Uncertainty Principle points to Parallel Realities

This is because information is infinite because of uncertainty.

When you hold a quarter in your hand, you're holding an infinity of information. You could flip that coin ad infinitum and you would always gain new information because you don't know if it will be heads or tails.

This uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the universe according to Quantum Mechanics. So just like you don't know if you will get a heads or tails when you flip a coin, you don't know if you will get spin or or spin down or a 1 or 0 until a measurement occurs.

An important thing to remember at this point is, this doesn't mean infinite outcomes. You can flip that coin ad infinitum and you will only get a heads or tails. You can roll a pair of dice ad infinitum and each roll would reduce uncertainty which is Shannon's definition of information but you would only get a 2-12.

So the question has to be asked, how restrained are the outcomes for which universes can occur?

Some people want to allow any and all outcomes to occur and universes with different laws of Physics. This is because they know, the more restrained are the outcomes that can occur the more that points to Intelligence designing the universe.

I agree with Hawking's final paper. An infinity of outcomes makes no sense. Most universes is just like ours with the same FINE TUNED laws of physics or similar to ours and because of uncertainty you can have different universes ad infinitum with a finite set of outcomes.

So every big bang would be like the flip of a coin or the roll of the dice.

I also say parallel realities because these aren't objective material universes but holographic projections.

Uncertainty tells us that there can be infinite information even when the outcomes are restrained because of the lack of knowledge as to what outcomes will occur.

Thanks for this. Makes me rethink my idea of the universe.

Might be fun to think about until your brain breaks but it's ultimately kind of a pointless question. As it probably can't be proved or disproved without entering another reality. And if you could/did, would you even know it?

Hmmm interesting. I was under the impression that information was not infinite, even with uncertainty. In fact, part of the theory behind the holographic universe is that information is finite.

The surface of an area contains exactly the same amount of information, in two dimensions, as all information contained within, in three dimensions. String theory hypothesizes that the outside surface of our universe, or the membrane around it, contains in 2d all information on possible states of everything contained within its volume down to Planck level, in 3d. Therefore, the universe is a 3d representation of a 2d surface of information and all possibilities -- a hologram in essence.

The same applies to black holes and the event horizon. As matter falls in, information is not destroyed, but instead recorded and preserved in less dimensions, on the event horizon. As more information falls in, the event horizon expands to accommodate new information.

I'll have to revisit some of my reading and see how your idea applies.

Thanks for the interesting read, as always.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Might be fun to think about until your brain breaks but it's ultimately kind of a pointless question. As it probably can't be proved or disproved without entering another reality. And if you could/did, would you even know it?

I got 2 words for that one.. And it ain't 'Got Milk'.

To a materialist like Hawking, who did not see the need for a designing God because - to his limited understanding - the laws of physics were all-sufficient as a complete explanation, the question must be directed: how can we ever be sure that scientific explanations are complete. This is merely an act of ideological faith commonly known as "scientism", made because it is really an unprovable hypthesis, although usually presented as though it was a fact that science has proven.

The concept of parallel universes postulated by Everitt as a solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is being confused with the multiverse theory, according to which cosmological inflation continuously take place, with the visible universe becoming just one of many with different laws of physics created by different, randomly distributed phases of the inflaton field that caused the inflation. Uncertainty per se does not point towards parallel universes, for this is only one of many theories that have been proposed to explain the existence of the Uncertainty Principle. Only if you believe this theory is the right one can you justify such a statement. But the experimental evidence does not support such dogmatism. Hawking tried to turn Intelligent Design suggested by the fine-tuning of cosmological constants into a redundant hypothesis by arguing that many of the Big Bangs generating universes in a multiverse scenario would create ones with the same laws of physics. He never proved this rigorously - it was just an assumption passed off as true which he needed to trivialise the fine-tuning problem, whose solution seemed to require a designing God.

