A Blog of the Ridiculous and Sublime, by Mark Sackler
“Everyone should have their mind blown at least once a day.”–Neil deGrasse Tyson
Kaboom!
I have to say this. Neil deGrasse Tyson is my hero. He is voice of reason in a world of un-reason–full of people whose minds should not be blown. They should be blown up. Oh, did i say: NDT is my hero?
“The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump”–London mayor Boris Johnson
.
Don’t worry, Boris. You can always come to New York while he’s off making an ass of himself at the Iowa caucuses next month. I can’t say the same for the risk of running into Donald Duck at Disneyworld.
“Of all the Charlie Browns in the world, you’re the Charlie Brownest!”–Linus Van Pelt
Good ol’ Charlie Brown turns 65 today. And good grief, so do I! Yep, October 2, 1950 brought the world the first daily Peanuts comic strip. And–love me or leave me–it brought me, too. I may talk about sharing a birthday with Gandhi and Groucho, but Charlie is my true kindred spirit. I wonder if he has a Medicare card…
“The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you’re still a rat!”–Lily Tomlin
Per Albert Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus, it would appear that the best strategy for combating the stated dilemma is to simply keep running the race or navigating the maze, lest one stops and realizes how absurd it all is. I’ll keep at it, if only because I need the cheese.
“Let your soul stand cool and composed before a million universes.”–Walt Whitman
“I believe we exist in a multiverse of universes.”–Michio Kaku
Note: at this point I am assuming anyone reading this has some handle on what Quantum Weirdness is, as well as the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations thereof. If you do not, go back and read the previous installments in this thread.
Much of this Quantum Weirdness Primer thread , and it’s bigger sibling The Millennium Conjectures, has dealt with the two most popular interpretations of so-called quantum weirdness: The Copenhagen interpretation and The Many Worlds interpretation.** It should be noted that there are several other interpretations, but these two have garnered probably the most support among theoretical physicists. I have joked that I personally am in an appropriate super-position on this question, simultaneously believing in both. But like the wave function of a sub-atomic particle, my uncertainty has now collapsed into favoring a single interpretation that is not exactly either one.
This interpretation is called Many Interacting Worlds. It professes a multiverse of interacting universes–which differs from the Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation in a very vital way. Everett postulated that at each quantum “dice roll” the universe would split into alternate universes for each outcome. These universes are forever separated and cannot communicate with or influence each other. Many Interacting Worlds states that there are a multitude of pre-existing nearby universes that interfere with each other on the quantum level, giving rise to the apparent weirdness.
From the standpoint of Schroedinger’s cat, we can look at it this way. The Copenhagen Interpretation, views the cat as in a superposition of states, simultaneously alive and dead until an intelligent observer looks in the box. The Many Worlds interpretation views the universe as splitting into two otherwise equal copies, one in which the cat is dead and one in which the cat is alive. Each observer finds out which one he is in when he looks in the box. The Many Interacting Worlds interpretation effectively says that there are a multitude of nearly-identical universes that interfere with each other creating the quantum weirdness effects, ultimately determining whether the cat is alive or dead from your observation point. Identical observers in parallel universes may see a different outcome. The key difference is that the parallel universe in Many Interacting Worlds are not created at each quantum junction point–they already exist and interfere with each other giving rise to the phenomena of quantum weirdness.
Confused? Well, as Feynman said, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” But here is an article describing the Many Interacting Worlds interpretation and its proponents claim that it may be testable.
**In his recent book, Our Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark says “parallel universes are not a theory, but a prediction of certain theories.” Specifically, there are two: Eternal Inflation, which suggests what Tegmark defines as Level 1 and Level 2 multiverses, and Quantum Mechanics, which gives rise to his Level 3 and Level 4 multiverses. A detailed description of these multiverses is available on Tegmark’s web site.
Who do you look up to?
My list of most admired individuals is made up mostly of scientists. OK, Groucho and Gandhi are on that list, but so are Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, David Deutsch, Albert Einstein, etc., etc., etc. Which scientists do you most admire?
“I’m not afraid of death. I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”–Woody Allen
Warning: Professional stunt blogger. Closed course. Do not attempt at home.
To recap where we left off in our last episode, the first part of Conjecture #5 suggested that, in a universe where the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics holds sway, each conscious entity represents its own distinct universe. I called this Quantum Solipsism. This differs somewhat from Conjecture #4, which suggested that in a universe governed, at least philosophically, by the Copenhagen interpretation, our consciousness represents a composite of all the potential, but not real, universes. This brings us to part two of Conjecture #5.
Bold notions can sometimes breed extreme potential consequences. When Hugh Everett posited the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum weirdness in 1954, he didn’t just espouse it, he lived it. He believed that in a world where every sub-atomic event splits off into a real alternate universe for every possible quantum outcome, that one’s own consciousness would always survive in some of them. Quantum Immortality. So he ate, drank and smoked himself to an early death–at least in the universe of everyone reading this post–by the age of 51. His son expressed anger over his father’s failure to take care of himself. His wife initially did not comply with his wishes to have his ashes disposed of in the trash, though eventually she did. You think his views are extreme? Or did he live on forever in a never ending series of alternate universes? Consider this: the quantum view of the second law of thermodynamics is purely a statistical one. The reason all the air molecules in a room never seem to migrate to one corner is purely a matter of probability. There are staggering orders of magnitude more ways for them to be relatively evenly distributed. But if every possible combination of such molecules actually exists as a real entity, then somewhere there is a universe where you suffocated last night because the air molecules in your bedroom did exactly that while you slept. And somewhere, there is a universe where Hugh Everett’s ashes reassembled themselves and he woke up in a dumpster.
