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

[colton]

P.S. You still haven't answered post #62 of this thread.

 

[One Brow]

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.

I thought the net energy of the universe was 0? Something about matter being positive energy, cancelled out by gravity as negative energy?

 

[♪alt13]

That video I posted had a lot of math that was over my head. I'd like to here your guys take on it. The guy that is speaking worked for Nasa jet propulsion lab and was the lead engineer for google adwords. It's not a crackpot video like the title makes it sound.

 

[colton]

That video I posted had a lot of math that was over my head. I'd like to here your guys take on it. The guy that is speaking worked for Nasa jet propulsion lab and was the lead engineer for google adwords. It's not a crackpot video like the title makes it sound.

I saw the video was over an hour long, so couldn't watch it, sorry. Maybe later.

 

[One Brow]

That video I posted had a lot of math that was over my head. I'd like to here your guys take on it. The guy that is speaking worked for Nasa jet propulsion lab and was the lead engineer for google adwords. It's not a crackpot video like the title makes it sound.

Why would ny of that make it non-crackpot? Many, if not most, of the science/math crackpots seem to be engineers.

 

[♪alt13]

I saw the video was over an hour long, so couldn't watch it, sorry. Maybe later.

32:00 to 54:00 is the bulk of what is interesting. Everything before that is just a primer on the subject and everything after is audience questions.

 

[One Brow]

Quantum Information theory(zero worlds)

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

At about 26:00, he says that there can't be FTL commication. To my understanding, that's not accurate. There is not relativistic limit on the speed of information, or other abstract concepts. Relativity applies to matter/energy, not information/communication.

 

[♪alt13]

Why would ny of that make it non-crackpot? Many, if not most, of the science/math crackpots seem to be engineers.

I was just saying that it was a reasonable human being as opposed to a 15 year old kid with delusions of grandeur. It is a you tube video. It's also not the speakers theory he said it was explained to him by a physicist.

 

[♪alt13]

At about 26:00, he says that there can't be FTL commication. To my understanding, that's not accurate. There is not relativistic limit on the speed of information, or other abstract concepts. Relativity applies to matter/energy, not information/communication.

Yeah I caught that and kinda just let it go. I was more curious what you thought of the whole measurement doesn't destroy entanglement but rather it is the same phenomena. Entanglement is a form of measurement.

 

[One Brow]

Lot's of crackpots can get physicists to talk to them, but then go on to mangle what the physicists say.

Yeah I caught that and kinda just let it go. I was more curious what you thought of the whole measurement doesn't destroy entanglement but rather it is the same phenomena. Entanglement is a form of measurement.

I'll let the physicists comment on that.

However, anytime someone pulls out Shannon Information theory, and tries to apply it so some other model than communications through a wire or a very similar situation, I am deeply suspicious. I very seriously doubt QM is using Shannon theory. I just skimmed it, because those were two giant red flags.

 

[♪alt13]

Lot's of crackpots can get physicists to talk to them, but then go on to mangle what the physicists say.



I'll let the physicists comment on that.

However, anytime someone pulls out Shannon Information theory, and tries to apply it so some other model than communications through a wire or a very similar situation, I am deeply suspicious. I very seriously doubt QM is using Shannon theory. I just skimmed it, because those were two giant red flags.

I believe this is what the thread is about, this specific interpretation.(although I may be wrong have to ask hack) Here is a link to the wiki for Quantum Information theory and yes they do incorporate the Shannon information theory.(probably why they sound so similar)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information

This is from the wiki for quantum interpretations

Quantum informational approaches[36] have attracted growing support.[37][38] They subdivide into two kinds[39]

1) Information ontologies, such as J. A. Wheeler's "it from bit". These approaches have been described as a revival of immaterialism[40]
2) Interpretations where quantum mechanics is said to describe an observer's knowledge of the world, rather than the world itself. This approach has some similarity with Bohr's thinking.[41] Collapse (also known as reduction) is often interpreted as an observer acquiring information from a measurement, rather than as an objective event. These approaches have been appraised as similar to instrumentalism.

