Beyond Reality: Evidence of Parallel Universes

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Beyond Reality: Evidence of Parallel Universes file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Beyond Reality: Evidence of Parallel Universes book. Happy reading Beyond Reality: Evidence of Parallel Universes Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Beyond Reality: Evidence of Parallel Universes at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Beyond Reality: Evidence of Parallel Universes Pocket Guide.

Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page.

  • Acts of the Apostles Through the Centuries.
  • American Civil War Reference Library: Cumulative Index.
  • Quanta Magazine.
  • A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.
  • ‎Conscious Living on Empower Radio: The Past Life Lady with Shelley Kaehr on Apple Podcasts?
  • Rethinking Development Geographies.

Preview — Beyond Reality by Shelley Kaehr. For the first time, Shelley Kaehr, Ph. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. Published May 1st by Legends Press first published November 15th More Details Original Title.


Other Editions 3. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Beyond Reality , please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia.

  • Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?;
  • The Perfect SalesForce: The 6 Best Practices of the Worlds Best Sales Teams.
  • Natural killer cells : basic science and clinical application.
  • The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind;
  • Spirit and Self in Medieval China: The Shih-Shuo Hsin-Yu and Its Legacy.
  • Bartleby the Scrivener (The Art of the Novella)?
  • French Fortifications, 1715-1815: An Illustrated History.

Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Jun 02, Rob Alex rated it liked it. Not sure how much actual evidence was in this book, but there were a lot of examples and suggestion on how parallel universes play out in our world. Such a fascinating concept and one that I believe in. Louis Pofi rated it liked it Dec 15, Dolores rated it really liked it Feb 01, Arainia Reed rated it it was amazing Dec 30, Shannon Looper rated it it was amazing Dec 21, Martha B.

Taylor rated it it was amazing Dec 10, Jeanette rated it liked it Sep 22, Anonymous rated it it was amazing Oct 06, Kris Martin rated it it was amazing Jun 13, Jeanmarie Brenckle rated it it was amazing Jun 25, Rohin rated it liked it Jan 07, Cheryl Murray rated it really liked it Feb 17, AER marked it as to-read May 23, Rachel Kandy Raven marked it as to-read Dec 01, So I guess it's not that one God exist.

It would be that an infinite number of Gods exist. We are our own Gods and if things don't go our way, we can only blame Ourselves. Either that or the definition of "omnipotent" is only true within each omnipotent being's own universe. Then maybe, in this universe, there is no god after all.

Actually, that would be defamation. Only if the accusations are untrue. If the statements made were the truth, that is always a sufficient defense in a defamation case. I seem to recall that some time ago you admitted within this very forum that you had previously suffered some form of mental condition, in another reply to Uncle - if that's correct and no, I'm not going to bother to even go looking then you haven't a case. Now if all possibilities exist No. There are a nearly infinite number of alternate universes if this theory is true because the combinatorial possibilities of any single change in any 1 given quantum particle combined with the potential for any single change in any other given quantum particle in the universe, is a gigantic number in itself.

Just because every possible physical particle combination exists and creates a different universe due to the varying combinations does not mean that every imaginable fantasy will also be created as a universe. There is probably no "Walking Dead" universe, there is probably no universe where Marty McFly skates around on a hover board, there is probably no tooth fairy, there is probably no god. Luckily, there might be a universe where you don't exist to post in these fora. If there are a infinite number of worlds it would follow logically "If it were even possible that God could exist, he would exist" Or the atheist would have to explain why out of an infinite world of actual possibilities why doesn't that allow for God or a God like entity?

T Fail on 1 because no matter what you imagine as the abilities of your god, someone can imagine a being with more abilities. Besides which, a god is normally defined as omnipotent and omniscient and I believe that your bible defines your god as this. The metaphysical difficulty here is, of course, that these states are mutually exclusive.

Even just omnipotence on its own is an impossible condition because it implies that the being can do something that this same being cannot undo. But if they are omnipotent there is nothing they cannot undo.

Should we believe in parallel universes? - SNF

The common example is, "god creates a rock so big god cannot move it". By your own argument, if all metaphysical possibilities existed as real alternate universes but they don't because that's not what the article is about then your god must abide by the limitations of these logical inconsistencies. It cannot be omnipotent. Whatever happened to Occam's razor..?

