So without physical evidence, maths doesn't help to prove anything. What is more important than maths, but less important than physical evidence, is logical thinking based on principles that tend towards simplicity. -Optimissed
I'm in complete agreement. When formulating beliefs, verifiable observation and rational thought provide a far better barometer than basing a belief in math's.
you two are funny. its nice to have a fresh breath in here ; )
but when it comes to flying pigs.. none of them exist in the many worlds interpretation. lol. that unless they somehow evolve light bones and wings.. but then they wouldn't be pigs? 
Elroch: "the choice of which branch you are in is random at every time branching occurs (which is all the time everywhere)."
the problem with this statement is that every time branching occurs you proceed to all of the branches. there is never a random choice.
That is true AT THE MULTIVERSE LEVEL.
However, all agents (take yourself as an example) see a SINGLE outcome of each event, not all of them.
To use a classical analogy, it's like if you toss a coin N times, what you observe (and afterwards can remember having observed) is a single sequence of N heads and tails, not a superposition of 2^N sequences of N heads and tails.
It is the information an agent receives that is random, not what happens in the (unobservable) multiverse.
this is an essential part of understanding this discussion and by no means nitpicking.
Nor is the above, which makes it science, by relating it to observations.
that is true at any level of branching (not just the top), and there's never a random choice. it is always the same monotonous process.
if you want to use a classic analogy of coins, that's fine. but you'll have to forget about flipping and sequences. the only thing worth talking about are possibilities.
for example.. you look at a coin and see 2 possibilities (but you never flip it). instead, you branch onto 2 equal copies. one take the head, the other take the tail, and you wave eachother goodbye to never meet again.
if you think of a dice, its the same thing.. you see 6 possibilities (you never throw the dice). instead, you branch onto 6 copies. each take a unique number and you walk your separate ways.
in other words, nothing is ever left for chance. and there's no randomness whatsoever in this interpretation. it is rigidly deterministic interpretation.
For a result that happened, after examination, it becomes clear was the only possible result. Probabilities of what branch might of been taken will forever remain in abstract thought, a tool designed for us to better make sense of it all. The point being, when formulating beliefs about this world and things that may be out there, unobserved and imagined, the whole picture needs viewing. Maths is just one picture. If belief is based entirely on a mathematical prediction of possibility, sorry to say to some, the notion is misguided.
I'm well aware of Quantum theories, the chaotic foam, Theory of Chaos, entanglement etc. etc. Until the phenomenon is fully understood and explained, we simple remain very much in the dark if or how much of those observed effects are influencing what you and I observe as reality.
That pigs might be flying, somewhere off in the unknown universe, can be expressed mathematically.
right. thats what makes math sooo elegant and exquisite and eloquent and stuff like that. lol !!
Datisabigcon, man.
I can't believe that people are seriously arguing about the multiverse. It should be obvious that the multiverse is the grown-up equivalent of a child's construction set. I suppose you all just have to think about it some more and find a way to get an overview of what prompts mankind to come up with thoughts like that one. And then pretend to sanctify it with mathematical water.
Elroch: "the choice of which branch you are in is random at every time branching occurs (which is all the time everywhere)."
the problem with this statement is that every time branching occurs you proceed to all of the branches. there is never a random choice.
That is true AT THE MULTIVERSE LEVEL.
However, all agents (take yourself as an example) see a SINGLE outcome of each event, not all of them.
To use a classical analogy, it's like if you toss a coin N times, what you observe (and afterwards can remember having observed) is a single sequence of N heads and tails, not a superposition of 2^N sequences of N heads and tails.
It is the information an agent receives that is random, not what happens in the (unobservable) multiverse.
this is an essential part of understanding this discussion and by no means nitpicking.
