It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: LucidWarrior
The information was always there, it was simply in a different state.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic
Hmmm. I don't know. Sean Carroll and others have a different opinion. Certainly worth discussing though, although I don't buy in to the All Powerful Being argument. I think it's important to understand the other side as well.
The basic silly objection is that EQM postulates too many universes. In quantum mechanics, we can’t deterministically predict the outcomes of measurements. In EQM, that is dealt with by saying that every measurement outcome “happens,” but each in a different “universe” or “world.” Say we think of Schrödinger’s Cat: a sealed box inside of which we have a cat in a quantum superposition of “awake” and “asleep.” (No reason to kill the cat unnecessarily.) Textbook quantum mechanics says that opening the box and observing the cat “collapses the wave function” into one of two possible measurement outcomes, awake or asleep. Everett, by contrast, says that the universe splits in two: in one the cat is awake, and in the other the cat is asleep. Once split, the universes go their own ways, never to interact with each other again.
www.preposterousuniverse.com...
The basic silly objection is that EQM postulates too many universes. In quantum mechanics, we can’t deterministically predict the outcomes of measurements. In EQM, that is dealt with by saying that every measurement outcome “happens,” but each in a different “universe” or “world.” Say we think of Schrödinger’s Cat: a sealed box inside of which we have a cat in a quantum superposition of “awake” and “asleep.” (No reason to kill the cat unnecessarily.) Textbook quantum mechanics says that opening the box and observing the cat “collapses the wave function” into one of two possible measurement outcomes, awake or asleep. Everett, by contrast, says that the universe splits in two: in one the cat is awake, and in the other the cat is asleep. Once split, the universes go their own ways, never to interact with each other again.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Bleeeeep
Words are not the reality they represent. If our wills come from the same place then you would have known that. The reality out there is very different from the reality we imagine as real.
The simulation hypothesis is fascinating but extremely difficult to absorb, for me anyway. Too many questions and not enough answers!
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I see your point. However, your original post suggested that this information points to a single entity as the creator. I don't see why spin up/spin down suggests that. Doesn't it come down to probability? Of course, if the universe is a simulation, which is the latest hypothesis, then that would necessitate a creator or programmer running the whole thing. Spin up/spin down is like a die with only two possible positions - wouldn't they be equally probable? So if everything were probabilistic, there would be no need for a programmer or a creator defining the terms and conditions as to how the universe functions.
It's an interesting subject - there's so many papers and ideas in the literature it's hard to keep track. And each one takes a lot of time to absorb and understand. The simulation hypothesis is fascinating but extremely difficult to absorb, for me anyway. Too many questions and not enough answers!
It has to be populated with Parallel Universes because of Superposition.
John 14:
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
So there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE when people try to claim ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes. They say this because there's no way to explain the universe based on what we know without saying a MIND designed it. You have to go outside of Science and say ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes. That can be anything and include things we don't have a shred of evidence to support.
Essentially what you're saying is that when the coin is flipped, the decision is made and that's the universe you are destined to live in. We create our own reality. But that also rules out probability because the decisions were made BEFORE the actual fact. That could be the case in a simulated universe. But what about an evolving universe where change, which can't be predicted, is actually the driving force? For anyone living in that universe, the future would always be probabilistic.