Multiverse News

Pop culture really pushing multiverse

Spread the love

From New Scientist:

Every time you make a choice, you spawn a multitude of universes, leading to umpteen other yous – some of them living very different lives. This raises a myriad of moral conundrums, from what we owe our other selves to the death of hope.

Yes, an astounding claim is stated as a simple fact, not subject to question. But then the typical New Scientist reader probably wouldn’t think of questioning it anyway. It’s just so hot, so cool, so now, so me, so you, so whatever.

Now here is an interesting admission:

If the multiverse is real, on the other hand, there always will be a universe in which “you” are alive, no matter how long you play. What’s more, you might always end up in it, thanks to the exalted status of the “observer” in quantum mechanics. You would just hear a series of clicks as the gun failed to fire every time – and realise you’re immortal. But be warned: even if you can get hold of a quantum gun, physicists have long argued about how this most decisive of experiments would actually work out.

So, in short, the multiverse is an end times for nihilits where anything, everything, and nothing all really happens or doesn’t.

For a quick primer on the new pop multiverse, see The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Also: If you ever doubted that popular culture loves the multiverse … So we need to believe in a multiverse just to consider the possible effects of our actions?

The main thing to see here is that the only plausible evidence basis that could create a basis for a faint hope for a multiverse just got discredited. (Planck satellite data says that big BICEP2 cosmic inflation multiverse was just dust.)

So now the hype is all about how believing in a multiverse is somehow an advantage.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Pop culture really pushing multiverse

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

    Is Shor’s algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation?
    Excerpt: David Deutsch is very fond of pointing out Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation. As he often asked, where else did all the exponentially many combinations happen?
    Are there any other alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which can explain Shor’s algorithm, and the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon’s algorithm?
    ,,, this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe – our Universe – is a quantum system, not a classical system. So it is normal for quantum systems in a single Universe to behave just like the quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm. On the contrary, if we only use the classical computers, we exponentially slow down the computer relatively to what it could do. In this sense, Deutsch’s “argument” shows that the many-worlds interpretation is just another psychological aid for the people who can’t resist to incorrectly think about our world as being a classical world of a sort.,,,
    There is one more lethal conceptual problem with the “many worlds” explanation of the Shor’s algorithm’s speed: the whole quantum computer’s calculation has to proceed in a completely coherent way and you’re not allowed to imagine that the world splits into “many worlds” as long as things are coherent i.e. before the qubits are measured. Only when the measurement is completed – e.g. at the end of the Shor’s algorithm calculation – you’re allowed to imagine that the worlds split. But it’s too late because by that moment, the whole calculation has already been done in a single (quantum) world, without any help from the parallel worlds.
    (Many more excellent answers are on the site)
    http://physics.stackexchange.c.....rpretation

  2. 2
    awstar says:

    What’s more, you might always end up in it, thanks to the exalted status of the “observer” in quantum mechanics. You would just hear a series of clicks as the gun failed to fire every time – and realise you’re immortal.

    Wasn’t this the premise of the movie “Groundhog Day?” Does he reference the movie in his peer reviewed paper?

Leave a Reply