dolphin37 t1_jegy5d1 wrote

Is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you’re making a big movie you target those months and those months are most likely to win!

My cynical view is that a movie like this is similar to The Revenant. A good movie with good performances but one that does not last long in the mind and needs to be released close to the awards season to be remembered. Everything Everywhere sunk right in to everyone’s brains and didn’t leave!


dolphin37 t1_je59xnr wrote

It was obviously a generalised comment. Even so, SK is clearly war free for all intents and purposes. Israel is a hot mess that is an exception but even there the average person can go about their lives with barely more consideration than the west had during terror attacks.


dolphin37 t1_jdtok3x wrote

Hmm well you said it means something to you and your opinion is all that matters, which isn’t a disagreement to self-examination. It’s actually in the path to agreement. Disregarding that, you’re now saying you have no view on interaction with other lives. So to you murdering somebody would be the same as helping somebody? If I assume the answer is that there is a difference, you are assigning a value to other lives and it’s a natural step to say that taking a life would be a bad use of life. It’s then a natural step to discourage that bad use of life, as it has a negative affect on life overall

Like I said it’s fine to take different views such as value not being dependent on self examination. But I don’t think it adds up to say we just live in an option-less silo. It seems to quite evidently not be the case


dolphin37 t1_jdt3i81 wrote

I’m sure you would have a view on how your life should interact with other lives. I think that’s the crux of the issue here. In a world with an array of interacting life, some kind of hierarchy is inevitably created. It’s perfectly fine to say your own value of your own life is all that matters to you, but there is more going on and it’s just whether you choose to make an attempt to define some standards in that space or whether you just leave it to the individual in every case. The result could be a pedophiles life is worth living because it means something to them, which is a legitimate outcome but might have some objections!

To your first question though, it’s definitely the interpretation of the reader. As with anything, a lot of translation and interpretation has to happen. Even if you asked the men themselves, they may give you a different response at a different stage in life. It’s rare we settle on something forever!


dolphin37 t1_jceuu3l wrote

Yes in that example you already have entanglement/decoherence in (2), at which point I’ve already said the multiple worlds must now exist. Sean’s language in that very article uses terms like ‘we expect the apparatus to become quickly entangled’ and ‘once our quantum superposition involves macroscopic systems’ and ‘proceed to evolve’ and ‘it is as if they have become distinct worlds’. They ‘come in to being’. They ‘occur’. All of the terminology implies the actions are happening over time.

Saying the possibility for all of the worlds is always there is not the same as saying all the worlds are always there. If that’s what is meant, the language should be clearer. Which I will find out.

And yes you were trying to explain ‘apparent collapse’ but you didn’t use that terminology, like the terminology Sean does in the article linked, you just described collapse multiple times, which isn’t happening. I was just pointing out that it’s not ideal and already stated what I assumed you meant, which is exactly what you apparently meant, but you are again doing the thing where you default to telling me I’m wrong when you actually completely agree with me but have an inability to accept your own fault. Kinda tiring tbh.

Edit: It just occurred to me that you said my objection is that there are too many universes. I didn’t realise you still don’t understand my point this far in 😩


dolphin37 t1_jcdrbnz wrote

MWIs ‘explanation’ for collapse is that it doesn’t collapse. You’re just using the wrong language when referring to a collapse that’s all.

I’m still just not seeing anything that explains why all must exist at all times vs them beginning to exist only at a point in time. It’s just not intuitive to start from a position of a potentially infinite number of identical copies. I get why it’s neater from a conservation perspective because everything has its own energy already before docehering but I need to hear something that explains why that can’t be split at the moment of decoherence instead, with the pre-decohered state containing all of the energy within one world.

I think I’ll leave it here as if there were a clearer explanation for this it probably would have come out by now. But I at least understand the position so can ask the question.


dolphin37 t1_jcdej3i wrote

You’re just mostly describing the basics of QM. That’s not the issue here. The topic is MWI and when the other worlds start existing. I already understand why they need to. It’s disconcerting that you’re using the language of collapse when talking about MWI as the wave function doesn’t collapse in MWI but I can just assume you’re describing the observation of our branch of the wave function after decoherence.

What you need to explain is why all of the many worlds must exist, all of which will be identical copies until their own event of decoherence happens. Each of these, at a point in time, having the same wave function as there’s no entanglement? It needs to be clear why it cannot be the case that we start from a position of one world, which then upon an event of decoherence, creates two worlds. Both of these worlds exist in the same hilbert space as before, but they are now relatively ‘skinnier’.

So if you can explain why all worlds, which will ever feature every event of decoherence, always exist, in a succinct way, then I’ll put that to Sean as the point of debate and he can hopefully help me get it!


dolphin37 t1_jccrn9j wrote

I’ve already asked if you can link to anything that can explain what is happening as I’m not connecting with your attempts to explain it and I can’t find anybody saying what you’re saying. I just get overwhelmed with physicists talking about instances of branching occurring over time. I don’t really see that you are making any points that I haven’t responded to but perhaps I’m also just not understanding those. The only questions of yours I ignored were ones I commented on previously and I’m not resorting to telling you to read more carefully for failing to address half of my previous comment, so you can keep that kinda language to yourself.

I tell you what, I’ll ask Sean Carroll in a couple of weeks and will get him to explain his view. I’ll write back and link you his response then and maybe that will help me understand and help you explain it better.

