If a tree falls in a forest...

One way to prove many worlds is to make a time machine and see if time travel is consistent with free will. If I can go back in time and kill my grandfather without me "disappearing" or misdoing all sorts of things that prevent me from killing him, then it is true that this grandfather is not the grandfather in my own universe; he looks, talks, thinks, and behaves just like him, but it is not truly him. He is my grandfather in a parallel universe.

if that would happen it would indeed be a good point for many worlds

One way to prove many worlds is to make a time machine and see if time travel is consistent with free will. If I can go back in time and kill my grandfather without me "disappearing" or misdoing all sorts of things that prevent me from killing him, then it is true that this grandfather is not the grandfather in my own universe; he looks, talks, thinks, and behaves just like him, but it is not truly him. He is my grandfather in a parallel universe.

Actually, that's not entirely true. You can do that and still avoid violating causality. It's theorized that if you had the intent of killing said grandfather, your very existence in the past proves that you never reached your goal OR you did reach your goal but a series of unknown events occur that prevent you from destroying your own existence. First one could be what appear to be mere coincidental events that sidetrack you from your goal, or otherwise. The second could be from an event that may be your grandfather is an adoptive parent, sharing no genetic traits with you whatsoever without your knowledge. This doesn't necessarily prove the many worlds theory.

There's lots of fun scenarios that Quantum Superposition imposes.

Quote from: Jack on April 23, 2009, 05:39:01 PM

One way to prove many worlds is to make a time machine and see if time travel is consistent with free will. If I can go back in time and kill my grandfather without me "disappearing" or misdoing all sorts of things that prevent me from killing him, then it is true that this grandfather is not the grandfather in my own universe; he looks, talks, thinks, and behaves just like him, but it is not truly him. He is my grandfather in a parallel universe.

Actually, that's not entirely true. You can do that and still avoid violating causality. It's theorized that if you had the intent of killing said grandfather, your very existence in the past proves that you never reached your goal OR you did reach your goal but a series of unknown events occur that prevent you from destroying your own existence. First one could be what appear to be mere coincidental events that sidetrack you from your goal, or otherwise. The second could be from an event that may be your grandfather is an adoptive parent, sharing no genetic traits with you whatsoever without your knowledge. This doesn't necessarily prove the many worlds theory.

There's lots of fun scenarios that Quantum Superposition imposes.

He was saying if you killed your blood grandfather. All proven, and confirmed kill.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 23, 2009, 05:44:27 PM

Quote from: Jack on April 23, 2009, 05:39:01 PM

One way to prove many worlds is to make a time machine and see if time travel is consistent with free will. If I can go back in time and kill my grandfather without me "disappearing" or misdoing all sorts of things that prevent me from killing him, then it is true that this grandfather is not the grandfather in my own universe; he looks, talks, thinks, and behaves just like him, but it is not truly him. He is my grandfather in a parallel universe.

Actually, that's not entirely true. You can do that and still avoid violating causality. It's theorized that if you had the intent of killing said grandfather, your very existence in the past proves that you never reached your goal OR you did reach your goal but a series of unknown events occur that prevent you from destroying your own existence. First one could be what appear to be mere coincidental events that sidetrack you from your goal, or otherwise. The second could be from an event that may be your grandfather is an adoptive parent, sharing no genetic traits with you whatsoever without your knowledge. This doesn't necessarily prove the many worlds theory.

There's lots of fun scenarios that Quantum Superposition imposes.

He was saying if you killed your blood grandfather. All proven, and confirmed kill.

But that would violate causality and space-time would most likely collapse in the surrounding area of the event, possibly for the whole solar system even. No one would ever know anything afterwards.

John Gibbin's book "Unveiling the Edge of Time : Black Holes, White Holes, Wormholes" explains it pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox#Parallel_universes.2Falternate_timelines

But that's dependent on the many worlds theory being correct. I was imposing the theory as if the many worlds theory was false and there was one ultimate universe. Either way, no one would ever probably know if it was or was not true, seeing as timetravel is apparently impossible due to the nature of the mechanics involved.

We never know. There could be one ultimate universe, or there could be multiple universes in a megaverse of universes. However, some physicists began to think that in order for the universe to expand, it must exist as a bubble expanding in relations to other bubbles in a "room" of bubbles. They call it inflation in physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_universe_theory

Anyhow, back to the point. To prove many worlds true, we need to travel back in time and kill our grandfathers and see if such act can be done without creating all sorts of nasty consequences, or if nothing prevents me from doing so. With many worlds, history will no longer be fixed; what you do in the new universe has no effect on the universe you came from. You may not be able to change your own history in your universe, but you can change the history of others in a parallel universe. If it is one ultimate universe, then you are right because doing so would violate casuality. (In fact, physicists are trying so hard to violate casuality in order to create a time machine, but without success.) There are other ways to prove the theory, but I believe this is probably the best one.

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course. Sound waves are sound waves....

I always found this to be a stupid debate.