Einstein wanted to know if the God he believed in had any choice in designing the universe that we observe. He refused to believe that our universe came about as the result of chance. Mystical traditions tell us that God had no choice because "God wished to behold God" and only one universe would allow that because there is only one God. Physicists today point out that Einstein was wrong in his belief that God did not play dice with the world (nor with the type of universe He made). Einstein would reply that quantum uncertainty does not discredit the idea that God designed the universe in a unique way. All you need to do is to update Einstein's preference for a universe ruled by classical physics to one ruled by the Uncertainty Principle. To extrapolate from quantum indeterminism on the level of subatomic particles to the notion of an infinite number of universes is a total non sequitur. Whether they turn out be be mostly fine-tuned for human life to appear is beside the point. God is still comfortable with a quantum universe because He has designed quantum laws to generate at least ONE universe that leads to self-conscious observers like humans - and that is all He needs for His Creation to return to Him. Quantum uncertainty does not bother God in the least.

I like to stick to fact and science over opinion and personal interpretation.

a reply to: neoholographic

Uncertainty Principle points to Parallel Realities

Well, I have to say that a statement like that really begs an important question;

How certain are you of the uncertainty?

there can be infinite information even when the outcomes are restrained because of the lack of knowledge as to what outcomes will occur

That is not correct.

A boundary has been applied, therefore infinity is impossible. Sure you don't know what all of the outcomes are, but you do know there is a limit to the number of them.

I really like this OP. Like seriously! I also agree with your thoughts on the matter as well.

It seems much more likely. Its either that or mankind, an Earth is a total and complete anomaly. An outlier. Probability says that is much less likely than this whole coin flip finite amount of outcomes thing is.

And best of all, that does not even eliminate a creator of sorts.

a reply to: neoholographic

You might like this video:



And this one:



The problem is not science but human language. It's not that infinity outcomes make no sense, but reality itself cannot be represented with language and therefore appears insane. So there is a bias towards having certainty and only supporting belief systems rooted in materailism.

originally posted by: neoholographic
...
I agree with Hawking's final paper. An infinity of outcomes makes no sense. Most universes is just like ours with the same FINE TUNED laws of physics or similar to ours and because of uncertainty you can have different universes ad infinitum with a finite set of outcomes...

Uncertainty tells us that there can be infinite information even when the outcomes are restrained because of the lack of knowledge as to what outcomes will occur.

Why must we put restrictions on outcomes, if they are merely possible outcomes, and not necessarily real outcomes?
Is that what was meant by the last statement?

Why should we let our 'common-sense' determine restrictions?
Perhaps not only lack of knowledge, but maybe lack of intelligence, or imagination?

originally posted by: micpsi
To a materialist like Hawking, who did not see the need for a designing God because - to his limited understanding - the laws of physics were all-sufficient as a complete explanation, the question must be directed: how can we ever be sure that scientific explanations are complete. This is merely an act of ideological faith commonly known as "scientism", made because it is really an unprovable hypthesis, although usually presented as though it was a fact that science has proven.

The concept of parallel universes postulated by Everitt as a solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is being confused with the multiverse theory, according to which cosmological inflation continuously take place, with the visible universe becoming just one of many with different laws of physics created by different, randomly distributed phases of the inflaton field that caused the inflation. Uncertainty per se does not point towards parallel universes, for this is only one of many theories that have been proposed to explain the existence of the Uncertainty Principle. Only if you believe this theory is the right one can you justify such a statement. But the experimental evidence does not support such dogmatism. Hawking tried to turn Intelligent Design suggested by the fine-tuning of cosmological constants into a redundant hypothesis by arguing that many of the Big Bangs generating universes in a multiverse scenario would create ones with the same laws of physics. He never proved this rigorously - it was just an assumption passed off as true which he needed to trivialise the fine-tuning problem, whose solution seemed to require a designing God.

