I'm not making claims one way or another, you (& the OP) are, Smith, and thus bear the burden of making rudimentary sense of them ... For my part, consider and reread my previous (corrected) post which you've quoted in light of that older post.

I did posit a reasonable alternative to the absolutely OOO God of philosophy viz. a relatively OOO God, a God-like being who is not omni anything but just powerful, good, knowledgeable enough to be a God in our eyes.

The Multiverse Idea Is Rotting Culture, Sam Kriss.

What looks at first glance like an opening up of possibilities is actually an attack on the imagination.

"There’s nothing wrong with faith, but if it’s not recognized for what it is then monsters start to spawn, not in some distant reality, but right here. No religion is complete without a moral code, but how do you live ethically in our shapeless foam of worlds, invisible to telescopes but throbbing close at the moment of every decision?"

Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems, Philip Ball

The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. But this “many-worlds interpretation” is incoherent, Philip Ball argues in this adapted excerpt from his new book Beyond Weird.

DISCLAIMER: it should be spelled out that 'the multiverse hypothesis' and 'the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics' are very different ideas. However they're often merged in the popular imagination.

Sorry, too vague to take seriously.

A "disclaimer" wouldn't be needed if you didn't traffic in middling muddle.

Sorry, too vague to take seriously. — 180 Proof

What's vague about it? We even have a real-life example: The USA is God on earth, relatively speaking, no? She can do almost anything to anyone if she wants to - having the might to make good any threat she makes, the USA is a veritable God. Surely a category (relatively OOO) that has an example is not so vague as you seem to think.

You're just playing with words. I asked for straight-forwatd clarity and you're just handwaving bullshit. Nailing jello to the wall ain't my schtick. How about some philosophizing for change, Smith? When you're up for that, I may come back. :yawn:

You're just playing with words. I asked for straight-forwatd clarity and you're just handwaving bullshit. Nailing jello to the wall ain't my schtick. How about some philosophizing for change, Smith? When you're up for that, I may come back. :yawn: — 180 Proof

I think you just don't want to admit the fact that a relatively OOO God is possible. It's ok, there are topics I'm sensitive about too.

You're right, Smith, I don't want to "admit" a n y t h i n g UNTIL it can be demonstrated, even if only in principle, either to be the case or not to be the case. Some vague, undefined "OOO God" is just empty words with which you're babytalking rather that saying explicitly what YOU mean. Again , if you can't DESCRIBE g/G by attributing DEFINITE predicates to g/G, then the modal possibility of g/G is indistinguishable from the modal impossibility of g/G (ergo bullshit ~H. Frankfurt).

... there are topics I'm sensitive about too.

Apparently, bullshit isn't one of them. :sweat:

The philosophy forum:

"A vibrant community of people who rarely agree with each other but who all love philosophy"

Let me try again.

By the state of the universe, I mean a snapshot of the types, positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe. I'm no physicist, so add onto this whatever else is necessary for a complete and precise description of everything.

Given a description, we can encode it. How? First question is, is this description finite or infinite?

If it is finite, we can encode it as a (very, very, *very* large) integer. Think of binary data as a universal medium of information. All binary data, no matter how large, is just a base 2 integer.

So now, how many possible universes are there? Intuitively, if would seem that U is a possible universe, there is a U' with an extra hydrogen atom here or an extra neutrino there, due to the most minute perturbation in the early universe. So I think we want to say there are infinite possible universes.

So then the set of all possible universes is representable as an infinite array of integers. Now the set of all universes in the multiverse would also be representable as an infinite array of integers. But there is no guarantee whatsoever that one infinite array of integers contains even a single member of another, let alone all of them. So, the op fails here.

Now, if the amount of information in the universe is infinite, then the op is doubly screwed. Then, at best the state can be encoded as an irrational number, and the argument fails for similar reasons.

The only way I can see the op succeeding is if the information content of the universe is finite, there are only a finite number of possible universes, and by some law universes cannot repeat in the multiverse.

If it is finite, we can encode it as a (very, very, *very* large) integer. Think of binary data as a universal medium of information. All binary data, no matter how large, is just a base 2 integer — hypericin

This type of comment comes up every so often. Alexandre used it some time back. Exactly how do you do this encoding? Is it arbitrary?

So then the set of all possible universes is representable as an infinite array of integers. — hypericin

Hence, you assert the "number" of possible universes is countable. That's a big "if".

The only way I can see the op succeeding is if the information content of the universe is finite, there are only a finite number of possible universes, and by some law universes cannot repeat in the multiverse — hypericin

Alexandre made that assumption also.

If there are other universes the principles of probability we have assembled may not be the same. We can say absolutely nothing about the nature of other universes. But they can make for good science fiction. :smile:

but how do you live ethically in our shapeless foam of worlds, invisible to telescopes but throbbing close at the moment of every decision — Wayfarer

Great one! That many worlds picture... Regarding the MWI, Hugh Everett drank a bottle a day, smoked 3 packets, and ate junk food only. He thought that in one world he was alive for sure... His daughter killed herself to join him...

Yes, and left a note in his will that his ashes be put out in the garbage. There's an illuminating bio on scientific american https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-worlds-of-hugh-everett/ although since I last referenced it, it's been paywalled, unfortunately. But it notes that the whole idea came up when he and a companion were drinking and thinking up 'ridiculous things about quantum physics'. Yet a lot of people swear by it. One of the first physicists I encountered on philosophy forums would soberly defend it as the only plausible explanation for the wave-function collapse, never mind that it completely rips up the concept of conservation laws.

