6 ms·

Author here. Sorry, I guess I misunderstood that part of the hypothesis. Do you have a source, so I can edit my post and correct it?

kevinmgranger 6y ago
I'm not sure which Sean Carroll talk you saw, but I think he only mentions the differences between worlds in terms of different "choices"-- and these universal constants don't "choose" to be what they are, right?
- hachibu 6y ago
  This is the video that inspired this project, but I don't think that I'm knowledgeable enough to answer your question with 100% certainty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEvv349Pyk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEvv349Pyk
rantwasp 6y ago
if you read "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" by Max Tegmark, many worlds falls in the bucket of L3 multiverse. What you're describing is a L4 multiverse (see comments below. seems it's L2, not L4. will leave my mistake in, although i'm sure there is a parallel universe where i did not make this mistake)
- hachibu 6y ago
  Whoa, I'm so out of my depth. This is really cool. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know about the multiverse levels!
- orangecat 6y ago
  Level 2 is universes generally like ours but with different physical constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes.... Level 4 includes all abstract mathematical structures, like a universe embedded in a Game of Life simulation.
  - rantwasp 6y ago
    i guess i got it wrong but it's still L2 != L3
    - hachibu 6y ago
      This is great. I'm learning so much from this thread.
AgentME 6y ago
It seems you're mixing up MWI with a Max Tegmark Level II multiverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes.... Tegmark considered MWI a separate idea from that and used the label "Level III" for it. MWI is just one of multiple multiverse ideas. Most multiverse ideas (like Tegmark's Levels I, II, and IV) are basically what-if ideas without any direct evidence, but MWI specifically happens to be a more-grounded idea based on trying to make sense of what the (well-tested) Schrodinger equation says about reality. The first part of your description of MWI ("The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics imagines our universe as one node in an infinitely branching tree of universes where every possible quantum outcome exists in its own universe.") is pretty good, if a slight though common simplification (different branches aren't entirely separate, so envisioning it as a tree is only mostly correct; different branches can sum together or cancel each other out if their configurations are identical).
- hachibu 6y ago
  Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand. Perhaps I should just remove the sentence about constants changing.
- hachibu 6y ago
  This is a great comment. I updated my post based on your suggestion.
- codethief 6y ago
  > trying to make sense of what the (well-tested) Schrodinger equation says about reality. Nitpick: The Schrödinger equation predicts unitary time evolution (which is another way of saying that physical systems evolve in a deterministic manner). Interpretations of quantum mechanics exist to make sense of the part of quantum mechanics that doesn't follow unitary time evolution, namely the measurement process.

kevinmgranger 6y ago

I'm not sure which Sean Carroll talk you saw, but I think he only mentions the differences between worlds in terms of different "choices"-- and these universal constants don't "choose" to be what they are, right?

hachibu 6y ago
This is the video that inspired this project, but I don't think that I'm knowledgeable enough to answer your question with 100% certainty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEvv349Pyk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEvv349Pyk

rantwasp 6y ago

if you read "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" by Max Tegmark, many worlds falls in the bucket of L3 multiverse. What you're describing is a L4 multiverse (see comments below. seems it's L2, not L4. will leave my mistake in, although i'm sure there is a parallel universe where i did not make this mistake)

hachibu 6y ago
Whoa, I'm so out of my depth. This is really cool. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know about the multiverse levels!
orangecat 6y ago
Level 2 is universes generally like ours but with different physical constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes.... Level 4 includes all abstract mathematical structures, like a universe embedded in a Game of Life simulation.
- rantwasp 6y ago
  i guess i got it wrong but it's still L2 != L3
  - hachibu 6y ago
    This is great. I'm learning so much from this thread.

AgentME 6y ago

It seems you're mixing up MWI with a Max Tegmark Level II multiverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes.... Tegmark considered MWI a separate idea from that and used the label "Level III" for it. MWI is just one of multiple multiverse ideas. Most multiverse ideas (like Tegmark's Levels I, II, and IV) are basically what-if ideas without any direct evidence, but MWI specifically happens to be a more-grounded idea based on trying to make sense of what the (well-tested) Schrodinger equation says about reality. The first part of your description of MWI ("The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics imagines our universe as one node in an infinitely branching tree of universes where every possible quantum outcome exists in its own universe.") is pretty good, if a slight though common simplification (different branches aren't entirely separate, so envisioning it as a tree is only mostly correct; different branches can sum together or cancel each other out if their configurations are identical).

hachibu 6y ago
Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand. Perhaps I should just remove the sentence about constants changing.
hachibu 6y ago
This is a great comment. I updated my post based on your suggestion.
codethief 6y ago
> trying to make sense of what the (well-tested) Schrodinger equation says about reality. Nitpick: The Schrödinger equation predicts unitary time evolution (which is another way of saying that physical systems evolve in a deterministic manner). Interpretations of quantum mechanics exist to make sense of the part of quantum mechanics that doesn't follow unitary time evolution, namely the measurement process.