This brings us to the ultimate in extreme ideas. Quantum Suicide. Originally conceived by Hans Morovec in 1987 and further developed by Max Tegmark, it is a thought experiment designed to prove once and for all if the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct. If you recall from my Quantum Weirdness 101-107 series, the Copenhagen interpretation sees the cat as neither dead, nor alive, until an intelligent observer intervenes. The Many Worlds interpretation, sees the the creation of two separate universes, one each for a dead cat and a live cat, and the observer only finds out which one he is in when he looks in the box. The quantum suicide gun re-creates the Schrodinger’s Cat experiment from the point of view of the cat. Theoretically, it could prove the many world’s interpretation, though there are a couple of hitches. If Many Worlds holds true, the subject would be the only one it would be proved to; if it does not hold true, the subject would be dead, period. See the video below for a complete explanation, and as stated in the warning above, do not attempt this at home. I sure won’t. On the other hand, I can think of a few people I wish would try it…
(Video Credit: AliceandBobTV)
Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game. No, that is not Sherlock Holmes.
Allow me for one second to depart from my usual flippancy and be serious for a minute. The Imitation Game, starring Benecdict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, is one of the most important movies I have ever seen. If you are a regular reader of this blog, there is a good chance you know who Turing is, or at least have heard the name. Whether you do, or do not, you should see this movie. It will leave you with an indelible impression of Turing’s profound contribution to the world we live in today. I know it did me.
Note: It has been so long since I published part I of this conjecture, I feel the need to refresh my memory–let alone yours–before completing it with part II. You can catch up on all my cockamamie speculations by clicking on the “Millenmium Conjectures” category link to the right.
I’m pretty sure I do exist most of the time–with the possible exception of some Monday mornings. Exist Tee-shirts. http://www.zazzle.com/exist+tshirts
I once overheard a friend explaining the multitude of religious beliefs to her young daughter in following manner.
She said, “everyone believes something different, and everyone is right!”
Really? This seems to be the ultimate illogical statement in the illogical realm of religious beliefs. If everybody believes something different, it seems to me infinitely more likely that everyone is wrong. I won’t get into the implications for religious beliefs in this conjecture, mainly because I don’t care. Suffice to say that stretched to an outre extreme, this conjecture does suggest a manner in which everyone could be right. It’s always fascinated me how different individuals could be so certain of world views that are so diametrically opposed. Of course, one can tie that to cultural and cognitive differences resulting in seemingly different worlds. But then maybe we’re all just be living in our own distinct quantum universes.
At any rate, if Conjecture #4 was a possible ontological extension of The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum weirdness, the current conjecture–#5–clearly emanates from The Many Worlds Theory.
Let’s be clear on one thing. In my own head, I’m sitting on the fence between Copenhagen and Many Worlds…a kind of quantum superposition, simultaneously believing both. But let’s get to the heart of the matter before I get too far ahead of myself.
What, exactly, is solipsism? The brief dictionary description is simple enough: it’s the notion that only the self exists, or can be proven to exist. Taken to the limit, it can result in a second definition: extreme self-absorption and egoism.
I don’t buy this and am not suggesting it. While I’m not 100% certain of anything, external or internal, I still believe that you exist and our interactions do influence each other. We may be in separate parallel universes, but these planes of existence overlap, in much the same way that these universes interfere with each each other on the quantum level. (It’s worth noting that the conjecture wording says “distinct different” universe and not “distinctly separate.”) But the fact remains: if The Many Worlds theory holds true the notion of quantum solipsism in some form must be taken seriously. It’s as if our observations roll the quantum dice and influence which course through the multiverse each individual consciousness takes. This notion will be the subject of conjecture #6, though at the rate I am going, this may take place a long, long time from now in a galaxy far, far away. For more on solipsism including more detailed and nuanced description of it, and its various sub-categories, go here.
In the second part of this conjecture, I’ll deal with two very disturbing and controversial extensions of a “strong” quantum solipsism world view. Quantum suicide and quantum immortality. You’ll need to hold on to your metaphysical hats for this one.
And if you don’t get any of this, don’t worry. I’m just impressed that I used “ontological” in a sentence.
Cheers,
It’s October again. Sadly, I have nothing to add to the tribute of a month that is simultaneously my most favorite and most un-favorite of seasons. I present, therefore, a rerun form two years ago while I contemplate creating some new content.
“Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower”–Albert Camus
Lest the general levity of this blog give you a false impression of my worldview, let me state that sometimes life sucks. For the most part, I use humor and satire as a defense and an escape, a diversion if you will. This has been an incredibly bittersweet week; I have never experienced anything remotely like it. My last post was Freshly Pressed–perhaps the ultimate honor for a WordPress blogger. Yet while this was going on, three people I know died. They were an 82-year-old uncle whose death had been anticipated, a 58-year-old work colleague whose demise was an unexpected shock, and most tragically, the 29-year-old son of one of my poker buddies whose death from illness had been feared for some time.
If you will permit me then, a tribute to these lost souls with the only piece of poetry I ever wrote which I would deem publishable. It’s well over 35-years old–the sort of thing one could only write in one’s youth.
Words ©1976, 2012 Mark Sackler
I'm not the most interesting man in the world, but I might have the most cluttered mind.
The Millennium Conjectures™ 