# Which Universe and Which You Is The Real You



## BAYLOR (Nov 25, 2014)

Okay, according to the theory of parallel universes every you make choice happens which creates  a parallel universe. Now keep in mind there  7 billion people on Earth which this also happens to  and given the fact that there are   probably intelligent life on other planets multiplies things a bit further.

The big question, How would you  know if you  and the  universe you are in is the original or merely a branching alternate to the original?  

Is there truly an original incarnation as we understand it? 


Thoughts ?


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 25, 2014)

If you accept the almost-infinite alternative universes theory there is no original or copy, just as with the Hubble bubble there is no centre to the universe; all choices are equally viable. Or any specific point is the expansion centre for everything. This, however, seems improbable; not all choices are equal probability. Not all human choices, that is; when it comes to subatomic particles things might be rather more cut and dried.

So we are not in a Niven 'all the myriad ways' scenario. If it's human freedom of action that counts, alternative universes only started when life gained enough complexity to recognise different possibilities.


----------



## David Evil Overlord (Nov 25, 2014)

Oh, story idea!


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 25, 2014)

Oh you humans are so obsessed, even when given ample evidence against it, to be the the 'first', the 'original', or the 'centre of "Something"'. 



BAYLOR said:


> The big question, How would you know if you and the universe you are in is the original or merely a branching alternate to the original?



Actually you answered your own question, in this scheme when a universe 'branches' why label one the 'original' and one the 'new'. Both universes are identical apart from the change that has wrought the split, both are now 'branches'. It's all branches, is surely the easiest and best option! The only branch that matters is the one that you are on right now.

Now I'm sure you'll say: But there was one universe, then the split came and then SHAZAAAM another universe pops into existence. So there must have been a first one. If a 'multi-verse' worked that way (mmm, it seems such a wasteful way of doing things, but hey-ho its nice thinking about it ) then when each new universe pops into existence it is identical to its partner apart from the tiny change. Thus someone in the this new universe examining it would see that it's origin went all the way back to the big bang i.e. there is no way, it's _impossible_, of telling if it actually was created in a flash at some point later than the big bang. So why worry about impossibilities. It's impossible for you, a finite being, to type every number that must exist, so you don't attempt that, right?  

Also regarding this idea in the first place - that a 'choice' is made and this causes a split. Again a bit human-centric (ok, so you include aliens) but what about elephants, dolphins, the great apes, cows and horses, cats and dogs. In fact where does this list end. Why not insects etc... Actually this choice/free will thing is, in my eyes, all a bit of misinterpretation. It is the unfortunate use of loaded words (Ironically springing from the Copenhagen interpretation where an observer's_ choice_ of measurement causes wave function collapse and the universe to go along a certain 'path' - something that Everett and his many-worlds theory tries to get rid of). Both interpretations talk about 'observers' and 'measurements', not people and choices. In my mind (and feel free to disagree) an 'observer' is in fact any object that has decohered fully, or to put it into other words is large enough so that it behaves as a classical object not a quantum one. And a 'measurement' is just an interaction said object has with a quantum object. I did not require anything like sentience, human or otherwise to make it all work!


----------



## Nick B (Nov 25, 2014)

David Evil Overlord said:


> Oh, story idea!



A very well worn story idea though, possibly starting with The Time Machine, even the X-Men did it (though they were possibly one of the earlier versions of timelines being used in fiction). Doesn't mean it can't be done more though, time and multiple universes are incredibly enticing, both fictionally and in scientific terms.


----------



## willwallace (Nov 25, 2014)

I read somewhere a while back that if there there are infinite universes there are also many where the laws of physics are different than ours-the weak nuclear force is a little stronger, gravity is weaker, etc.  This would lead to many universes being completely alien in a physical nature to ours, so add all of those universes to the mix.  What type of beings would emerge in such weird environments, it's impossible to know.
First movie that came to mind with this idea is The One, with Jet Li, where one version of himself was killing the others to get stronger.  If I remember correctly, that movie only had some finite number of alternate selves, but I can't exactly recall the explanation.  Maybe it was that many alternate universes cannot support life as we know it(going back to my first paragraph). 
As to the original question of the thread, I think Venusian Broon touched on the answer.  Choice is not the best word, perhaps; "random interaction" is a better description.  Living beings have random interactions we call choices, but so do other objects. There are quantum effects which affect classical objects, but these happen in a random way, kind of like a choice that living beings make.  So the whole universe would be creating new versions of itself in an infinite number of ways. It's pretty mind boggling to try to imagine how many are created every nanosecond, if that's how it works.


----------



## farntfar (Nov 25, 2014)

The first time I came across the idea of multiverses was in a short story by John Wyndham: Random Quest, which appeared in his collection Consider her ways, and others. It was first published in 1961, so the short story was presumably written some time before.
In that story it was stated, if I remember correctly, that a new universe was created by each different quantum outcome, rather than just each decision, which creates a whole bunch more universes, and a colossal number which will be subjectively identical.

As for universes having different laws of physics, see The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov for an idea about that one, also some very interesting aliens (in a parallel universe) with three sexes. I really enjoyed this book.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 25, 2014)

Multiverses and the idea that more branch with every change down to the quantum level has two problems.
1) It's not provable or not.
2) It's seriously inelegant and only invented to solve one interpretation of experiments like single photon stream at two slits.

Terry Pratchett refers to "Trouser legs of Time." I think it's a weak idea for Fantasy (e.g. Sliders) and nuttier theory than _philostigen, _ aether,  four (or five) Elements, etc etc.



> How would you know if you and the universe you are in is the original or merely a branching alternate to the original


Meaningless. Because if the theory is at all true rather than bonkers, all are equally valid and have been branching since the Big Bang at every event that can have more than one outcome. Which is the next atom to decay in a Radioactive lump of material? Every Atom results in a new Universe every instant as any might have decayed ...