Einstein wanted to know if the God he believed in had any choice in designing the universe that we observe. He refused to believe that our universe came about as the result of chance. Mystical traditions tell us that God had no choice because "God wished to behold God" and only one universe would allow that because there is only one God. Physicists today point out that Einstein was wrong in his belief that God did not play dice with the world (nor with the type of universe He made). Einstein would reply that quantum uncertainty does not discredit the idea that God designed the universe in a unique way. All you need to do is to update Einstein's preference for a universe ruled by classical physics to one ruled by the Uncertainty Principle. To extrapolate from quantum indeterminism on the level of subatomic particles to the notion of an infinite number of universes is a total non sequitur. Whether they turn out be be mostly fine-tuned for human life to appear is beside the point. God is still comfortable with a quantum universe because He has designed quantum laws to generate at least ONE universe that leads to self-conscious observers like humans - and that is all He needs for His Creation to return to Him. Quantum uncertainty does not bother God in the least.

I do not like to quote a large post . But this one needs to be read
Yes , the further down Quantum Physics is boiled down , the greater the evidence for a "creation" sort of event

a reply to: Kharron

The same applies to black holes and the event horizon. As matter falls in, information is not destroyed, but instead recorded and preserved in less dimensions, on the event horizon.

This is the thought that Susskind denied most of the Hawking Radiation Theory with.
Matter cannot be destroyed....
But it can be reduced down to information . Not energy.

originally posted by: rollanotherone
Thanks for this. Makes me rethink my idea of the universe.

Thanks.

I agree. Quantum Mechanics tells us there has to be parallel realities because of uncertainty.

Common sense tells us that this can't be true but QM doesn't care about humans subjective view as to what constitutes common sense.

This is why you have different interpretations. QM says you can't reduce uncertainty to zero. You will always reach a point where it's either a 1or 0 or spin up or spin down and you can't know which one will occur.

So you have interpretations like Copenhagen or different hidden variable theories. All of these interpretations try to put a stop to parallel universes.

At this point, there's no mechanism that reduces the wave function and makes the probabilities go away. You look at something like Schrodinger's cat. The cat has to be in a mixed state of a live/dead cat until a measurement occurs. Decoherence doesn't stop this because even with Decoherence you're left with classical probabilities. So instead of a live cat/dead cat in superposition, you geta a live cat or dead cat that can occur. No different than heads or tails.

QM has had this problem since it's inception. We perceive one outcome after a measurement occurs but QM tells us our measurement is subjective and a local experience but the universe is non local and these other probabilities still exist in parallel realities.This is because you can't reduce uncertainty to zero.

So you can have our universe occur over and over again ad infinitum with the same laws of physics and get different outcomes after each big bang. So the big bang can be seen like a flip of the coin or rolling the dice.

In one universe, Hillary won the election. In another universe the dinosaurs never went extinct. In another universe we live in the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way is a distant galaxy.

As long as space expands, you can have an infinity of outcomes or universes with a fine tuned and finite laws of physics.

Scientist know this, so they have been trying to reduce uncertainty with different interpretations since the inception of QM.

They also know they need an infinity of universes with different physical laws or the universe has to have a Creator that fine tuned the laws of physics.

If you look at a coin, you have 2 outcomes that can occur. A pair of dice has 2-12 that can occur everytime you roll the dice. Cards have 52 outcomes of the deck everytime you shuffle the cards.

So scientific materialist need a beach of probable outcomes that can occur. So a few grains of sand might look ordered but 99% of the sand is meaningless and has no order.

So most of the universes have laws of physics that give you nothing and our universe is just a lucky and random configuration. This is what I mean when I talk about restrained and unrestrained outcomes that can occur.

Hawking said:

"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," Hawking has previously said. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."

newatlas.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

Yeah. That goes beyond my "What if DOG really spelled GOD".



I'm going to have to save your post and read it a few times to really digest the info.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is because information is infinite because of uncertainty.

When you hold a quarter in your hand, you're holding an infinity of information. You could flip that coin ad infinitum and you would always gain new information because you don't know if it will be heads or tails.

This uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the universe according to Quantum Mechanics. So just like you don't know if you will get a heads or tails when you flip a coin, you don't know if you will get spin or or spin down or a 1 or 0 until a measurement occurs.

That isn't what the uncertainty principle is. What you are talking about here is not knowing what's in the future. It's not related to quantum mechanics. Uncertainty in the quantum sense isn't really a macroscopic phenomenon.
It shows up at the atomic scale if you try to measure both position and momentum or any other complementarity properties.