its 2 different hypothesis
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
I deleted it. It's what I genuinely felt though. Then I decided to delete it. But I do believe it.
Sillver1 wrote:
its 2 different hypnosis
in what way?
OK I found this article about a Californian professor of cosmology. Course, we don't know in what sense they're using the word "professor" Do they mean "lecturer" or a real professor? Probably the former because this guy seems a bit slow, even though he is reluctantly arriving at the opinion that they are the same. Which they are.
hypnosis obviously : )
Sorry forgot to post. There it is. I think that perhaps there's a misunderstanding because originally the two ideas were approached from slightly different angles, one being much more obviously an erroneous assumption about quantum waveform collapse and the other a mistaken hypothesis about cosmological inflation. But they refer to the same idea, which is mistaken, of course.
Incidentally, I think perhaps the writer of that article doesn't understand it.
you make a good point. the term multiverse is used interchangeably i guess.
but there is a specific hypothesis named Multiverse. if you get familiar with it youll see that it has nothing to do with MW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Jun 11, 2020
0
#2513
A world is a “World”
A universe is a “Universe”
not the same thing. In fact, two entirely different things. Kinda explains why there are two words to describe two different things.
MV and MW share being multiple but they are describing quite different abstract perceptions.
And yes ... I get how the terms gets used interchangeably all the time. I also get that most likely the term is being misused and butchered anyway- so it’s of little importance to set things upright.
In this context, worlds and universes mean the same, metaphorically. Mustang, I've just been reading over the past two pages where you claim to have proven something to Elroch that I didn't even see mentioned in any situation relating to logical argument.
Look, I know we've had our differences but if you continue claiming to be what you're not, do you think it's going to do any good in the long run? It isn't a crime to be not all that bright and you aren't stupid at all but please for your own sake stop claiming to be what you aren't.
Jun 11, 2020
0
#2515
The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are very—perhaps infinitely[11]—many universes. It is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised. This is intended to resolve some paradoxesof quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[5]:462[2]:118 and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe. Wiki
Jun 11, 2020
0
#2516
The EPR "paradox" is not a paradox (it was once mistaken for one, but is merely an example of the quantum world being unintuitive). Thus it does not really need "resolution", nor does MWI really resolve it (it is a model which is compatible with it, like all the other valid interpretations).
Schroedinger's cat is now recognised as a somewhat flawed thought experiment. The cat needs to be cooled to extremely close to absolute zero for quantum superposition to occur, when it is stone dead in all cases!
"MV and MW share being multiple but they are describing quite different abstract perceptions"
yea, MW is a QM thing, and MV is just a healthy imagination, lol something like that..
Jun 11, 2020
0
#2518
Max Tegmark classified hypotheses associated with the vague term "multiverse" into 4 separate classes, while Brian Greene goes further with no fewer than 9 separate classes of hypothesis. These include MWI and (likely) whatever you are referring to by "MV".
my bad. wrong link. think its this one
You're saying that multiverse means something different from many worlds? In what way are they different?