If I could have given you more than 5, I would have. Returners Despite your voluminous number of posts I agree with much of what you say. As far as interacting with other parallel universes or multiverses the eternal question of the exact nature of time is brought to the forefront, right? Afterall, it is truly challenging to imagine a universe where the nature of time different than in our reality - and conversely if the nature of time was identical in a parallel universe would it really even then qualify as a distinct universe or just a different section of our universe???

I'm only commenting because I want to be part of the madness. There's probably a universe where I miss out on the fun but it isn't going to be this one. When it's said "all possibilities occur", I believe that accepts there are some outcomes which are not in fact possibilities. Possibilities, not impossibilities. Wow, what a lively thread Ha! All possibilities are therefore realised And to all those proposing 'god' then the 'devil' must be lurking around too I knew it!

Oct 31, Yes other possibilities exist but with smaller and smaller probabilities. See Richard Feynmans sum over Histories approach. So don't get too carried away with far flung ideas. If I don't use the filter it feels like I am picking through the garbage. In many of these other crazy universes you all were spoofed on the sheet.

But if they say there is interaction between worlds, surely it must be possible to find some form of evidence. If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists Logical fallacy. For something to be a possibility it has to have a finite probability. An ominpotent god is just a fancy. Making stuff up does not imbue that something with a probability greater than zero. Does that mean that there exists a possibility for a purple green color?

Therefore God exists Returners, in your struggle to prove this I see nothing more than weak faith, loudly proclaiming otherwise. Please take your faith crises elsewhere. This is a science forum. What is the mechanism in which the number of protons and electrons become equal after the big bang? How randomness can born such colossal matches?

And in the same situation we do not have such a quantitative correspondence between dominant matter and mising antimatter in our universe. For me such ideas are statistical insolence. Replacing one logical fallacy with another is no better, The point being if an idea, be it many-worlds theory or a omnipotent being, is not observable in principal, it is metaphysics, period, The many-worlds proponents have no better empirical basis for their hypothesis than religious people in believing in a god imo.

The basis of that theory is in believing the Schreodinger wave-function is a Real entity, rather than just a mathematical construct, which does not collapse into a single observable value upon a measurement. I am very much afraid that these fine gentlemen's alternative possible selves in the many worlds of string theory are having a good laugh at such obvious dreck As an example of a physicist, who thinks because he is a physicist, he is somehow specially privileged in claiming knowledge of independent reality, that is not empirically justified, see Max Tegmark's book "our mathematical universe", He says reality IS mathematics, Is he an extreme case?

He merely has taken Everett's MWI to its logical conclusions, That something has a finite-probability implies only that it has a finite-probability of being Observed, and NOT that it has an ontological finite probability. Is an electron a point particle or a string? No, it is not observable in either of these conceptual forms, Reg Mundy. The actual nature of time itself is fundamental to understanding our universe and why it is unique - i. Time is the progression from one state of the fundamental particles of chaos to the next as chosen to obey the laws of physics in general.

As this is a macro obeyance, at a micro level the laws become meaningless thus giving rise to uncertainty. Hoisted by your own petard. Is not "another parallel world" just another Invisible Companion?

You should ask why some physicists think they're more qualified to be priests, than priests. If there are observable and quantifiable effects in "this world", then by definition it is describable, for the purposes of predictive knowledge, in "this world". The problem is when people expect "explanations" and "why", when physics can only supply the "how", and can only do so with mathematical models. If you guys understood warp drives and photon torpedos even HALF as well as I do, you wouldn't even be having this discussion. Deist gods are designed by philos to be impossible to disprove.

But even if they do exist they have NOTHING to do with bookgods who are concerned with what we eat and when we eat it, who we sleep with and in what position, whether we hide our faces in public, or how we mutilate the genitals of our children. Captain Stumpy "why is this important? Living things can obviously survive very well without it, so why do we have it? That leads me to wonder what other things might have it. Whydening Gyre. Explain why you think that they are equal in number? Are you going to explain the world again with invisible phenomena such as dark matter and energy?