The state is not an objective property of an individual system but is that information, obtained from a knowledge of how a system was prepared, which can be used for making predictions about future measurements. ...A quantum mechanical state being a summary of the observer’s information about an individual physical system changes both by dynamical laws, and whenever the observer acquires new information about the system through the process of measurement. The existence of two laws for the evolution of the state vector...becomes problematical only if it is believed that the state vector is an objective property of the system...The “reduction of the wavepacket” does take place in the consciousness of the observer, not because of any unique physical process which takes place there, but only because the state is a construct of the observer and not an objective property of the physical system

Maybe that is more helpful than the video.

 

[colton]

At about 26:00, he says that there can't be FTL commication. To my understanding, that's not accurate. There is not relativistic limit on the speed of information, or other abstract concepts. Relativity applies to matter/energy, not information/communication.

I still haven't watched the video, but most people such as myself believe FTL communication is impossible due to the problems it would pose for causality. It's easy to show that FTL communication leads to the possibility of effects preceding their causes.

 

[♪alt13]

I still haven't watched the video, but most people such as myself believe FTL communication is impossible due to the problems it would pose for causality. It's easy to show that FTL communication leads to the possibility of effects preceding their causes.

The belief that it is impossible is just a conceptual hang up though, right?

 

[One Brow]

I still haven't watched the video, but most people such as myself believe FTL communication is impossible due to the problems it would pose for causality. It's easy to show that FTL communication leads to the possibility of effects preceding their causes.

I've heard that, but when I've looked, I've never seen a thought experiment that spelled it out for me. I've read about where this happens when you use transmission mediums (and assuming the Lorentz transformations would apply to objects moving above c), but not the sort of medium-free environment the lecture discusses. Are there any such examples that don't involve something physical traveling through time?

 

[One Brow]

Here is a link to the wiki for Quantum Information theory and yes they do incorporate the Shannon information theory.(probably why they sound so similar)

The link refers to Von Neuman entropy as an analogue to Shannon entropy. I could just as easily say Von Neuman entropy is an analogue to Komolgorov entropy.

However, I recall seeing Von Neuman entropy in the video, so perhaps that's all that was meant in the video.

 

[Siro]

P.S. You still haven't answered post #62 of this thread.

Sorry, you must have posted that while I was typing a response, because I didn't notice it.

The total energy expressed by the wavefunction is a linear summation of all possible outcomes weighed by their probability. So it isn't so much that new worlds are being created, but existing worlds are split into convergent series of ever-thinning slices as dictated by the probability densities.

 

[dodo]

Interesting, something related to this thread...

https://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

 

[Siro]

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.

Being caught shoplifting will have legal, career, and personal consequences. You may not get caught, but the probability of a negative outcome is greater than if you never shoplifted.

 

[colton]

I've heard that, but when I've looked, I've never seen a thought experiment that spelled it out for me. I've read about where this happens when you use transmission mediums (and assuming the Lorentz transformations would apply to objects moving above c), but not the sort of medium-free environment the lecture discusses. Are there any such examples that don't involve something physical traveling through time?

I haven't watched the lecture, so don't know what you mean by "medium-free environment". But if an object travels faster than light, then it's easy to show that there will be inertial reference frames were the endpoints of the object's world-line are reversed. I.e. the object arrived before the object left. So ftl travel is necessarily time travel (in the right reference frame). And if you have time travel, you can of course construct situations that lead to legitimate paradoxes.

 

[colton]

Being caught shoplifting will have legal, career, and personal consequences. You may not get caught, but the probability of a negative outcome is greater than if you never shoplifted.

Sure, but that was basically my point--that negative actions lead to additional negative effects just like positive actions lead to positive effects. So each person will have the same amount of positive vs negative spread between their total many worlds selves. You were the one that talked about negative actions leading to death and hence a net loss of negativity.