Nor is the above, which makes it science, by relating it to observations.
that is true at any level of branching (not just the top), and there's never a random choice. it is always the same monotonous process.
if you want to use a classic analogy of coins, that's fine. but you'll have to forget about flipping and sequences. the only thing worth talking about are possibilities.
for example.. you look at a coin and see 2 possibilities (but you never flip it). instead, you branch onto 2 equal copies. one take the head, the other take the tail, and you wave eachother goodbye to never meet again.
if you think of a dice, its the same thing.. you see 6 possibilities (you never throw the dice). instead, you branch onto 6 copies. each take a unique number and you walk your separate ways.
in other words, nothing is ever left for chance. and there's no randomness whatsoever in this interpretation. it is rigidly deterministic interpretation.
Randomness applies to the information that an agent experiences.
For example an agent is aware that a photon is about to interact with a polarising filter. In the multiverse there may be a branch where it passes through and another branch in which it doesn't, but to that agent he knows that in the future either one or the other has occurred, and this is random to that agent: he could not predict it. This matters to all observable behaviour.
I can't believe that people are seriously arguing about the multiverse. It should be obvious that the multiverse is the grown-up equivalent of a child's construction set. I suppose you all just have to think about it some more and find a way to get an overview of what prompts mankind to come up with thoughts like that one. And then pretend to sanctify it with mathematical water.
People become uncomfortable with uncertainty. To comfort the mind, a belief that most anything is possible (if it fits into their construct of possibility) becomes comforting indeed. Eliminates the back and forth that occurs in our minds, soothes any doubts, and represents a sense of mastering nature.
How many dimensions exist nowadays - according to the latest string theory ?
How many dimensions exist nowadays - according to the latest string theory ?
General relativity is a 10-dimensional field theory in an important sense (each point in space-time has a covariant, symmetric stress tensor associated with it: such tensors have 10 degrees of freedom). That's just the way the universe is.
By contrast, the various string theories are mathematical theories which have properties that make them very special as possible mathematical models of reality. Originally they appeared to be independent alternatives, but now they are regarded as being aspects of a single mathematical object which is still not fully defined, as far as I know.
Superstring theory is 10-dimensional, M-theory is 11-dimensional.
The mathematics related to this stuff is awe-inspiring.
How many dimensions exist nowadays - according to the latest string theory ?
General relativity is a 10-dimensional field theory in an important sense (each point in space-time has a covariant, symmetric stress tensor associated with it: such tensors have 10 degrees of freedom). That's just the way the universe is.
By contrast, the various string theories are mathematical theories which have properties that make them very special as possible mathematical models of reality. Originally they appeared to be independent alternatives, but now they are regarded as being aspects of a single mathematical object which is still not fully defined, as far as I know.
Superstring theory is 10-dimensional, M-theory is 11-dimensional.
Physics sounds like a lot of fun. Maybe (probably) in a different life I would have studied it.
Wait wait wait... they've made some real world physical connection with the monster group?
In mathematics, monstrous moonshine, or moonshine theory, is the unexpected connection between the monster group M and modular functions, in particular, the j function. The term was coined by John Conway and Simon P. Norton in 1979.
What's more is they (apparently) did this 40 years ago and I never heard about it.
How many dimensions exist nowadays - according to the latest string theory ?
General relativity is a 10-dimensional field theory in an important sense (each point in space-time has a covariant, symmetric stress tensor associated with it: such tensors have 10 degrees of freedom). That's just the way the universe is.
By contrast, the various string theories are mathematical theories which have properties that make them very special as possible mathematical models of reality. Originally they appeared to be independent alternatives, but now they are regarded as being aspects of a single mathematical object which is still not fully defined, as far as I know.
Superstring theory is 10-dimensional, M-theory is 11-dimensional.
Physics sounds like a lot of fun. Maybe (probably) in a different life I would have studied it.
What do you study now?
But when I was young I didn't know any of this stuff existed (or was interesting).
If someone had introduced me to it in a fun way I might have done a lot of different things.
Mathematics truly is exquisite. Can't think of another construct that the mind has devised in comparison.