Da Schneib. I was not able to find the new prediction. Me either. Nor even a suggestion what prediction this interpretation might make that would differentiate it from others, or would be unprecedented. And this is the second article on this on PhysOrg. The first was by one of the authors of the original scholarly paper. Until there is a possibility mooted that answers this objection, I see nothing to distinguish this interpretation from the others.

The fact, they're often proposed with scientists itself introduces a big disappointment for me. Something from which supposedly we can glean no information whatsoever. Let's just skip over the obvious contradiction that an idea IS info, the synthesis of experience and reason, waiting to be acted on, communicated, or not. Let's examine the nature of an idea itself and where it resides. The activity of these neutrons can in principle be detected and the patterns they make can be deciphered as info without the individual actually expressing this info.

And so we have potentially 2 wholly physical paths to accessing ideas. Since they occur entirely within a physical organ, they are nothing BUT physical. You slip up from time to time nou and expose your true beliefs wrt philobabble. Your objection seems convoluted, even by your standards.

Of course I'm not saying ideas exist in a metaphysical realm. Obviously, the mind has a physical basis. This is all irelevent to my point. All that means, noum, is that you're talking about consensus reality and then denying there's a consensus. Typical philo-sophistry. What if instead, everything was everything, and nothing all at the same time, and in so, we too are everything and nothing What if, we lost our way in this 'mindset' and had forgotten who we are, and now are just different 'viewpoint's' of our varying thoughts?

What if, ultimately our thought's became reality? I'd love to hear thoughts! Let's try to keep the philo-sophistry and reLIEgion to a minimum, shall we? Thanks in advance. Nov 01, It's still on topic, I'm just showing how this article could help prove what I said although very vaguely.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

Could you clarify? What are you referring to with "denying there's a consensus"? It is probably best if you not tell me what I am saying. You have a bad habit of informing others of what they are saying rather than putting an effort in yourself to understand them. Then that person must defend themselves against your random accusations. I do not deny there is an objective reality, D'Espagnet, physicist.

But ask me a specific question, I'd be here for days trying to explain every part of this. I don't buy it. Human consciousness, presumably, is still subject to the laws of physics,though to be certain, it is a very complex, nonlinear, process. Hence, when conscious beings perform QM, it is just another example of macro-states interacting with micro-states.

This is really what measurement in QM really is. Take the geiger-muller tube for example. A single collision of a beta particle ionizes a single atom, which creates more beta particles, which ionize more atoms, and so on, creating a cascade effect, which is what we detect. The single electron was fired because we created a macro-state in which an electron was "forced" to be released from an anode.

But, there is nothing stopping nature from arbitrarily creating anodes on its own. But what does that even mean, though? What do you mean by nothing? How does being everything and nothing imply that we are all God? Suppose that one subscribes to this hypothesis, whatever it means. How does it actually help us advance our objective understanding of the universe? Will it help us develop better energy sources? Will it help cure disease? Will it allow us to physically leave this planet and explore other parts of the universe? I confess that years ago, I used to be--ahem--more spiritual, and would encounter platitudes like this all the time from people like Wayne Dyer.

The reason I left this mindset was specifically because I noticed how impotent it was for actually effecting change. The only place where it helped was internally, but even then, it didn't solve my problems. What I meant was that the beta particle comes from a radioactive isotope and is detected because the corresponding cascade produces a current between an anode and cathode. What I meant to say was that nature could, in theory, produce this same setup.

There is no good reason I've heard to think that consciousness is vital to have a universe. Though, it does raise some interesting philosophical questions. Specifically, if there is nothing to actually experience the universe, there is nothing to ascribe a reality to it, which I find troubling from a metaphysical standpoint, but that still doesn't imply that the universe needs consciousness, which is very complex, to be there.

The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. I don't buy it It is very easy to misread that d'Espagnat quote if it is not considered within the context of the difference between scientific realism and scientific positivism.

For example, by "made up of objects", he means simply "observable objects" which necessarily involves the conditions for observation by a macroscopic being. By "human consciousness", he means only "the process of conceptualization" which necessarily is mind dependent. Theories are a conceptualization of reality. Nou says if an idea is not observable in principle it is metaphysics period -And then he says Of course I'm not saying ideas exist in a metaphysical realm What, do you think the people here are idiots, that you can act and say anything you want? Read the above - youre a liar.

