Is there life after death according to MWI theory?

[Maaneli]

However, I admit that do I expect a formal equivalence here, and furthermore one that equates the "unitary evolution of universal wavefunction" part of MWI with the "unitary evolution of pilot-wave" part of BM. In addition to the observation above, this would merely require:
(1) A demonstration that every universal wavefunction permitted by MWI is capable of appearing as a pilot wave in some instance of BM.
(2) The identification of a structure definable in the MWI formalism (but not necessarily physically definable or even observable) to which the particle component of BM can be mapped.
Mathematics is surprisingly robust in regard to its ability to achieve feats like this. But I do not intend to assert in this thread that such an equivalence exists.

Again, Valentini shows why this connection cannot exist. Please read his abstract.

 

[peter0302]

still requires infinite energy.
from your anology, everytime you split you should lose energy and become nothing eventually, pretty quick actually. lol
I know the anology doesn't fit what your believing in, I'm just saying:

debb says there's only one universe, the universe = particles.
finite, deterministic, objective.

simpler than infinite unobserved universes...



Also: if you truly believe in MWI, why bother even talking / discussing these matters, everyone you interact with are gone in 00000000000000,1nano seconds.

*sigh* you still don't get it. I don't *believe* in anything. Being an atheist, I'd be quite the hypocrite if I believed in something that couldn't be proven now wouldn't I!?

I'm making objective observations about MWI vs. the other interpretations. It is superior based on many objective criteria. All your arguments against it are based on your personal notions of what "makes sense" to you. That's the definition of subjective.

See, people like myself and (if I dare to compare myself to him Hurkyl are capable of talking about these topics without emotional involvement or bias. We don't "champion" things we can't prove; we're seeking merely to raise awareness and clear misconceptions, the chief of those being this quantum suicide nonsense which was the point of the discussion.

As far as your other statement:

from your anology, everytime you split you should lose energy and become nothing eventually, pretty quick actually. lol

Well, it's called entropy. It happens across many worlds just as across spacetime. Quantum thermodynamics is very important in MWI.

One final point though: don't think of the multiverse as being "n" atoms "thick". It's not like the energy from the Big Bang is divided across all the branches. If that were the case, then yes we'd be down to nothing very quickly. The thickness is just the probability of each branch. It is unclear at this time what that probability represents physicially, if anything. But regardless, the branches don't have physical depth, only probabilities which, when added with all the other branches, equal 1.

Just look at it this way. I'm not asking you to believe the other branches physically exist. What I'm saying is that if you follow the unitary evolution of the wave function, there are branches that behave independently and, after decoherence, NEVER become reunited. What happens to them? If you want to believe they go away, then you've got a new assumption you need to add to your theory. If you want to believe they stay there, then you may have some difficult issues coping with that. But I will say that if you want to talk subjective, I rather like the idea that everything truly is possible.

 

[Coldcall]

The only way i can accept MWI is with the following tweaks:

1) Observer/definer is splitting worlds through interactions with qm states. Or that splitting occurs through "choices" made by an observer.

2) The other worlds remain hypothetical. (for reasons of energy conservation i can not accept the idea that there are infinite real worlds. If they are real that means they are distinctly real and that means multiply the matter and energy in our universe by infinity - that's is totally irrational) Yes i know its only a logical argument but its one derived from how we know nature behaves re- energy efficiency in our universe). By the way one cannot argue that energy efficiency is still maintained on a universe by universe basis, because leading MWI proponents like Tegmark admit there is actually still connection between branches...or for instance they don't separate completely - whatever that means. I would also argue that they are one quantum system even with a multitude of universes hence they should be governed by the same law - that of energy conservation.

Look at it from the point of view of writing a software program. The MWI version would have an incredible amount of duplication and needless replication. If you would not use MWI as a way to build virtual universes on a computer then its unlikely nature would be less efficient than the human intellect.

Oh and that still leaves Occams razor...Im trying i promise

 

[peter0302]

Interesting point about the "software program." MWI is probably not consistent with a software simulation. :) CI lends itself quite nicely to one though doesn't it!

Yeah, the problem of the branches potentially interacting is related to gravity. If GR is right, then the branches should still feel each others' gravitation. Therefore MWI requires spacetime and gravity to be quantized, which is why MWI is the only interpretation capable of being disproven at this point.

If they are real that means they are distinctly real and that means multiply the matter and energy in our universe by infinity - that's is totally irrational)

Yes it is, but you also could divide everything each time you split, which is perfectly rational, and here's why.

If you divided every non-dimensionless constant proportionally (speed of light, electrom charge, masses of fundamental particles, gravitational constant, etc.) we'd never know the difference. As long as you never hit zero - which you never can, through division - you can divide an infinite number of times and still have a fully working universe without the need to bring in more energy.

 

[muppet]

The result of an infinite sequence of divisions... sounds irrational to me
Sorry. I'll get my coat.

 

[peter0302]

ROFL.

I think it sounds pretty transcendental, actually.

 

[Coldcall]

peter0302,

"Interesting point about the "software program." MWI is probably not consistent with a software simulation. :) CI lends itself quite nicely to one though doesn't it!"

Yes it does . In fact if we accepted that qm is observer essential then it could be like playing one of those 1st person shooter games. That's no reason to say that qm is one big software engine but it is kind of similar to how qm works from the perspective of the observer. Maybe "entanglement" represents the huge RAM reserves that are necessary for the sake of instant consistency?