Sorry it's science. But it might be important.

Although I do like the multiverse theory, I have a few problems with it.

I think we are still missing something fundamental and yet unseen.

So do we define "observed" as only through experimentation? OR/Then is this only for human's observations? Then does this include other beings; wildlife, or Amoebas, possible aliens?

I just cant see that each and every observation can/does create another universe, the cumulative numbers would just break even most of the capabilities of even counting them.

Do not try and observe the electron. ... Instead... only try to realize the truth.


There is no electron.

a reply to: droid56

If you could see an electron with the naked eye, that would not be the case at all.

The reason that their behaviour changes, is to do with the method by which they are observed, not because they are reacting consciously to whether or not they are being watched, like a sneaky bug or rodent!

These aren't my words, but I thought you might find the article they are taken from an interesting read:

"Each generation of humans has a new technological discovery, gets completely fascinated by this discovery, and then tries to interpret the world in terms of this discovery. We have computers that are remarkably advanced. My little iPhone can perform so well and do so many things in spite of being a little piece of plastic and metal. But to then think of these technological inventions and go Ah! This is how the universe must be! No. There’s nothing about the simulation idea that helps me to understand the world or myself any better."

originally posted by: droid56


So there must be something else participating in this process.

Yes. the pilot-wave model explains this.
It's also called the de Broglie–Bohm theory.

I'm sure you've seen the 'sentient being' theory.
I believe it has something to do with the possibility that we are living in simulation.

They know when we're whatching - if they didn't change state during observation I fear it might break the matrix

a reply to: droid56

But what if Schroedinger told you that he knew what was going on?

I agree with your point, though, and I note it quite often when people have stances "based on science" and regurgitate the stance with such absolution. I keep reminding them that what we "know" changes every year, and sometimes daily, and to tread lightly on that which they embrace religiously.

originally posted by: droid56
Here's my point.
Maybe electrons only behave as particles because we live in an incredibly sophisticated digital simulation.

If you allow the possibility of every quantum pixel being able to interact with any other quantum pixel then I agree with your idea. We have to add entanglement into the equation.

It's a big mystery. Anybody who says they are sure what's going on is probably not telling the truth.

I am so tired of this cop out that quantum scientist use to excuse being wrong again and again.