Of course. Your point is to talk in circles and play word games. You do your hobby a service by displaying its structure and modus operandi here for all to see. The plays the thing. Yes, none, Human consciousness, presumably, is still subject to the laws of physics Yes, the mind, being a physical thing, is certainly subject to the laws of physics, I'll even go a step further, However, on that basis if there is no difference between Observation and Quantum Interactions, then why the incompatibility between the Schrodinger deterministic evolution and the state reduction to a particular observable value, Where did the rest of the wave-function information go?

Postulating many-worlds is an act of desperation while d'Espagnat's approach is entirely rational. Wow, a lot of religious psychobabble going on here. With regard to physics, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just the most literal interpretation of the math: When the information from two quantum states A and B in superposition reach an observer, the observer also becomes part of the superposition with one version seeing A and the other B.

Both observers witness what appears to be a random choice, but which is actually deterministic. This demonstrates why a random wave-collapse is perceived but in fact the universe remains deterministic and information is conserved. If quantum mechanics really did introduce random collapse that would mean information was being created, with no explained source.

And for the psychobabblers: Trying to "prove" anything using quantum mechanics is a waste of time if you don't actually use the math that defines quantum mechanics. Phrases like "all possibilities" in QM for instance mean specifically all possibilities allowable by a given set of conditions. It doesn't mean all possibilities you can imagine! For some reason, the less people understand QM or math the more confident they are they know what it means and it means what they want!

I'm referring to "metaphysics" in the pejorative, and only to delimit what is valid scientific knowledge. I never even came close to implying that "ideas" are metaphysical. What is your motivation here. I will however reword the first quote, So lets review your list of respected advocates. Heisenberg - mystic " Philos are experts at doublethink and self-deception. Hallucinations, ie the malfunction of the brain, the misfiring of neurons, can also in principle be mapped and interpreted.

The parallel worlds concepts as described in the article are postulates meant to satisfy certain mathematical discoveries based on empirical evidence. In the vid I posted, krauss responds to dennett that math is based on empirical evidence of how the universe functions. With regard to physics, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just the most literal interpretation of the math It was meant to take the math to it's logical conclusion, It is psychobabble metaphysics of the highest order to multiple observers, so why even complain about the religious psychobabble above but yet not MWI?

Heisenberg - mystic Penrose - mystic Schrodinger - mystic, religionist Omnes, Bohr - mystic, Pauli - mystic Bohm - mystic The fact that you found need to insult all those preeminent physicists only demonstrates your lack of substantive contextual counter points, and your willingness to engage in Jerry-Springer quality arguments.

Not interested. It describes nothing and implies some functionality beyond the physical realm. This is why you philos live the term. We have brains, not minds. It can be analysed, anticipated, corrected. More noumian bullshit from past threads circa The mind does NOT influence reality. D'Espagnet, physicist, religious pundit -You enjoy making up shit as you go along dont you?

The wordplay's the thing-. How can an "idea" itself be observable, Otto? The fact that you found need to insult all those preeminent physicists -Those are NOT my quotes, but those from physicists and experts. And it is entirely your own opinion that they are insults; pauli for instance probably enjoyed being referred to as a mystic. Jerry-Springer quality arguments Jerry springer did not write the physorg article you commented on, nor the "paper published in the European Journal of Physics This info has been developed by experts and is freely available on the internet, which is where I found it.

I did not find it on a tv talk show. Speak for yourself and it does not imply that. The wordplay's the thing- There is no contradiction between those statements even despite the deliberate lack of context, despite evidently being incomprehensible to you. The thing with low-class people, I explained that to you.

Parallel Universes

As the function of our brains is entirely physical and finite, in principle it is possible to map the entire mechanism and sequence responsible for generating an 'idea', complete with sensory input, memory reference, and neural functioning. We can already do this with the function of computers. And we should soon be able to model it at the level of the human brain. But whether we ever do or not doesnt mean that 'ideas' arent entirely physical.

