The many-worlds concept, IMB, can be assessed from existing data for identifying the extent of likelihood in this type of dimensionality to the universe.

Complexity must be justified by necessity of function.

The observer’s position provides the only fundamental variable the universe cannot provide by physical mechanism. It is therefore beyond the realm of the physical to require alternate dimensions.

It seems similar to the question of whether there is the 3 physical dimensions and the 4th of time which cannot be assessed against the perceptual concept of 3 dimensions but must be assessed against physics realities such as mass/volume/acceleration.

This may have been discussed before but this is simply posted for review purposes…….

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

Bubblecar said:

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

My point about many observers being the only requirement.

Bubblecar said:

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

There must be such a thing as a universe, even if it is nothing like it seems to be.

As to whether it has a function, I don’t know how you could tell.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

There must be such a thing as a universe, even if it is nothing like it seems to be.

As to whether it has a function, I don’t know how you could tell.

I’d say “the universe” is more a human concept than a natural object, since the cosmologists still bicker over what the term is supposed to mean.

And I merely said “it doesn’t appear to have any function”, which seems an accurate summary :)

Bubblecar said:

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

This

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

There must be such a thing as a universe, even if it is nothing like it seems to be.

As to whether it has a function, I don’t know how you could tell.

I’d say “the universe” is more a human concept than a natural object, since the cosmologists still bicker over what the term is supposed to mean.

And I merely said “it doesn’t appear to have any function”, which seems an accurate summary :)

I was using a more philosophical concept of universe, as in everything that exists, and I think we can agree that there must be something that exists, even if it’s only the computing device that houses my brain and all you figments of its imagination.

As for a function, I could probably agree that I’m not aware of any function it might have.

The Rev Dodgson said:

As for a function, I could probably agree that I’m not aware of any function it might have.

Interface?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I was using a more philosophical concept of universe, as in everything that exists, and I think we can agree that there must be something that exists, even if it’s only the computing device that houses my brain and all you figments of its imagination.

As for a function, I could probably agree that I’m not aware of any function it might have.

There certainly seems to be stuff that exists, but whether and in what way it corresponds to the various models cosmologists call “the universe” is obviously a matter of ongoing debate.

I’m happy to contemplate the idea of “everything that exists” but it is an idea, not something you can actually point to.

Bubblecar said:

I’m happy to contemplate the idea of “everything that exists” but it is an idea, not something you can actually point to.

I can point to a bit of it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m happy to contemplate the idea of “everything that exists” but it is an idea, not something you can actually point to.

I can point with a bit of it.

……….

the purpose of the universe is to make something

wookiemeister said:

the purpose of the universe is to make something

The whale is in calf?

wookiemeister said:

the purpose of the universe is to make something

Who told you that?

Postpocelipse said:

wookiemeister said:

the purpose of the universe is to make something

The whale is in calf?

no idea , beyond our ken

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

the purpose of the universe is to make something

Who told you that?

Cousin Itt……

Come to think of it, I can’t point at anything BUT the universe.

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

the purpose of the universe is to make something

Who told you that?

it came to me just then

dv said:

Come to think of it, I can’t point at anything BUT the universe.

Poignant……

the yeast in a watery soup doesn’t know it’s making beer

wookiemeister said:

the yeast in a watery soup doesn’t know it’s making beer

only the observer who placed it there on purpose can know.

wookiemeister said:

the yeast in a watery soup doesn’t know it’s making beer

Sage

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the yeast in a watery soup doesn’t know it’s making beer

Sage

Parse Lee, Sage, rose Mary in time.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the yeast in a watery soup doesn’t know it’s making beer

Sage

If that is so how is it that a species has developed to distinguish the best beer making materials and exclude all others?

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the yeast in a watery soup doesn’t know it’s making beer

Sage

If that is so how is it that a species has developed to distinguish the best beer making materials and exclude all others?

Well note that modern brewer’s yeast has partly arisen through human activities…

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Sage

If that is so how is it that a species has developed to distinguish the best beer making materials and exclude all others?

Well note that modern brewer’s yeast has partly arisen through human activities…

Thoughtful of us……

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

If that is so how is it that a species has developed to distinguish the best beer making materials and exclude all others?

Well note that modern brewer’s yeast has partly arisen through human activities…

Thoughtful of us……

Yet beer can reduce thoughtfulness so it is a self-balancing system.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Well note that modern brewer’s yeast has partly arisen through human activities…

Thoughtful of us……

Yet beer can reduce thoughtfulness so it is a self-balancing system.

