Estimate of Number of Universes

I liked your rant, Iq!
The totality of multiple realities would exist not as twigs on a tree, but as perceived domains on a GRADIENT of possible univeres, which are delineated not in any sort of objective sense, but by the PERCEPTIONS of the OBSERVER.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I see it the same way, and the way I described it is that the number of "worlds" in the MWI is limited (and therefore defined) by the number of conscious observers. Because ONLY a conscious observer can: Observe, Decide, React, Repeat.

It is a self-reinforcing feedback loop of perception and creation. But there is no tree, no true parallelism, only ONE THING, containing ALL THINGS.
Click to expand...
Standing ovation from RMT! At least SOMEONE truly understands the importance of feedback systems, not only to our local universe, but for the potential of ANY "real" universe.

Well done,
RMT
 
If this does, as I'm guessing, refer to the number of parallel realities indicated by many worlds interpretation, this number is absurdly low.
Click to expand...
Do you have a number and it's deriative you can share?
 
I liked the rant as well! (though I don't have the extensive vocabulary..or spelling skills
I think I got the point of it)

anything that can be found out about anything we think exists
is only what we think it is based on our own thoughts
there is no way to prove anything outside of conscienceness
and infact...there would never be a reason to

we only think in our own relativity...of course....it does not have to be absolute
and basicly, never can be absolute
like things that exist to us may not exist at all or vise versa
even existance..is just relative to all that exists in our perception of course
everything that does not exist, exists because we can percieve that it could exist
or could not exist, and the reason it does not exist is directly related to everything that
does exist and their reasons for existance....to us

and there is probably no way to ever tell the difference, in any form
it's possible that no other being in our percieved existance even cares
or even "truley" exists....whatever that may mean

all the theories about everything comes down to nothing basicly, we say it gives us
understanding...too many people think it's absolute knowledge and put way too much stock into
it......I think we're all way too bored

whatever that has to do with anything.......I don't know
but it's just as important as anything else anyone can say
especially since it's just a completely unimportant rant
 
I'm starting to believe that universes can only split off into two directions, becoming two seperates, only when impacted by something from an event that has not yet occurred. Particles from the future bombarding particles in the past- causing chaos. If this weren't so, how can we say that a universe exists for every possibility? What would have changed the original situation to cause it to split off into another direction? Nothing would have. There has to be influence.

For every interaction with future particles, a universe would have to exist where that interaction never took place. I would have to estimate that the number of multiple-universes is infinite, as the cascading of interactions would be eternal.

BTW- what do I mean by "future particles"? I believe that anything traveling faster than the speed of light arrives at its destination before it left its original position. Any particles doing so, even in nature, would be unidentifiable from our perspective.
 
I can easily tell I'm far LESS educated than most of you here

I just wonder something about that "split off in 2 directions"
or split in any direction for that matter, that would mean that at a specific
point in time they were on the same line, as a visual refernce, and the moment prior
to that, and it's "branch" were on the same "line", that would "look" like exponential
growth rate of alternate realities right?
so at some point there could have possibly been the first "option"?
and to me that doesn't sound believable....unless there is evidence there,
if something splits there should be evidence...or I guess maybe there doesn't have
to be...that's where my no-education comes in, otherwise, all the other realities
would have to be acting simultaniously alreading knowing the future options of everything and
just "going" in a sense, but then that would mean that any other reality with any slightest
difference to our reality, you could say it's expressing a single difference, one option
played out, because there is no way to play out all opposite options at the same time is
there?
I'm probably not making any sense...lol
oh well
 
I also ponder the nature of these "splits." In a sense, the entire universe would have to be duplicated for this to be possible. That would mean that an interaction in one small sector of the universe would instantly communicate with the entire universe for the split to occur. Are multiple universes actually existing within the same universe? I would think so. Localized relatively small and splitting only as communication occurs.

Example:

Someone from the future comes back and gives person A data. Person B would never 'split,' because of the new data, until an interaction with person A, or a change caused by person A's knowledge of this data, takes place. If a change by person A, after having received the new data, never intercepts person B, person B will remain in the original universe. Correct?
 
this is what I DON'T like about john titor, he conviently predicts that the theories behind quantum mechanics are proven and can be used to travel through worlds, and time for that matter and because of this it's convenient that it doesn't matter if he disrupts the future, because it won't be the same again. so what's the point of doing anything, you could assume that in another reality you already did what you needed to do without leaving the one you're in, unless the one you're in is the one that you did what you needed to do...?? which it would be I suppose....since you loose the awareness from the other realities and only retain one conscienceness out of the millions you could possibly have. like the amazon river, it flows out into many branches but there is a main stream that "retains" the name "amazon."because you recall all your past "threads" they seem to have a link to this on alone, when infact all other realities close to the point of the most recent split have the same "background" but yet we are left here with this one consciencness, unaware of all the other realities, it's hard to grasp the concept sometimes.....and I thought I saw that he couldn't return to his old world exactly as he left it, so he would be in a reality that was irrelivent to the reasons he left the original world, what if he returned to the same problem, the only difference was they used Linux instead of Unix, I think it's rediculous.

where am I going? I don't know heh
this is probably why I kill the threads all the time.....
 
There is another one of the few sensible posters here (I think it was Jaxson) who discussed a more reasonable approach to whether/how universes "split". It is certainly more practical and scientific than Hercules' lame attempts to convince us that there is a scientific basis for INFINITE worldlines! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jaxson could describe it better than I, but to lay out my understanding of it, it amounted to some level of temporal "inertia" that must be overcome by events in order for them to "split" to another universe. Those differences between universes/worldlines that do not exceed the required "temporal intertia" will simply be absorbed by the current universe and no split occurs, and virtually no one is the wiser. For example, I could postulate that in this universe/worldline I sneeze at my desk during lunchtime, yet in some other universe/wordline I do not sneeze. Such a minor event would not have sufficient "temporal inertia" to cause drastic changes between the worldlines, and thus they would never split. In essence, they could still be the same worldline, with NO divergence between them. OTOH, if there is something that disrupts a great deal of "matter in motion" in one worldline and not another (such as a tragedy of the scale of Katrina), then such a difference of events would exceed the required "temporal inertia" to cause a split into two different worldlines.

Given that we see similarity in so many things in our physical universe, I think it is certainly reasonable to assume that if mass possesses inertia, that time can possess a similar concept as well.

RMT
 
thank you for your post RainmanTime

in reply to MEM.....probably nothing
I just click the nearest reply link, usually not paying attention to who it replies to
it probably has nothing to do with any of the posts for that matter.
again I will reinforce I have no education in these matters, just ideas I guess, I post things to get responses like RainmanTime's and 1122, I like what they have to say on the subjects, sounds at least like educated theories, one's I haven't touched on much. mainly again, due to lack of education on the subject, which, again, is probably a direct influence on how I kill threads.....

my appologies
 
Such a minor event would not have sufficient "temporal inertia" to cause drastic changes between the worldlines, and thus they would never split. In essence, they could still be the same worldline, with NO divergence between them.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But what you describe is contrary to current thinking in the physics community on how decoherence functions. By physics community I mean people who have the education, experience, and work at this stuff for a living to make informed theories about how this works.
 
Back
Top