Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MWI is Low 1-C. Infinite branching points that diverge infinitely results in uncountable universes.I know with the current info it's just 2A atm, but If the OPM cosmology were actually based on MWI, it could be more than just 2A, no? I've seen a lot ppl saying it ranges anywhere between 2A to high 1B.
based on the space that contains the MWI multiverse is hilbert space.MWI is Low 1-C. Infinite branching points that diverge infinitely results in uncountable universes.
Idk how High 1-B would be given.
That's just 2-A. You'd need to have a 2-A space as the baseline to get Low 1-C afaik.MWI is Low 1-C. Infinite branching points that diverge infinitely results in uncountable universes.
It's not just 2-A.That's just 2-A. You'd need to have a 2-A space as the baseline to get Low 1-C afaik.
The MCU is Low 1-C because a Timeline is 2-A at base, which then has branches that go on forever. So it's starting at infinite 4D before the recursive stuff happens. OPM doesn't currently have that.It's like the MCU Multiverse, essentially. Each point in time (which there is an infinite amount of) diverges into infinite branches, which themselves diverge into infinite branches, so on and so fourth
I'm not talking about OPM. I'm talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the real world...The MCU is Low 1-C because a Timeline is 2-A at base, which then has branches that go on forever. So it's starting at infinite 4D before the recursive stuff happens. OPM doesn't currently have that.
Wikipedia gives two sources. Checking them they areEven wikipedia mentions the number being uncountable.
AndThe Origin of the Everettian Heresy". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 40 (2): 97–123.
The former article says thisMany Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality.
In the last two decades, several commentators (e.g. Barrett, 1999; Kent, 1990) have pointed out that Everett’s argument is wanting. There is perhaps no need of a statistical postulate in order to ‘‘interpret’’ each branch of the universal wave function individually, i.e. to state which occurrences in the ‘‘perceived world’’ that particular branch describes. Yet, the theory provides us with infinite branches, and this is the formal structure from which we have to extract empirical information. Here we need what Everett calls the ‘‘interpretive part’’ of the theory. As a matter of fact, Everett does use an interpretive rule in his deduction, which is similar to that of classical statistical mechanics, although logically weaker. Unlike the measure of the set of trajectories in the phase space of statistical mechanics, the measure of the set of branches is not straightforwardly interpreted as a statistical weight for empirical statements.
Which is just 2-A. The only time an uncountable infinite is introduced is hereHe concluded that any such element can be identified as ‘‘what we think of as an experience’’, and that ‘‘it is tenable to assert that all the elements simultaneously coexist.’’ To the remark of Podolsky: ‘‘It looks like we would have a non-denumerable infinity of worlds’’, Everett answered: ‘‘Yes.’’ (Proceedings of the Conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Xavier University, Cincinnati,1962; deposited at the American Institute of Physics.)
Which requires that you prove Hilbert Space mathematics exist within the cosmology.Secondly, one must be able to deduce, from the model provided by the universal wave function at a given instant, that (R) has probability 1 of being true. Everett assumes that this second condition is fulfilled if the set of the branches in which the state of O’s memory contradicts (R) has vanishing measure in the Hilbert space. As for the measure to be used, Everett proposes, on the basis of a plausibility argument that he finds compelling, a function which is analogous to the probability function appearing in the Born rule. This choice enables Everett to claim that, in the case in which O has performed the same measurement upon an infinite collection of identical systems, the statistical results predicted by the conventional theory are recovered (since they correspond to the statistical distribution recorded by all memory sequences ‘‘except for a set [y] of measure zero’’).
Firstly, imagine a world consisting of a very thin, infinitely long and wide, slab of matter, in which various complex internal processes are occurring — up to and including the presence of intelligent life, if you like. In particular one might imagine various forces acting in the plane of the slab, between one part and another.