Edit: Some of your post appeared after I responded, dunno if you edited but doesn’t matter. Just wanted to say I don’t know why you talk down to me with stuff like ‘that’s called determinism’, like yeah, I know, I literally used the word determined in the quote. You did the same thing before where you tell me my understanding of the full universe is wrong only to agree with me and tell me that’s what you said. It makes me view you as a lot less credible.


dolphin37 t1_jc9txzg wrote

At t=0 there is no entanglement and entropy has not yet occurred right? Nothing has occurred. For lack of a better term, entropy then creates a sequential nature to events from that point. There being no entanglement means that there is no decoherence, which means there is no branching. So at the point in your suggestion that every single world must be created, no decoherence or branching is happening. No physicist I have ever heard says that all superpositions create branches by themselves, it’s when they entangle with another quantum system. As soon as entropy makes sequence 1 happen, the wave function changes and then it’s theoretically possible to predict the rest of the universe, although I still don’t think it makes physical sense for all variations to be created at that point but that is what it is.

The fact that the wave function has to evolve over time/entropy, means reality is evolving too i.e. branching. What you’re proposing would mean every world where this evolution is happening was already created at a point in time before any evolution has begun. That’s not making sense to me

Are you able to link me to any resource that says no branches are created beyond inception? I’m looking everywhere and I can’t find anybody saying it

Edit: notice the language you used about the electron, you said ‘if there are two outcomes’, the electron ‘will be’ created in two universes then outcomes ‘will happen’. If what you’re saying was correct the language should be that those universes already have been created and the interaction effectively already has happened because the wave function must have fully determined the life of the universe as the wave function is reality and all of reality has already been created according to you


dolphin37 t1_jc8mw1o wrote

Reddit broke so I lost my whole post, will try to be shorter now and cover your second comment too.

Yeah I understand the above but my point was that I don’t think MWI posits that our universe is anything more than the wave function. The wave function is not a physical massive dimensional space, it’s just what the universe is. The wave function exists in hilbert space but that is just a mathematical abstraction not a physical space. The many worlds are the physical spaces. They aren’t existing or expanding in to something more than themselves

Regarding your electron, the issue I’m trying to get to is the superposition of a given electron or even all electrons or even all fields doesn’t describe every state of the environment at all points of entropy and with all interactions accounted for. If one electron exists now and all worlds exist for its superposition (you said this but branching is based off decoherence which is environmental entanglement not just superposition) what happens to an electron made one minute from now?

I’m not aware of MWI saying anything about time/entropy not being fundamental so this needs to be accounted for. For this to be accounted for in your scenario, the many worlds need to account for every current interaction and every past or future interaction at once. That means every possible event of decoherence has its own world that all start at t=0, when the universe was fully unentangled and entropy has yet to take effect. That doesn’t work if you remove entropy and making it work sounds like entropy is being proposed as emergent.

I can probably link to a dozen videos of theoretical physicists referring to branching and how often it happens. Sean Carroll has a common example he gives of how every radioactive decay in our body branches it, over time. I’m aware that sometimes these terms are used as human ways of understanding these concepts - but that is what we are and I’m not quite getting what you’re saying the abstracted alternative is?


dolphin37 t1_jc7xxvx wrote

(My understanding:) In MWI, the universe is the wave function and each branch dilutes the energy. So if you have 1x energy and the universe branches, each 'world' contains 0.5x energy. We don't notice the change in energy because our entire world has got proportionally skinnier. That happens as part of decoherence.

Is this maybe a confusion between terms or something? The wave function/universe is one thing, the many worlds of which are created 'in to'... that kind of implies there is a thing they are in though, which is not necessarily the case. We can describe it as some kind of gigantic dimensional configuration space but as far as I'm aware that's not posited as a physical reality.


dolphin37 t1_jc6wtqo wrote

I think the confusion is that you referred to wave function collapse, which is essentially the scientific term for our singular universe being all there is after said collapse being triggered by measurement. In MWI the collapse doesn’t happen, so you’re not observing that, you’re observing one of the probabilities of the universal wave function. I think that’s really what you meant but the terms weren’t quite right.

I also am unsure with if the person who responded to you is right anyway. My understanding of MWI is not that all universes already exist. The process is literally called branching. To say that we’re branching on existing paths, to me, means that we would need to assume free will and entropy are not ‘real’, otherwise at a particular entropic point, some universes only exist mathematically, which is not the point of MWI. Would be interested in having that one explained.


dolphin37 t1_jc6pse4 wrote

Yeah haha must admit I’m struggling with the over analysis here. I guess people are just excited to talk about multiple universes or something, which is fair enough.

The story seems like quite a straight forward love vs expectation one. Be thankful for what you have, not what you could or should have.

The science works enough to facilitate the plot if you don’t poke it too hard and that’s all you can ask for. Beyond that it’s just an incredibly stylistic, heartfelt movie.


dolphin37 t1_jc6ceyn wrote

Your comment seems kinda off. MWI isn’t a philosophical commentary. It’s a proposed solution to an empirical issue with quantum mechanics. It’s an interpretation of results we see in experiments. It’s entirely logical, not nonsense at all.

‘Any wave function collapse interpretation quickly becomes philosophical’ - one of the absolutely key tenets of MWI is that the wave function doesn’t collapse. Feels like you’re speaking about something you’ve not quite understood.

Not really understanding what you’re trying to say about subjective awareness or what you’re proposing that is tbh.


dolphin37 t1_jae4cyc wrote

Because GoT had all kinds of drama, shocking moments, can you believe what happened type stuff. It’s also not high fantasy but w/e

This is LoTR we are talking about. The most well known fantasy of all time, that birthed the most commonly used tropes in fantasy. Black and white, good and evil fantasy. What is there to talk about? Oh did you see how cool the elves looked? The only conversation points were who was X character really because the show runners set up an awful mystery box format. It was actually the worst aspect of the show and the only people who gave a shit were people knees deep in the lore anyway, who don’t spend a lot of time around water coolers.

A couple of my friends and I are big LoTR fanboys and we had barely anything to talk about other than ‘is this show good?’. It’s an ok show but you watch it to be immersed not to make conversation