Weird QM Interpretation tries to Solve both Fermi and SA?

post by AynonymousPrsn123 · 2025-01-11T20:19:43.401Z · LW · GW · No comments

This is a question post.

Contents

No comments

I'm no physicist; I'm just curious as to whether this idea has ever been explored. I'm brainstorming here, not asserting anything definitive. 

I read Wei Dai's creative interpretation of QM, and found it fascinating. However, I was confused about one aspect: does his interpretation suggest that there are more universes in the past than in the present? That would be very bizarre.

Even if I'm misunderstanding his interpretation (and I probably am), just imagine, what if this were actually the case? That is, what if, contrary to MWI (where universes diverge with every superposition collapse), universes instead converge every time a superposition collapses?

Let’s take this “convergence principle” as an assumption. Now, consider the standard simulation argument. Then, even if future-humans chose to simulate 21st-century humans sometime in our far future, there are still many many more universes populated by real 21st-century humans. Therefore, under this principle, we should actually expect to be real humans, not simulations. This seems to resolve the SA.

A possible counterargument might go like this: using the same “earlier-is-likelier” logic, what we should actually expect instead is that the first intelligent alien species to evolve early in the universe’s history chose to simulate humans living much later on.

To that, I would respond: I agree, but then, taking this logic even further, what we should expect even more strongly is that we are the intelligent species in question — we are the “original” intelligent aliens.

This idea seems to resolve both the Fermi Paradox and the SA. That said, there are probably subtleties here related to reference classes that I haven’t fully thought through. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the foundational assumption behind this idea — converging universes through time — somehow violates physics.

What are your thoughts?

Answers

No comments

Comments sorted by top scores.