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 26, 2014)

There might be universe in which the Dinosaurs survived and evolved into an intelligent species or one where Neanderthal Man rose to become the dominant  version of mankind.

There is probably a version of the universe which never had the Spice Girls.


----------



## farntfar (Nov 26, 2014)

Because all possibilities must occur, you're certainly right, Baylor.

Unfortunately there will be another universe where the Spice Girls are the pinacle of evolution.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 26, 2014)

farntfar said:


> Because all possibilities must occur, you're certainly right, Baylor.
> 
> Unfortunately there will be another universe where the Spice Girls are the pinacle of evolution.



That would be the hell dimension.


----------



## farntfar (Nov 26, 2014)

I wish I could pretend I couldn't imagine anything worse. 

Even worse though; if the Spice Girls were the pinnacle of evolution, noone would have created the Chrons.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 26, 2014)

farntfar said:


> I wish I could pretend I couldn't imagine anything worse.
> 
> Even worse though; if the Spice Girls were the pinnacle of evolution, noone would have created the Chrons.




Chons would exist in that universe, but in an incarnation too horrible to contemplate .


----------



## goldhawk (Nov 27, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> The big question, How would you  know if you  and the  universe you are in is the original or merely a branching alternate to the original?
> 
> Is there truly an original incarnation as we understand it?
> 
> Thoughts ?



The "original" universe does not branch. When it reaches a point were two possibilities can result, it forms a superposition of the possibilities. When the superposition is measured, it collapses and one only possibility is the result. The other possibility is gone completely; there is no evidence that it even existed.

At any time, there may be many superpositions but when measured, they will collapse, leaving only one universe.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 27, 2014)

goldhawk said:


> The "original" universe does not branch. When it reaches a point were two possibilities can result, it forms a superposition of the possibilities. When the superposition is measured, it collapses and one only possibility is the result. The other possibility is gone completely; there is no evidence that it even existed.
> 
> At any time, there may be many superpositions but when measured, they will collapse, leaving only one universe.




That is a typical of a collapse interpretation - such as the venerable Copenhagen

Baylor is obviously talking about the many-worlds interpretation where after each measurement the universe splits into two non-connecting and separate universes.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 27, 2014)

Yes.
I suspect there is only one Universe. The problem is that there seems to be no way to verify that either single or many is true. It seems to be a Faith based issue!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 27, 2014)

goldhawk said:


> there may be many superpositions but when measured


I suspect that there is a flaw in the idea of the Many Universes. But the requirement to measure surely doesn't exist. The universe probably manages fine without us observing it.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 27, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I suspect that there is a flaw in the idea of the Many Universes. But the requirement to measure surely doesn't exist. The universe probably manages fine without us observing it.



In my mind "measurement" just means "interact". e.g. I've never seen a cat plot stuff on graph paper, it just gets on with living in its domain


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 27, 2014)

Cats plot without Graph paper. They don't need it. Search Cat Plot


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 27, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Cats plot without Graph paper. They don't need it. Search Cat Plot



Not with me. I'm a bona fide cat slave. I do their bidding. When they take over the world I am guaranteed to at least be alive.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 27, 2014)

Until they figure ring pull cans and tin openers.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 27, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Until they figure ring pull cans and tin openers.





In the cat-verse I think there will always be a demand for big laps and hands for really deep massages, at least from some of the cat population. 

I sure they have their deepest philosophical thoughts in such a state, such as: If you put Schroedinger in a sealed box with a radioactive source that had a 50/50 chance of activating a poison that would kill him, why should I care?


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 19, 2014)

Venusian Broon said:


> In the cat-verse I think there will always be a demand for big laps and hands for really deep massages, at least from some of the cat population.
> 
> I sure they have their deepest philosophical thoughts in such a state, such as: If you put Schroedinger in a sealed box with a radioactive source that had a 50/50 chance of activating a poison that would kill him, why should I care?




I wonder what the our universes most intelligent super being Mr Neutron would make of The Cat- verse?


----------



## scientia (Dec 25, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Okay, according to the theory of parallel universes every you make choice happens which creates  a parallel universe. Now keep in mind there  7 billion people on Earth which this also happens to  and given the fact that there are   probably intelligent life on other planets multiplies things a bit further.
> 
> The big question, How would you  know if you  and the  universe you are in is the original or merely a branching alternate to the original?


I suppose I could answer this two ways. First, there are no parallel universes just as there is no such thing as time travel. Both of these theories rely on an infinite amount of mass and energy which does not seem likely.

Secondly, let's just say for fun that there really were parallel universes. None of them would have a copy of you or anyone even remotely like you. Yes, I know that this has been a staple of Star Trek with slightly different versions of characters such as the bearded Spock. However, it's complete nonsense. If we began with two universes that were absolutely identical in every way, they would drift apart due to the Uncertainty Principle. After a million years, only the continents would be similar. After a billion years, even that is not guaranteed. You don't have a double.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 15, 2016)

scientia said:


> I suppose I could answer this two ways. First, there are no parallel universes just as there is no such thing as time travel. Both of these theories rely on an infinite amount of mass and energy which does not seem likely.
> 
> Secondly, let's just say for fun that there really were parallel universes. None of them would have a copy of you or anyone even remotely like you. Yes, I know that this has been a staple of Star Trek with slightly different versions of characters such as the bearded Spock. However, it's complete nonsense. If we began with two universes that were absolutely identical in every way, they would drift apart due to the Uncertainty Principle. After a million years, only the continents would be similar. After a billion years, even that is not guaranteed. You don't have a double.



 Science suggest that both might be possible.


----------

