Re: Question on quantum computing and many-worlds interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

As I've read the various posts, I get the feeling that two notions are
being combined. There is one of interacting multiple universes, an
interpretation of quantum physics. Branes apparently present a more
advanced notion in this area. Then there is the multiverse of
noninteracting universes with different constants, dimensions, etc.,
essentially invented to avoid a possible connection between Big Bang and
creation. It strikes me that some of the notions of each of us being
radically different in the different quantum universes is more connected
to multiverses. This is especially true in connection with something I
encountered that claimed that electrons, mesons, nucleons and other light
entities can exhibit diffraction and other phenomena because they have so
little mass, but that anything with more mass has to be classic. It seems
certain that no matter how Don is treated, he will not spread widely from
being forced through two slits. This suggests to me that a person's
trajectory through time cannot exemplify an infinite variety of
simultaneous states, though perhaps leptons can. However, this comes from
gross ignorance of contemporary physics. Will some knowledgeable scholar
please comment intelligibly?
Thanks.
Dave

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 06:41:31 -0500 "Donald Perrett (E-mail)"
<donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> writes:
Parallel universes do NOT have to have the precise same history. If I
leave from New York and you from Los Angeles, you are bound for Chicago
and I for Seattle, we can still cross paths along the way in Dallas. Our
origins can be different and our destinations can be different. Even the
time can be different, since time is relative. I could press a button
now and you could press a button 5 years from now in the same space in
another dimension. And since time is relative then based on the idea
that all things are possible then all things have happened and will
happen in the same space and same time, regardless of whether or not they
have the same past or future or even present. And since all things will
happen and time is relative then all things have happened already and the
only thing we actually experience is not the present or future but rather
the past as perceived in a present setting to understand what will be and
why.

Sounds confusing? You should have to live in my head. Of course I'm
half asleep right now so forgive me if what I just said is hard to
understand.

The point is that regardless of what one thinks they are going to do,
they have in fact already done it. The end effect of multiple universes
is this, what one will do is done. So regardless of the number of me that
may exist, I have chosen this one to experience. And that is what I call
willed-fatalism.

Don P

 -----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 01:58
To: George Murphy
Cc: Loren Haarsma; _American Sci Affil
Subject: Re: Question on quantum computing and many-worlds
interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Thanks for all the responses that will give some food for thought over
whether the quantum computer necessitates the existence of parallel
universes. However, I don't think this quite addresses the point I was
trying to make.

It was simply this - that even if it were true that such a device implied
the existence of real parallel universes in which the computations were
carried out simultaneously, it only implies the existence of parallel
universes that have precisely the same history as ours. If Iain Strachan
types in a 400 digit number and hits the "Factorise" button and the
calculation takes place simultaneously in an atronomically large number
of parallel universes, then even so, those universes all had an Iain
Strachan who decided at that precise moment in time to type in those
precise digits and hit the factorise button at the same time. It does
not, therefore imply the existence of parallel universes in which Iain
Strachan makes different decisions - is watching football at that time,
or is an atheist, or doesn't exist at all because his mother didn't fancy
his father etc.

So if all the parallel universes "necessary" for the quantum computing
device to work really exist (in some sense), then they must be all the
same, so it doesn't really prove much, and indeed doesn't mean that
interpretation is better than any other interpretation.

Iain (thinking for a moment about whether to send this or not and the
corresponding divergence of discussion ...)
Received on Fri Mar 3 18:50:37 2006