Sorry nou - your shit dont flush here. Youve said it many times havent you? Its your whole 'raison d'entree' isnt it? That Pauli or Heisenberg or d'Espaganat or Omnes, or Penrose, had other thoughts and ideas, does not logically negate nor undermine their pov in another subject. They're your quotes in the sense that you chose to dump them here completely out of context. I have no interest in these substantive-less political style arguments. The mind does not influence reality, but does influence our Knowledge of reality. That is what was stated by both of us. I have clarified d'Espagnat's for thefurlong above to this effect.

I don't have time to correct your self-inflicted and deliberate misapprehensions, As the function of our brains is entirely physical and finite, in principle I asked you that question in sarcasm given your ridiculous claim that I was saying 'ideas themselves are metaphysical' rather than the obviously, 'the entities those ideas refer to Yes, ideas and mind have a purely physical underlying basis. I have never stated otherwise. However, even though the notion of god as a given state of a brain can be reproduced given it's physical arrangement and state of synapses and neurons, does not imply that the idea god itself has physical meaning or is observable.

Have a choice in what?

Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems

A part of reality apart from reality? What part is apart from reality? The mind? My only lifeboats in this discussion are consistency and contradiction-free assumptions. All necessary. Sufficiency will always be lacking. Back to the article. Several have asked this before: What is predicted? With regard to physics, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just the most literal interpretation of the math This at least makes sense.

Well, actually there are several competing interpretations of QM that don't feature a collapse of the wave function; the MWI is not the only one. I also note that you're talking about conservation of information, which is well-defined classically but not quantum mechanically. QM breaks the 2LOT. See the Fluctuation Theorem, which is not only a mathematical theorem, but has been tested in the laboratory.

Virtual particles appear out of nowhere and disappear back into nowhere. This is a proven fact; the Casimir Effect proves it. Are you claiming this process is not random? That's a pretty bold claim; I'd need to see some evidence. Radioactive nuclei have a half-life; that means that over a period of time, half of them decay.

Which half? Are you claiming this is not a random process? How many alternate universes does this generate? A particular nucleus could pop now, or could wait a billion years, or pop at any time between the two. How many alternative universes is that? There are problems with this approach. Nevertheless, good post. Wow, new most annoying poster on physorg: Returners. When he first showed up I figured he was just an enthusiastic and obviously young poster who would eventually research, learn and stop posting nonsense about everything he thinks is cool, maybe even become a regular contributor of the rare quality comment here.

It seems all the downvotes and being told he's wrong constantly about everything he posts when people bother have somehow had the opposite effect and actually emboldened him to sit here spewing even more ignorant and ridiculously simplistic what can really only be called fantasies at this point for many hours per day. Their pov wrt these ideas, and not their science, comes from religion and mysticism. Kants ideas which you cite, come directly from his religion which has been shown to you.

It is disingenuous of you to use the scientific achievements of these people to justify mystical and religious-derived notions about the way things work. They are easily dismantled. You even threw einstein into the mix despite the extreme objections of his to penroses mystical beliefs. Turn him off. He deserves to be ignored and Im sure it infuriates him as he is an incredible egomaniac. Kants ideas which you cite, come directly from his religion Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is not about religion. You have been told this. I, Noumenon, do not hold any mystical or religious beliefs nor have any such interest.

Epistemology has zero to do with mystical or religious beliefs. It is offensive for you to slander preeminent physicists using out of context irrelevancies, as a means to undermine quotes that I have used. Hugh Everette was a drunk and failed father, unemployable as a physicists. Does this have any baring on whether MWI is true or not? I don't claim true randomness does not exist, but that is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead of randomness you have an expansion of superposition as particles interact that is indistinguishable to observers who are engulfed in superposition like any other particles without any special "observer" status from real randomness.

From each observers perspective it is appears as true randomness in every way. Yes, the MWI isn't contradicted by any known physics. Personally I'm of the opinion that all interpretations of QM are equally weird; every one of them has a counter-intuitive component, at least from the viewpoint of monkeys who live in a classical world.

It's better just to accept this and try to form a logic that accommodates it rather than trying to eliminate it. You should check out retrocausality. The TI uses it, for example. It's a clear result of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. The whole universe doesn't split with each quantum event, superpositions spread or in the perspective of the past, join as particles interact.

