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.
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid.
If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
Many-worlds is a re-formulation of quantum theory , published in 1957 by Dr Hugh Everett III , which treats the process of observation or measurement entirely within the wave-mechanics of quantum theory, rather than an input as additional assumption, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett considered the wavefunction a real object.
Many-worlds is a return to the classical, pre-quantum view of the universe in which all the mathematical entities of a physical theory are real. For example the electromagnetic fields of James Clark Maxwell or the atoms of Dalton were considered as real objects in classical physics. Everett treats the wavefunction in a similar fashion. Everett also assumed that the wavefunction obeyed the same wave equation during observation or measurement as at all other times. This is the central assumption of many-worlds: that the wave equation is obeyed universally and at all times.
Everett discovered that the new, simpler theory - which he named the "relative state" formulation - predicts that interactions between two (or more) macrosystems typically split the joint system into a superposition of products of relative states. The states of the macrosystems are, after the subsystems have jointly interacted, henceforth correlated with, or dependent upon, each other. Each element of the superposition - each a product of subsystem states - evolves independently of the other elements in the superposition.
The states of the macrosystems are, by becoming correlated or entangled with each other, impossible to understand in isolation from each other and must be viewed as one composite system. It is no longer possible to speak the state of one (sub)system in isolation from the other (sub)systems. Instead we are forced to deal with the states of subsystems relative to each other. Specifying the state of one subsystem leads to a unique specification of the state (the "relative state") of the other subsystems.
Originally posted by colloredbrothers
Why does everything have to be fiction? I don't understand what you are trying to say. In a parallel universe everything has a probebility of happening and nothing is impossible. So everything that can happen happens in one of the parallel universes.
Originally posted by Jedi411
There would have to be an infinite number of universes. All of which contain the same people, places and things that this universe contains.
Originally posted by darkelf
I had a dream once where I was trying to make a similar case. In it, I argued that every work of fiction happened on some other world/ reality and that the author of the work actually saw that work through a thinning of reality. I have strange dreams sometimes.
n the one hundred years since the beginning of the science of the unconscious in Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, there is very little that has changed in that science. It was Freud’s dream that this new science, which he called psychoanalysis, would someday take its place among the other sciences, with which it could be freely integrated.
The problem that has frustrated attempts to integrate psychoanalysis with the rest of science is this fundamental principle of mind: Unconscious events are not observable. And what kind of scientific principle is this, that there are certain events that cannot be observed?
There is only one such principle in all of science, and that is the principle of the quantum wavefunction. The quantum wavefunction cannot be observed, it can only be inferred from observable data. The quantum wavefunction cannot be observed because it is a superposition of possibilities. Only one possibility out of all the possibilities of the wavefunction can be observed.
If we observe the same wavefunction over and over again, we will eventually sample the full range of possibilities, and be able to determine the frequency of occurrence of each one. In this way, we can infer the wavefunction, y , from the observable data. Everything that we observe arises out of the possibilities of the quantum wavefunction of the universe.
The process of consciousness arising out of the unconscious is the very same process as the process of observation of the wavefunction. This leads to the inescapable conclusions that the unconscious is the wavefunction, and that consciousness is what we call reality. But the events of the unconscious are no less real than the events of consciousness. The possibilities of the wavefunction are real.
Originally posted by dangerish
but at the end of the day, we still end up in boring ol reality...sux don't it
Originally posted by dangerish
Validation I guess. I mean I am talking to you right?...We both can see this...I decided to talk to you. I'm not not talking to you right?...this is proof of reality. But I can't buy into it because I did decide to talk to you...I had a choice to respond or not and I did. Now you can go on about "...but what if you didn't" and i understand that there was an oppurtunity for me to not respond, but the fact that I did is right here. I made the decision to type this very sentence. Sorry buddy but It's right here... no blur of me typing/not typing. I am typing. There is nothing else but that. And you can't prove otherwise. We are given the free will to make choices. I can imagine what would happen if I had picked the right lottery numbers but here I sit pennyless. It's fun to pretend though isn't it.
Originally posted by dangerish
Belief in multi-verse and a God that judges you on your actions kinda clash. But if you can get some video of me not typing this in a parallel universe...my hat would be off.