Are Many Worlds and the Multiverse the Same Idea [LINK]
post by Swimmy · 2011-06-25T16:17:14.051Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 4 commentsI am woefully unable to judge the quality of this claim, but if true, it seems that many "fine-tuning" questions would be officially answered. It also seems elegant to me, but I admit I don't understand in the least bit the discussion of black hole complementarity.
Discussion? Help?
4 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Manfred · 2011-06-25T19:52:59.000Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is a repost. The original thread was here.
The idea is basically to see what happens if you make measurement and decoherence the same thing. You then need a universe with infinite entropy in order to make measurement irreversible, which they show is satisfied by the cosmological big-ol'-multiverse (a bunch of patches of space that have different laws of physics, basically) to give it its name. However, this runs into some other problems (interacting with everything in the multiverse to get infinite entropy is hard), and it's not really necessary anyhow. But it's a cool thought.
Replies from: Swimmycomment by Oscar_Cunningham · 2011-06-25T17:06:07.360Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I can't follow the physics, but how did you think it would help with the "fine-tuning" question?
Replies from: Swimmy↑ comment by Swimmy · 2011-06-25T17:56:16.898Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The multiverse is already used to explain the anthropic principle. If many worlds implies the multiverse, and we already have good evidence for many worlds, it seems the multiverse solution to fine-tuning becomes stronger (and directly testable). No?