It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Might be fun to think about until your brain breaks but it's ultimately kind of a pointless question. As it probably can't be proved or disproved without entering another reality. And if you could/did, would you even know it?
Uncertainty Principle points to Parallel Realities
there can be infinite information even when the outcomes are restrained because of the lack of knowledge as to what outcomes will occur
originally posted by: neoholographic
I agree with Hawking's final paper. An infinity of outcomes makes no sense. Most universes is just like ours with the same FINE TUNED laws of physics or similar to ours and because of uncertainty you can have different universes ad infinitum with a finite set of outcomes...
Uncertainty tells us that there can be infinite information even when the outcomes are restrained because of the lack of knowledge as to what outcomes will occur.
originally posted by: micpsi
To a materialist like Hawking, who did not see the need for a designing God because - to his limited understanding - the laws of physics were all-sufficient as a complete explanation, the question must be directed: how can we ever be sure that scientific explanations are complete. This is merely an act of ideological faith commonly known as "scientism", made because it is really an unprovable hypthesis, although usually presented as though it was a fact that science has proven.
The concept of parallel universes postulated by Everitt as a solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is being confused with the multiverse theory, according to which cosmological inflation continuously take place, with the visible universe becoming just one of many with different laws of physics created by different, randomly distributed phases of the inflaton field that caused the inflation. Uncertainty per se does not point towards parallel universes, for this is only one of many theories that have been proposed to explain the existence of the Uncertainty Principle. Only if you believe this theory is the right one can you justify such a statement. But the experimental evidence does not support such dogmatism. Hawking tried to turn Intelligent Design suggested by the fine-tuning of cosmological constants into a redundant hypothesis by arguing that many of the Big Bangs generating universes in a multiverse scenario would create ones with the same laws of physics. He never proved this rigorously - it was just an assumption passed off as true which he needed to trivialise the fine-tuning problem, whose solution seemed to require a designing God.
Einstein wanted to know if the God he believed in had any choice in designing the universe that we observe. He refused to believe that our universe came about as the result of chance. Mystical traditions tell us that God had no choice because "God wished to behold God" and only one universe would allow that because there is only one God. Physicists today point out that Einstein was wrong in his belief that God did not play dice with the world (nor with the type of universe He made). Einstein would reply that quantum uncertainty does not discredit the idea that God designed the universe in a unique way. All you need to do is to update Einstein's preference for a universe ruled by classical physics to one ruled by the Uncertainty Principle. To extrapolate from quantum indeterminism on the level of subatomic particles to the notion of an infinite number of universes is a total non sequitur. Whether they turn out be be mostly fine-tuned for human life to appear is beside the point. God is still comfortable with a quantum universe because He has designed quantum laws to generate at least ONE universe that leads to self-conscious observers like humans - and that is all He needs for His Creation to return to Him. Quantum uncertainty does not bother God in the least.
The same applies to black holes and the event horizon. As matter falls in, information is not destroyed, but instead recorded and preserved in less dimensions, on the event horizon.
originally posted by: rollanotherone
Thanks for this. Makes me rethink my idea of the universe.
"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," Hawking has previously said. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."
originally posted by: neoholographic
This is because information is infinite because of uncertainty.
When you hold a quarter in your hand, you're holding an infinity of information. You could flip that coin ad infinitum and you would always gain new information because you don't know if it will be heads or tails.
This uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the universe according to Quantum Mechanics. So just like you don't know if you will get a heads or tails when you flip a coin, you don't know if you will get spin or or spin down or a 1 or 0 until a measurement occurs.