No matter how rapidly you accelerate the alcohol always arrives at your brain at the speed of volatile liquid dilution.

dv said:

Come to think of it, I can’t point at anything BUT the universe.

You can point at stuff, but your pointing doesn’t have the power to reveal it as “everything that exists”.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Come to think of it, I can’t point at anything BUT the universe.

You can point at stuff, but your pointing doesn’t have the power to reveal it as “everything that exists”.

I’ve got a photo somewhere of Spike Milligan, Peter Sellers, Harry Seacombe, Michael Bentine, and Prince Charles all pointing at the universe (though each is pointing at a different bit of it.)

Do we have a reason to exist, does anything have a reason to exist? I think they have none! Evolution does not have a reason, but is the result of changing events. It does not care if you exist or not, it just reacts to changing circumstances and if that includes you, then you might say you are fortunate.

PermeateFree said:

Do we have a reason to exist, does anything have a reason to exist? I think they have none! Evolution does not have a reason, but is the result of changing events. It does not care if you exist or not, it just reacts to changing circumstances and if that includes you, then you might say you are fortunate.

Fortunate to be hand picked by the universe to expel all impurities from it’s beer ingredients and then taste test the stuff?

It may have a function beyond our understanding

which could be a predetermined one

it could be following an algorithm of which we cannot interfere, only observe

all the particles in the universe our bound to space time and follows past present future

all that star light from billion of years from the past continues into the future

Bubblecar said:

> Complexity must be justified by necessity of function.

If there’s such a thing as the universe, it doesn’t appear to have any function.

That’s just Occam’s Razor.

You could say its to create life but then again the universe doesn’t seem to care that we exist

Cymek said:

You could say its to create life but then again the universe doesn’t seem to care that we exist

That is an incredibly subjective sentiment. It may care very much but comprehends a reality in which our trivial concerns are entirely inconsequential…….

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

You could say its to create life but then again the universe doesn’t seem to care that we exist

That is an incredibly subjective sentiment. It may care very much but comprehends a reality in which our trivial concerns are entirely inconsequential…….

I suppose you could test to see if the universe as a whole is self aware and cares about our continued existence by diverting an Extinction Level Event sized asteroid towards Earth and see if something intervenes before it hits us.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

You could say its to create life but then again the universe doesn’t seem to care that we exist

That is an incredibly subjective sentiment. It may care very much but comprehends a reality in which our trivial concerns are entirely inconsequential…….

Really comes across like an upset kid telling their parent “you don’t love me or everything would be different”. Ultimately…….

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

You could say its to create life but then again the universe doesn’t seem to care that we exist

That is an incredibly subjective sentiment. It may care very much but comprehends a reality in which our trivial concerns are entirely inconsequential…….

I suppose you could test to see if the universe as a whole is self aware and cares about our continued existence by diverting an Extinction Level Event sized asteroid towards Earth and see if something intervenes before it hits us.

Why would the universe break it’s own laws of physics simply because you did something incredibly stupid and attention seeking?

To the extent that Occam’s razor preferentially supports any of the various explanations of quantum mechanics, I think it best supports the many-worlds interpretation. This is because the many-worlds interpretation doesn’t require any new physical behaviour, unlike other interpretations that require new behaviour to explain such things as wavefunction collapse. Some may challenge the requirement of a quantum multiverse as being contrary to Occam’s razor. But as a configuration space, the quantum multiverse is actually quite natural. I should remark that the Copenhagen interpretation should not be regarded as an explanation, but rather as a description from the point of view of the experimenter.

KJW said:

To the extent that Occam’s razor preferentially supports any of the various explanations of quantum mechanics, I think it best supports the many-worlds interpretation. This is because the many-worlds interpretation doesn’t require any new physical behaviour, unlike other interpretations that require new behaviour to explain such things as wavefunction collapse. Some may challenge the requirement of a quantum multiverse as being contrary to Occam’s razor. But as a configuration space, the quantum multiverse is actually quite natural. I should remark that the Copenhagen interpretation should not be regarded as an explanation, but rather as a description from the point of view of the experimenter.

My view is that the simplest many-worlds mechanism is that which makes every observer a universe or dimension of potential. I cannot see any coherency in splitting the physical dimension exponentially.