There is a combinatorially growing number of superpositions along any chain of interactions. The universe is like a mesh of all the configurations of its parts consistent with its laws of conservation. It is clear that superposition exists, and Occam's razor suggests the need to postulate primal randomness or special observer-related wave collapse are unnecessary since superposition explains why we perceive those. But the idea that at any given moment we are the nexus of all consistent past and future versions of ourselves is daunting for many.

Scientists who don't like that interpretation might view Occam's razor as suggesting that a more complicated universe is unwarranted without special evidence for it beyond consistency with theory and experiment. Even though it requires fewer interpretive concepts. Consistent Histories has no wavefunction collapse, but proposes that all the histories possible for a given interaction contribute to its probability of having a particular outcome. This is consistent with the Feynman "many paths" AKA "path integral" approach. But these other histories didn't happen; only the one that created the measured situation did.

This is the weirdness in CH; things that never happened but "could have" contribute to the outcome. Just as paths that are classically impossible but quantum possible contribute to the path integral. That's interesting, if any of those alternative theories seem credible to you? With many-worlds superposition quantum information is conserved in the classical sense, but not from the perspective of any individual observer. By the way, I think the "Many Worlds" is a very misleading name for this interpretation.

It implies multiple universes instead of one universe interconnecting all consistent configurations of each of its parts. They're not theories, they're interpretations. And all of them agree with QM, so there is no way to differentiate between them. They all seem like viable interpretations to me. Whether they're "correct" seems to me to be a philosophical question rather than a physical one. You didn't answer my objection that conservation of information is not a law of QM.

However, a purely exponential decay of the amplitude would actually imply an actual "eternal" loss of probability, that would never be recovered. Rigorously speaking, this is at variance with the underlying unitarity of the temporal evolution. Temporal Behavior of Quantum Mechanical Systems.

Cool, can you give me names of any that you find credible? I think interpretations are more than philosophy. Different interpretations make a difference when looking for a theory more general then QM and the Standard Model. For instance, in this article the Many Worlds interpretation suggests we look for interactions. In the meantime, the more interpretations the better as they each may inspire different kinds of thought experiments, even though the math is the same. I DON'T think they are equal.

You SAID they were with your previous statement. I wanted to know where you got that info from Dead on. Maybe I'm just a little opaque this evening All of them that don't disagree with QM. You may have misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say they're philosophy; I said whether one or another is "correct" is a philosophical question. This seems obvious to me since they all agree with experiment.

This one may be me overshooting the facts, but since the many worlds interpretation removes randomness from the global view no information is created or destroyed. Someone more knowledgable than me could better judge if that implies conservation of information. I think that conservation of information is likely behind every conservation law, but that's an intuitive conjecture on my part. Actually, Noether's Theorem says that every conservation law corresponds to a continuous symmetry; for example, the symmetry of results over location if I do this experiment over here, I get the same results as if I do it over there is correspondent to the conservation of momentum, and the symmetry of results over time I get the same results tomorrow as today is correspondent to the conservation of energy.

Thus the conservation laws are linked to the dimensions. Dimensionality determines most if not all of the physical laws of the universe. They are talking about quantum information, not classical information. The Fluctuation Theorem makes the difference between them a matter of measurable, explicit reality. Quantum information is not entropy, and is not conserved in the manner entropy is.

Its conservation is governed by Bell's Theorem, not the classical entropy of Boltzmann and Maxwell. This is not the case for the joint quantum entropy. Gee, wasn't that what I said? Silly me. Nov 02, Actually, Noether's Theorem says that every conservation law corresponds to a continuous symmetry. Thanks for the pointer. I will read up on that. Be careful that you understand exactly what it says; I made the mistake once of not realizing that it doesn't apply to discrete symmetries like spin. And only on one axis, because the spin on a second axis is conjugate under Heisenberg uncertainty, and since spin is discrete, you either know it or you don't; there isn't any continuous symmetry like there is over position or momentum, or over energy or time.

Also you'll note that position and momentum, and energy and time, are conjugate pairs under Heisenberg uncertainty; this is not accidental. Noether's Theorem is compatible with uncertainty and relativity. There is even an equivalent law for quantum field theory, called the Ward-Takashi identity. This is a clue to deep physics. Worth mentioning that the Ward-Takashi identity is responsible for the conservation of electric charge; it's dual to, and I quote, from Wikipedia "the invariance with respect to a change in the phase factor of the complex field of the charged particle and the associated gauge of the electric potential and vector potential.