So the source Wikipedia gives wouldn't automatically translate to every verse with MWI have an uncountable infinite number of worlds.Now, imagine stacking many thousands of these slabs one atop the other, but without allowing them to interact at all. If this is a “many-worlds theory”, it is a many-worlds theory only in the sense of the philosopher David Lewis (Lewis 1986): none of the worlds are dynamically in contact, and no (putative) inhabitant of any world can gain empirical evidence about any other
What you described is a countable infinity. Since the numbers can be organized in a [A, B, C] fashion. You wouldn't get an uncountable number with that method.The 1 universe immediately becomes infinite universes anyway in the next infinitesimal unit of time, since it branches out with all the quantum possibilities, which there are an infinite number off. And then you repeat the same math and end up with Aleph-1 universes regardless.
This is broken link wise
That's not how that works to my understanding. Infinity^3 is still equal to Infinity. Even Infinity^Infinity is just Infinity because of Set Theory.You end up with Aleph 1 because you are multiplying Aleph-0 (number of universes obtained after a single branch) by Aleph-0 (the branches each multiply out to infinite more branches) and Aleph-0 amount of times (this happens at every point in time across an infinite timeline)
This isn't infinity^3. That would just be infinity x infinity x infinity.That's not how that works to my understanding. Infinity^3 is still equal to Infinity. Even Infinity^Infinity is just Infinity because of Set Theory
Which is still 2-A. Since you can go: Natural -> Integer which is still a set of countable infinities despite one being larger than the other.This isn't infinity^3. That would just be infinity x infinity x infinity.
No, Continuum Hypothesis is that you can't have a set of Rational numbers. It would either be a set Integers or Real numbers, which is a countable and uncountable infinity respectively. Infinity^infinity still wouldn't be an uncountable set afaik, since it would be contained within an Integer Set.Continuum Hypothesis in simple terms says that 2^Aleph-0 is Aleph-1. Thus, Aleph-0^Aleph-0 is also Aleph-1.
Did you read my next sentence. I'm saying what I said is not just Infinity^3. Sigh.Which is still 2-A. Since you can go: Natural -> Integer which is still a set of countable infinities despite one being larger than the other.
Are you reading the wrong thing?No, Continuum Hypothesis is that you can't have a set of Rational numbers. It would be Integers or Real numbers, which is a countable and uncountable infinity respectively.
I did but I was working off a different idea.Did you read my next sentence. I'm saying what I said is not just Infinity^3. Sigh.
I don't think so. The point about it is that there's nothing between the cardinal sets. It's either a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity that keeps increasing.Are you reading the wrong thing?
This is part of the continuum Hypothesis yeah. But the 2^Aleph-0 thing is a pretty important part lol.I don't think so. The point about it is that there's nothing between the cardinal sets. It's either a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity that keeps increasing.
I mean MWI doesn't default to Low 1-C simply because fiction doesn't tend to stick to the interpretation faithfully a lot of the time/we tend to go with the most low balled version of things.Though for infinity^infinity you're right that it would go into Aleph-1 since it would reach an unmeasurable number. Though to the best of my knowledge that still doesn't mean MWI defaults to Low 1-C since you'd need to prove more things about it as MWI still has different interpretations of how it actually works.
What if the universe is 11-dimensional (Gurren Lagann universe)? Does that means we get to 1-B by using MWI(Multiverse Labyrinth) ?Snip
Idk. I mean, personally, I would say yeah. But staffs on this wiki are strict as fuuuckWhat if the universe is 11-dimensional (Gurren Lagann universe)? Does that means we get to 1-B by using MWI(Multiverse Labyrinth) ?
No. Because the Labyrinth wouldn't qualify for an stacked infinity chain.What if the universe is 11-dimensional (Gurren Lagann universe)? Does that means we get to 1-B by using MWI(Multiverse Labyrinth) ?
How ?Snip
Because it's infinite universes based on alternate choices going by the source page. The Aleph-1 variant requires an infinite line, branching infinitely that then branching infinitely as well.How ?
one question, why does the censor don't censor swear words in other languages?i mean i can say puta or mierda or JODETE, but no censor.Because it's infinite universes based on alternate choices going by the source page. The Aleph-1 variant requires an infinite line, branching infinitely that then branching infinitely as well.
GL would just be High 1-C rather than 1-B.
I don't know. Presumably only English was considered for the filter.don't censor swear words in other languages?i