Quote from: Euclid on April 22, 2009, 07:09:24 PM

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course. Sound waves are sound waves....

I always found this to be a stupid debate.

When we are not looking, do things happen like they would if we were looking at them?  The answer is not at all obvious.  Even in modern science, the answer is not very certain.

When we are not looking, do things happen like they would if we were looking at them?  The answer is not at all obvious.  Even in modern science, the answer is not very certain.

I've already said, the question denies any kind of answer.

the question is only senseless if you have no idea of modern physics

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on April 24, 2009, 12:32:22 AM

Quote from: Euclid on April 22, 2009, 07:09:24 PM

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course. Sound waves are sound waves....

I always found this to be a stupid debate.

When we are not looking, do things happen like they would if we were looking at them?  The answer is not at all obvious.  Even in modern science, the answer is not very certain.

How do you look at a sound wave?

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 05:45:47 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 23, 2009, 05:44:27 PM

Quote from: Jack on April 23, 2009, 05:39:01 PM

One way to prove many worlds is to make a time machine and see if time travel is consistent with free will. If I can go back in time and kill my grandfather without me "disappearing" or misdoing all sorts of things that prevent me from killing him, then it is true that this grandfather is not the grandfather in my own universe; he looks, talks, thinks, and behaves just like him, but it is not truly him. He is my grandfather in a parallel universe.

Actually, that's not entirely true. You can do that and still avoid violating causality. It's theorized that if you had the intent of killing said grandfather, your very existence in the past proves that you never reached your goal OR you did reach your goal but a series of unknown events occur that prevent you from destroying your own existence. First one could be what appear to be mere coincidental events that sidetrack you from your goal, or otherwise. The second could be from an event that may be your grandfather is an adoptive parent, sharing no genetic traits with you whatsoever without your knowledge. This doesn't necessarily prove the many worlds theory.

There's lots of fun scenarios that Quantum Superposition imposes.

He was saying if you killed your blood grandfather. All proven, and confirmed kill.

But that would violate causality and space-time would most likely collapse in the surrounding area of the event, possibly for the whole solar system even. No one would ever know anything afterwards.

John Gibbin's book "Unveiling the Edge of Time : Black Holes, White Holes, Wormholes" explains it pretty well.

That's the point. That is how we'd know if it was infinite universes. If it was you could, if not you couldn't.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 23, 2009, 05:49:27 PM

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 05:45:47 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 23, 2009, 05:44:27 PM

Quote from: Jack on April 23, 2009, 05:39:01 PM

One way to prove many worlds is to make a time machine and see if time travel is consistent with free will. If I can go back in time and kill my grandfather without me "disappearing" or misdoing all sorts of things that prevent me from killing him, then it is true that this grandfather is not the grandfather in my own universe; he looks, talks, thinks, and behaves just like him, but it is not truly him. He is my grandfather in a parallel universe.

Actually, that's not entirely true. You can do that and still avoid violating causality. It's theorized that if you had the intent of killing said grandfather, your very existence in the past proves that you never reached your goal OR you did reach your goal but a series of unknown events occur that prevent you from destroying your own existence. First one could be what appear to be mere coincidental events that sidetrack you from your goal, or otherwise. The second could be from an event that may be your grandfather is an adoptive parent, sharing no genetic traits with you whatsoever without your knowledge. This doesn't necessarily prove the many worlds theory.

There's lots of fun scenarios that Quantum Superposition imposes.

He was saying if you killed your blood grandfather. All proven, and confirmed kill.

But that would violate causality and space-time would most likely collapse in the surrounding area of the event, possibly for the whole solar system even. No one would ever know anything afterwards.

John Gibbin's book "Unveiling the Edge of Time : Black Holes, White Holes, Wormholes" explains it pretty well.

That's the point. That is how we'd know if it was infinite universes. If it was you could, if not you couldn't.

That doesn't mean the knowledge would pass to anyone else in the Universe you originated from.

just a thought, maybe nonsense   :
atm we don't know if the many worlds theory is true or not and we have no means of checking or observing it. could that mean that a universe exists where this theory is false and a universe where it's true?

just a thought, maybe nonsense   :
atm we don't know if the many worlds theory is true or not and we have no means of checking or observing it. could that mean that a universe exists where this theory is false and a universe where it's true?

You just short circuited my brain. Thanks a lot jerkoff, it's gonna take me weeks to find a replacement fuse.

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

y/n?

Provide definitions for words in question as well as evidence to back your answer (if indeed evidence can be found).

You can't know, there is no way to prove it or disprove it. If you said "yes" you can declare ludicrous things without proof, then have them become "facts"(like god).  If you said "yes", you don't believe in science.

Quote from: Euclid on April 22, 2009, 07:09:24 PM

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

y/n?

Provide definitions for words in question as well as evidence to back your answer (if indeed evidence can be found).

You can't know, there is no way to prove it or disprove it. If you said "yes" you can declare ludicrous things without proof, then have them become "facts"(like god).  If you said "yes", you don't believe in science.

