happen. Thus there are unimaginable numbers of universes being created every nanosecond.

 

[colton]

It's not only about human decision making, that's just what I've focused on. The many worlds scenario holds that EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE outcome that can happen, does happen. Thus there are unimaginable numbers of universes being created every nanosecond.

Hey Siro, that reminds me--how does the many worlds view deal with the energy that would be needed to create all of those universes? I'm sure there's an answer, I just don't know what it is.

 

[Hotdog]

Thanks. The green laser was really cool. Was it just a laser pointer type thing? Could I do this at home?

I saw someone on youtube do an experiment that would be pretty cheap to do. Its not the real double slit experiment but you can demonstrate how shining light through two slits creates the interference pattern. It was just made out of cardboard box that had a spot where the two slits go and a spot where you look in the box. You put the box outside in the sun at the right direction and angle then look in the box and you can see the interference pattern rather than two lines of light, which is what most people think they will see. I think the slits should made out of some material rather than just cutting them into the box.

 

[Siro]

I'm not saying both outcomes are equally likely in OUR universe, I'm saying both outcomes are equally likely across ALL universes. Or if not exactly equally likely, at least somewhat close to equally likely. Because in an alternate universe there's a Colton who went astray early on, right, and has been making bad choices ever since. So THAT colton would be about as likely to drive drunk as THIS colton is unlikely to do so.

Edit: Getting back to the legal question, then--so why would you punish THAT colton for merely having the misfortune to live in a universe where his likelihood of driving drunk was greatly enhanced? It's not HIS fault he lived in that universe rather than this one. That's what I'm getting at with this view being at odds with free will.

But with each bad choice, there are fewer and fewer Coltons who can make bad choices. If you look back at the data once all the Coltons are gone, you'll see that as time progresses, the ratio of Coltons making good choices will continually increase compared to Coltons making bad choices (since a good choice increases chances of success). Or your brain and experience makes most instances of you more likely to make bad choices, seeing a mountain of dead-ends with only a small percentage making it all the way. So your choices affect your meta-history. It is a very different way of understanding choice.

As for the legal question, why would I punish Colton NOW? In classical physics, knowing all the variables is knowing all the choices that will be made. And none of those variables are controllable. You don't choose your genetics, you don't choose your environment, and you don't choose how your brain evolves in response to your experiences. You're just a helpless collection of atoms going through the reel that is the laws of the universe. QM can add randomness and uncertainty, but it adds no support to the idea that you could control the choice you made. So why do we still punish people even though we can't account for free will? It is a practical matter. You put a criminal in jail to prevent further crimes, or to discourage future crime, or to satisfy an emotional need for revenge/justice. Knowing that other versions might not have committed the crime is irrelevant. No exchange of information is possible between the different instances, and each instance will have its own set of independent consequences. You can only work with whatever information you have.

 

[One Brow]

If two separate paths exist for the atoms doing the calculations in the brain, then both paths will be taken. So yes, choice would trigger such a split in my understanding.

So, this discussion is based on the notion that changes in the atomic scale (and lower) have an impact in decisions as macro as "Should I drive the car of call a cab?"?

 

[One Brow]

It's not only about human decision making, that's just what I've focused on. The many worlds scenario holds that EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE outcome that can happen, does happen. Thus there are unimaginable numbers of universes being created every nanosecond.

I can see that, for phenomena like when a particle has positive or negative spin, there are two possible outcomes. However, if there is no free will in the sense of being able to arrive at different decisions, but merely a decision-making process, by your description there would not be different worlds arising from that description.

 

[colton]

I can see that, for phenomena like when a particle has positive or negative spin, there are two possible outcomes. However, if there is no free will in the sense of being able to arrive at different decisions, but merely a decision-making process, by your description there would not be different worlds arising from that description.

No, there are still different worlds there. If the spin measurement is 50-50, then the universe splits in two--in one of the new universes the spin was positive, and in the other of the new universes the spin was negative.

 

[colton]

But with each bad choice, there are fewer and fewer Coltons who can make bad choices.

I don't understand this. Why are you saying that? Because they die?

 

[colton]

I saw someone on youtube do an experiment that would be pretty cheap to do. Its not the real double slit experiment but you can demonstrate how shining light through two slits creates the interference pattern. It was just made out of cardboard box that had a spot where the two slits go and a spot where you look in the box. You put the box outside in the sun at the right direction and angle then look in the box and you can see the interference pattern rather than two lines of light, which is what most people think they will see. I think the slits should made out of some material rather than just cutting them into the box.

Cutting slits in cardboard should be fine if you can make clean enough cuts. But it's a lot easier to see with a laser pointer than with the sun. And it's easier to see if you shine the light through the slits against a distant wall instead of just into a small box.