The question I ask is, if many worlds is the solution, then what is the problem? The issue appears to be that it undermines the 'copenhagen interpretation'. People would rather believe in infinite branching worlds that grapple with the philosophical implications of that. (David Deutsch, reputedly one of the world's smartest people, is so utterly convinced of the Everett interpretation that he thinks anyone who doubts it is a fool.)

Yeah, I have to sign in firstly. A pity. In general, articles in SA are very informative. I made a collection once of all kinds of physics and brain articles. I could still read he teamed up with the military and that he was a cold father. Maybe he didn't bother because in some parallel world everything was okay... Luckily his grandson is something else. Eels, that band.
Conservation laws are not broken. It seems so indeed. Doesn’t split the world at every branch? Yes, but all is already present, but in superposition still.
All that QM interpretation stuff has one root: the Copenhagen interpretation. Had it been decided that pilot waves were real, there would have been less confusion and discussing about the wavefunction collapse, or about "the observer and his role". Hidden variables could even serve as that what space is made of. Historia or Fortuna (or MisFortuna...)decided differently.

So I (I guess you too?) am a fool according to Deutsch? Mr. Deutsch, show yourself!

Exactly how do you do this encoding? Is it arbitrary? — jgill

Of course its arbitrary, its an encoding. The only requirement is that it be reversible.

Hence, you assert the "number" of possible universes is countable. That's a big "if". — jgill

I am asserting:

*if* the information content of the universe is finite, *then* the number of possible universes is countable.

Alexandre made that assumption also.

If there are other universes the principles of probability we have assembled may not be the same. — jgill

Exactly what am I assuming? And exactly where am I relying on probability?

if* the information content of the universe is finite, *then* the number of possible universes is countable — hypericin

Which is nonsense. Information content, like the often quoted Bekenstein information content of the observable universe, i.e, 10exp120, is no indication of its countability.

Which is nonsense. — Raymond

Raymond has declared it to be nonsense. The matter is settled then, nothing more need be said.

Okay okay... Seems that nonsense is a sensitive expression. Nonsense to me then.

*if* the information content of the universe is finite, *then* the number of possible universes is countable — hypericin

You are assuming another possible universe is simply an extension of the one we are in, adding features here and there. How could you possibly know what a different universe might be? It might be indescribable from our limited perspective. You seem to be simply shuffling around the features of our universe and applying them to other universes. Its physics, if it had one, might be incomprehensible. Its math could be different, in which case the word "possible" in the OP makes little sense.

It's clear I'm not seeing these many worlds from your perspective. And I'm not restricting myself to solutions of wave collapse in our universe.

You're right, Smith, I don't want to "admit" a n y t h i n g UNTIL it can be demonstrated, even if only in principle, either to be the case or not to be the case. Some vague, undefined "OOO God" is just empty words with which you're babytalking rather that saying explicitly what YOU mean. Again ↪180 Proof, if you can't DESCRIBE g/G by attributing DEFINITE predicates to g/G, then the modal possibility of g/G is indistinguishable from the modal impossibility of g/G (ergo bullshit ~H. Frankfurt). — 180 Proof

What's so vague about the US of A? My example of a relative superpower (USA) is mappable onto a relative OOO God, yes?

IDK WTF you're talking about, man. G'nite. :yawn:

IDK WTF you're talking about, man. G'nite — 180 Proof

:grin: G'nite!

Hey agent Smith. What is an OOO God?

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God.

Ah yes! Then the USA comes close indeed!

Ah yes! Then the USA comes close indeed! — Raymond

Close enough!

You are assuming another possible universe is simply an extension of the one we are in, adding features here and there. — jgill

I don't even know who you are arguing with anymore. Again, where am I assuming this?

I made an argument that the number of possible universes is infinite, that if U is possible then there is U` with an additional particle somewhere. But this in no way limits the scope of possible universes.


Not sensitive, its just amusing that you expect your mere declaration that something is "nonsense" to carry even a scintilla of weight.

On the concept of the number of many worlds in quantum theory, David Wallace (2011) has this to say:

To be sure, by choosing a certain discretisation of (phase-)space and time, a discrete branching structure will emerge, but a finer or coarser choice would also give branching.
And there is no “finest” choice of branching structure: as we fine-grain our
decoherent history space, we will eventually reach a point where interference
between branches ceases to be negligible, but there is no precise point where
this occurs. As such, the question “how many branches are there?” does not,
ultimately, make sense.

Not an argument, just an observation somehow related to the OP.

The expression ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ is often trotted out as an example of the degeneration of medieval metaphysics. The actual debate was about whether two incorporeal intelligences could occupy the same space. Many of these debates are at least reminiscent of that.

Not sensitive, its just amusing that you expect your mere declaration that something is "nonsense" to carry even a scintilla of weight. — hypericin

If the information is a finite, say the maximum of information contained in the observable universe, 10exp120, then there are still is still a continuous collection of possible ways this information evolves. The information within a black hole is finite, and is radiated away in Hawking radiation, but this information can be distributed in a continuous way amongst the particles. So one real number is not enough, not even for a black hole.