We know what causes a noise. The vibration of air. We know that two particles can't exist in the same spot. We know that there is air in the forest. We know that when the tree falls it will transmit energy to the air by falling through it. We know this will cause the air to vibrate.

We could design experiments to tell whether the air was vibrating or not without being there. I've seen video of a tree falling in a forest with the cameraman safely at home. There was audio and it made noise.

In what way would science imply it does not make a noise?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on April 27, 2009, 10:04:33 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 22, 2009, 07:09:24 PM

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

y/n?

Provide definitions for words in question as well as evidence to back your answer (if indeed evidence can be found).

You can't know, there is no way to prove it or disprove it. If you said "yes" you can declare ludicrous things without proof, then have them become "facts"(like god).  If you said "yes", you don't believe in science.

We know what causes a noise. The vibration of air. We know that two particles can't exist in the same spot. We know that there is air in the forest. We know that when the tree falls it will transmit energy to the air by falling through it. We know this will cause the air to vibrate.

We could design experiments to tell whether the air was vibrating or not without being there. I've seen video of a tree falling in a forest with the cameraman safely at home. There was audio and it made noise.

In what way would science imply it does not make a noise?

Sorry for not elaborating, I wasn't talking about it literally. I was talking about the concept of whether or not something can exist, without an observer. In the literal sense you are correct .

I was talking about the concept of whether or not something can exist, without an observer.

The answer is yes. Things can exist without being viewed.

Quote from: Raist on April 27, 2009, 10:10:53 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on April 27, 2009, 10:04:33 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 22, 2009, 07:09:24 PM

and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

y/n?

Provide definitions for words in question as well as evidence to back your answer (if indeed evidence can be found).

You can't know, there is no way to prove it or disprove it. If you said "yes" you can declare ludicrous things without proof, then have them become "facts"(like god).  If you said "yes", you don't believe in science.

We know what causes a noise. The vibration of air. We know that two particles can't exist in the same spot. We know that there is air in the forest. We know that when the tree falls it will transmit energy to the air by falling through it. We know this will cause the air to vibrate.

We could design experiments to tell whether the air was vibrating or not without being there. I've seen video of a tree falling in a forest with the cameraman safely at home. There was audio and it made noise.

In what way would science imply it does not make a noise?

Sorry for not elaborating, I wasn't talking about it literally. I was talking about the concept of whether or not something can exist, without an observer. In the literal sense you are correct .

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them. Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way. We don't observe things in any real way except for a firing of electrons that records information.

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

the way I see it is that a particle does nothing compared to another particle unless it is affected by said particle. So if you had a person in a box that could push one of two buttons, compared to an outside observer if nothing from inside the box affects the outside then both buttons have been pushed and neither button has been pushed until an outside observer opens the box. forgive me if I misinterpreted something.

Quote

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

So then everything is always observed because it is effecting other particles?

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 03:45:36 PM

Quote

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

So then everything is always observed because it is effecting other particles?

No, because those effects aren't always measurable.

Quote from: Raist on April 28, 2009, 04:20:49 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 03:45:36 PM

Quote

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

So then everything is always observed because it is effecting other particles?

No, because those effects aren't always measurable.

Measurable by whom? If there is an effect then there was an effect.

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 04:31:29 PM

Quote from: Raist on April 28, 2009, 04:20:49 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 03:45:36 PM

Quote

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

So then everything is always observed because it is effecting other particles?

No, because those effects aren't always measurable.

Measurable by whom?

By an observer.   

If there is an effect then there was an effect.

How do you know there is an effect if you can't measure it?

Quote from: Raist on April 28, 2009, 04:44:20 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 04:31:29 PM

Quote from: Raist on April 28, 2009, 04:20:49 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 03:45:36 PM

Quote

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

So then everything is always observed because it is effecting other particles?

No, because those effects aren't always measurable.

Measurable by whom?

By an observer.   

Quote

If there is an effect then there was an effect.

How do you know there is an effect if you can't measure it?

The particle that was effected is the observer. Anything observing them collapses the wave pattern.

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 04:48:55 PM

Quote from: Raist on April 28, 2009, 04:44:20 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 04:31:29 PM

Quote from: Raist on April 28, 2009, 04:20:49 PM

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 03:45:36 PM

Quote

Things exist without an observer, In fact due to gravity they are constantly effecting us indirectly in a measurable way even if we can't see them.  Every particle is observed by every other particle in that way.

Measuring the gravitational effect of unseen bodies is an observation of those bodies.

So then everything is always observed because it is effecting other particles?

No, because those effects aren't always measurable.

Measurable by whom?

By an observer.   

Quote

If there is an effect then there was an effect.

How do you know there is an effect if you can't measure it?

The particle that was effected is the observer. Anything observing them collapses the wave pattern.

Right, so what if the possible effect is unmeasurable by the observer's equipment?  Does the wave function still collapse?