 

[One Brow]

No, there are still different worlds there. If the spin measurement is 50-50, then the universe splits in two--in one of the new universes the spin was positive, and in the other of the new universes the spin was negative.

Right. My apologies for being unclear.

If there is no free will, I don't see how humans making different decisions are possible from atomic-level interactions, and thus, I don't see how human decisions can create world-splits. Absent free will, if there are multiple universes since the time humans have existed (say, split off in the last 6,000,000 years), they would probably be essentially identical on the macro level.

 

[Siro]

I don't understand this. Why are you saying that? Because they die?

Sure. Bad choices shrink the pool from which future choices are made. I am defining a good choice as one that enhances your life somehow. A bad choice can directly limit future choices in many possible ways. I can die, be paralyzed, go to jail (limiting my experience), and so on, but just as importantly, a bad choice adds to the information that those who made the choice possess. So the new information can be used to evaluate future choices, you can either learn from the mistake and make a different choice, or you can make another bad choice. So the multiverse by its very nature encourages good choice. It is a sort of free will from the perspective of someone who has access to all the universes, even if isn't directly so for each instance.

 

[Siro]

Right. My apologies for being unclear.

If there is no free will, I don't see how humans making different decisions are possible from atomic-level interactions, and thus, I don't see how human decisions can create world-splits. Absent free will, if there are multiple universes since the time humans have existed (say, split off in the last 6,000,000 years), they would probably be essentially identical on the macro level.

There will be universes where slight differences in the overall state of your brain (because of previous splits) will cause you to make different choices. It isn't the choice itself that causes the split. If the choice is possible, it will be represented.

 

[colton]

Sure. Bad choices shrink the pool from which future choices are made. I am defining a good choice as one that enhances your life somehow. A bad choice can directly limit future choices in many possible ways. I can die, be paralyzed, go to jail (limiting my experience), and so on, but just as importantly, a bad choice adds to the information that those who made the choice possess. So the new information can be used to evaluate future choices, you can either learn from the mistake and make a different choice, or you can make another bad choice. So the multiverse by its very nature encourages good choice. It is a sort of free will from the perspective of someone who has access to all the universes, even if isn't directly so for each instance.

That's a very limited usage of the word "bad", and not what I've been talking about. I'm talking about good and bad in moral terms, where bad choices very rarely directly lead to life-altering consequences.

 

[One Brow]

There will be universes where slight differences in the overall state of your brain (because of previous splits) will cause you to make different choices. It isn't the choice itself that causes the split. If the choice is possible, it will be represented.

So, absent free will, every other universe might well resemble this one on the macro level, as I understand you.

Edit: At least, every other universe with humans in it.

 

[Siro]

That's a very limited usage of the word "bad", and not what I've been talking about. I'm talking about good and bad in moral terms, where bad choices very rarely directly lead to life-altering consequences.

You expect me to evaluate a theory on the basis of whether it conforms to your personal view of morality? Since I don't share you brain, I can't really do that. I can only discuss choices that have consequences in physical reality.

 

[Siro]

So, absent free will, every other universe might well resemble this one on the macro level, as I understand you.

Edit: At least, every other universe with humans in it.

Resemble it in what way? There is a very large number of universes (practically infinite). Many will resemble this one, but others will be different. But they all share the same laws of physics and all the ones with humans will be similar to some extent.

 

[♪alt13]

I think this is what Hack was talking about

Quantum Information theory(zero worlds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc#t=3327

 

[Hotdog]

I would love to share some of the videos I have seen, but Youtube app changed and I haven't figured out how to copy the link. Maybe I haven't tried hard enough. If someone knows how to from the app on Samsung, let me know. It used to have URL at the top. Now I cant find it.

Anyways, the thread was about if we are living in a holographic universe. I got the idea from Leonard Susskind. If you are interested, search his name + holographic universe. He basically supports his theory with ideas about blackholes and what happens to the bits of information when an object is swallowed up by the black hole. The theory is the information is stored on the horizon kind of like a 2D holographic film sheet.

 

[One Brow]

Resemble it in what way?

Resemble in the sense that some hypothetical outside observer, if not capable of seeing at the atomic level, would measure them identically in every aspect.

 

[colton]

You expect me to evaluate a theory on the basis of whether it conforms to your personal view of morality? Since I don't share you brain, I can't really do that. I can only discuss choices that have consequences in physical reality.

I really don't understand your point of view in this dialog we've been having, although I've been trying, and I guess you can't understand mine either. So I suppose this has come to an end.

But just to make one last ditch effort, let's consider something like shoplifting. It's not a part of my personal view of morality, it's part of (nearly?) everyone's view of morality. And it certainly has consequences in physical reality. But it certainly won't lead to the death of the perpetrator.