I'll be happy to accept this as true once I see some the slightest shred of evidence. If of these "zero worlds" proponents could jump out of a window and decide not to fall, or stand in front of a moving bus and decide not to be hit by it using only the power of their mind that would be pretty compelling.
Only to themselves though. From the perspective of your own mind (alternative QM translation: over all possible universes which you are likely to survive as an observer of), you're overwhelmingly likely to see them splattered on the pavement in more fragments than a Windows XP hard drive partition.
Very good point!
There is no objective proof that the person who attempted to stop the bus with the power of his mind and the person who got splattered on the pavement is the same "observer" (even though we perceive them both as the same human body). So maybe he actually succeeded and is alive somewhere, but we forked into a possible universe and observed a version of that experiment where he failed because this is what our beliefs suggest should happen.
So the real experiment turns from "can this ever happen?" to "can somebody change my beliefs so that I can observe it?" and it is more up to you than the person conducting the experiment. What we see is only there for us to see.
I found it very boring and the whole movie stuck at 13th floor.Time stops.How its on the topic ?
Well It's a matter of taste. I personally liked it.
it's on topic because the video in the OP mentions one of the interpretations to be a simulation on a quantum computer (when stretching the analogy to a breaking point) and that's what the whole movie is about.
One word:
Simulation argument.
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
In my admittedly limited understanding, I would guess that Quantum Mechanics ties in well will the simulation argument:
Wave function collapse?
⇒ Game engine rendering at work.
Schrödinger's cat?
⇒ Lazy evaluation.
Quantum entanglement?
⇒ Pointers to the same object in the machine's memory.
I like this idea a lot, but it seems that consciousness playing the game would still be a singularity and can transcend any such system. So in that sense the simulation would still be an illusion and not the thing onto itself and that's what the movie demonstrated very well.
One word:
Simulation argument.
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
We know that the most efficient possible computer could not count to 2^256 even if it could use 100% of the sun's output with perfect efficiency.
Has anyone ever calculated how much energy would be needed to simulate a universe to see if it's even remotely credible?
Well obviously the computer needed to simulate physical reality would need to be built from something other than matter and operate in something other than space
Also we shouldn't extrapolate our experience of starving for energy based on our little knowledge of where we are and how things work to the conclusion that energy is somehow not abundant.
It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable. Well, it was just about time... Author leaves us with two options: multiple worlds model (read parallel realities, which is mathematically valid) and his own interpretation called zero worlds model, which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts. He didn't say where those thoughts come from though, but that would probably be outside of the scope of his presentation.
So the bottom line is - be careful with what you read and who you trust in mainstream science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfcEnjoy!
There's no conspiracy going on here, just a lot of richness you seem to be failing to appreciate. Here's a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherenceI should add: most adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation tack on decoherence to explain the appearance of wavefunction collapse. Also, there are more interpretations than just many worlds and the author's mystical nonsense. Check out consistent histories, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_historiesThanks, I will look into that.
From the presentation in the OP author suggests that "measurement" and "entanglement" are mathematically the same process. So we can only measure something by becoming entangled with the system we are measuring and that makes our state (what ever we are) part of the overall equation and therefore affects the outcome of the measurement (only for us). Also in the same sense as we measure the system the system is measuring us, since entanglement is a symmetric state. So in an attempt to find greater degree of unification one can assume that if we are conscious and our relationship with the system is symmetric then the rest of system is made of consciousness as well (it wasn't mentioned in the video but is an extrapolation on my part)
As I understand decoherence model still doesn't give a complete solution of the measurement problem and requires extra layers of interpretation as opposed to many-worlds theory, which seems to be gaining some experimental evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMoyu3K0wtYHow is "consistent histories" different from "multiple worlds" interpretation in brief?
They both seem to avoid the term "wave-function collapse" which was artificial to begin with, but the former still suggests that "classical measurements" are irreversible macroscopic phenomena while the mathematics presented in the video in OP says that everything is reversible.
They lose me when physicists start talking about the mind. There needs to be more science done. There is plenty of cake. Personally, I think that the Big Bang theory is too assumptive, String Theory is too derivative, and Brane Theory is pure conjecture. More raw data is needed to analyze. We need a moon based radio telescope array and then probably one much larger. We need to look for self similar patterns on a cosmological scale. It will require a lot of computing power to analyze 3-dimensional data sets. I think we'll find some interesting things going on.
I guess it would be interesting to find different laws of physics in different galaxies. That would put the nail on the idea of a Universe as some objective underlying reality and focus our attention back to who we are and what we do about it.