As dogbert and others have pointed out, this is pure fantasy. These pathetic purveyors of pseudoscience have absolutely NO hard evidence to validate their claims. Furthermore, neither does the proposal even warrant any merit for heuristic acceptance as a hypothesis by virtue of consilience. In other words, by being a likely consequence if the "big picture" provided by the sciences The proposal even fails in terms of originality, being simply a rehash of Everett's much earlier "many worlds" interpretation of quantum effects.

Nevertheless, as seen in other comments here, there are still those who take such fantasies seriously. Which does support PT Barnum's far sounder hypothesis that "There is a sucker born every minute". If we take the distinction seriously, then we must imagine a mapping of the noumenal into the phenomenal world we experience. If the mapping is inconsistent then the phenomenal world would surely reflect that inconsistency. But the phenomenal world is consistent and describable by means of observation and mathematical inference.

If one world maps in a non-random way into the other then surely they can't be so very different Excellent thought Richard! Why "must"? If your starting premise is indeed to assume a one-to-one correspondence, then it merely follows as a truism that we're waiting for science to make the correspondence complete, In any case, it doesn't in fact map in a non-random way, because QM is indeterminate and non-local, yet QM the basis of QFT is taken as a self-contained complete theory. In the following quote Wigner correctly does not make the presumption Wigner If Kant is correct that a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience and so the conditions of science, The dog finds it mysterious that a tail is following him.

We apply mathematics, and discover a limited correspondence not the mathematics itself. Wigner IOW, We force reality to conform to our a-priori conceptualizations in obtaining knowledge, Actually you're both exactly correct, imo. Differentiating interpretations ARE philosophical questions. And philosophical questions DO guide hypothesis. A point of contention here could only arise by an artificial insistence of mutual exclusiveness between science and philosophy.

If that is not what is implied by that interpretation then what is the point of MWI? By when it was proposed the math was already existent, Everrett and people like Tegmark, take it as meaning multiverses literally as far as I can tell. Yes you could say that the "multiverse" are really just one Universe logically, and our language is tripping us up, You have been told this It doesn't matter what you tell me, it matters what I see when I look. One glance at the table of contents shows Kants preoccupation with God and soul.

The following is a complete expression of why kant thinks humans can't appreciate his 'ding an sich' -aling. They exist for us only in relation to each other. Whatever we know about the external world is only a direct, immediate, internal experience. The world appears, in the way that it appears, as a mental phenomenon. We cannot know the world as a thing-in-itself, that is, other than as an appearance within us.

  • The Basics of Troubleshooting in Plastics Processing.. An Introductory Practical Guide!
  • Atlas of the Newborn Volume 3: Head and Neck, Eye, Central Nervous System (Atlas of the Newborn).
  • Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists to America;
  • Parallel Universes | Beyond Universe Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia;
  • Shadows in the Vineyard: The True Story of the Plot to Poison the Worlds Greatest Wine!

Why do you not ever include the soul when you talk about kant? It is apparently central to his philosophy, no matter how one philo or another wishes to interpret it at any given time. Wigner Wigner - mystic "Wigner showed much courage in relating the then unresolved questions of the measurement problem to the much deeper problem of consciousness. In view of this very unorthodox proposal it is astonishing that Wigner was very reactionary with respect of the dogmas of orthodox quantum mechanics.

Are we to conclude that nou himself is a voodoo mystic as the evidence indicates? Mind over matter? Faith over reason? Apparently your views are regarded by the greater physics community as mystical in nature ie having no basis in reality. This is what you resent isn't it nou? I've shown that even if "conservation of Information" is technically true, it is not functionally true in terms of the universe itself.

Once space-time expands to a point where the speed of light can no longer interact between two regions, then "information" about one region is in fact permanently lost to the other region. In fact, this may even be yet another possible cause for the "acceleration" of expansion believed to be caused by DE , because losing information about GRAVITY from the other regions would result in the appearance of either flattening or expansion Two photons move in opposite directions. Over their life time each encounters slightly different gravitational environments, then finally each passes all "matter" that will ever be within their path, having successfully navigated the universe without collision.