[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:32:02 +0200, Russell Lewis  
<webmaster at villagersonline.com> wrote:

> I have been trying diligently to stay out of this argument, and so have  
> only posted a couple of times.  However, I wanted to offer a quick  
> clarification of my original statement.  I agree that there is one type  
> of "infinite universes" hypothesis which is based on the concept of  
> waveform collapse.  That assumes that we had one starting point and  
> there are an infinite number of descendant universes from it.  However,  
> the more general theory is that there could have been an infinite number  
> of different instances, and the various laws & constants of nature vary  
> from instance to instance.  That was more what I was describing.
>
> Yet I would say that even if we restrict ourselves to the  
> collapsing-waveform type of theory, we are still in much the same boat.  
>   Quantum physics tells us that there are any number of remarkably  
> improbable things which still have nonzero probability.  If we assume  
> infinite universes, then we can reasonably say that in at least one of  
> the universes, that remarkably improbable thing happened.
>
> My argument is that while this is a fascinating cosmological theory (I  
> like it, personally, even if I have no idea whether it's true), we  
> cannot reasonably use it to explain away scientific phenomena.  We must,  
> as much as possible, look at the evidence, find the most probable  
> explanation, and then assume (until we have better observations) that  
> the explanation is likely to be true.  Otherwise, science as a  
> discipline has no ground to stand on.  More bluntly, we must  
> intentionally ignore the many-worlds interpretation when we are making  
> scientific conclusions.  This might, of course, cause us to draw  
> incorrect conclusions, but quantum physics tells us that it is quite  
> improbable that we are wrong. :)

Then it seems we do for the most part agree. I love playing with the
thought of an infinite number of universes, some having their own strange
physical laws and constants. That does not mean I hold it to be The One
True Truth(tm). I'm more likely to change my world view than my clothes,
as I feel it doesn't matter anyway. I like solipsism, shared-
consciousness, lazy-evaluation-universes, etc. Some theories I like
because they are simple, some because they are complex. I like some
theories with a creator, some without.

Back off topic - you are right that it may not be enough to limit
ourselves to collapsing wavefunctions. Quantum fluctuation, for example,
may possibly turn one thing into something completely different. However,
we don't at the moment know the rules by which quantum fluctuation abides,
so it might be limited enough that nothing /too/ weird will happen (I have
no idea what 'too weird' would mean in a quantum physics discussion :p). I
still feel we have somewhat different understandings of MWI, but I'm not
one to claim my view is more correct than yours. I feel MWI does not
undermine science, as we know that some things are more probable than
others, and that would not change with MWI (imagine that a more probable
outcome would result in more, identical, universes).

-- Simen