keep on ruckin’

Re. the multiverse, my point is that a universe really is not much like an atom. At least under the conventional view, an atom (or a molecule in a gas) is something very simple, and a universe is something very complex.

The whole notion of trying to take a statistical view of universes in an imagined mulitverse strikes me as wrong-headed. On the basis of our sample of universes which is, as you say, only one, it seems reasonable to suppose that a universe is quite well structured, with a lot of over-all patterns. Why invoke a potential infinity of variations and then say, “Oh, we’re just lucky to be in this good universe.”

I think people initially are attracted to this approach as it seems to solve the “Why?” question. It seems like if every possible universe exists, then we no longer have to worry about why our world is as it is.

But the solution is an illusion, as then you’re left with a mea-Why, that is, the question of why the multiverse exists.

Better to just stop at the first Why, and puzzle over possible explanations for our world’s structure. Emergence? Cosmic life? Strange attractors? Under a Copenhagen kind of viewpoint, we might suppose that the universe is in some sense alive and is structuring itself. Which leads to another why…

George Gamow asserts with confidence that all the molecules of air in the room could head for one corner, leaving you to suffocate in your chair, since the distribution is simply a matter of probability. These unlikely events are not prohibited by the laws of nature.

You say you do not see a close analogy between universes, and states of a gas. But wouldn’t it be a little presumptuous on our part to claim to “see” a close analogy between “universes” . . . and anything at all, in the one and only universe we know?

“Bubbles,” not gas molecules, seem to be the preferred trope. The cosmos is bubbling like an unwatched pot, the plenum is a “foam.” Bubbles, near equilibrium, tend towards the spherical.

Perhaps life arises because lightning will strike that four-leaf clover. It will happen under a blue moon. It will happen in the fullness of time, and the fatness of chance . . . heedless of special pleading for special pumpkins, or in stentorian answer.

Not to be too hard on the Commonsense Science site, my impression is that the guy has one particular nonstandard science idea that he wants to push, a pet theory—that an electron is rotating ring—and he’s thrown in his lot with “commonsense” in the hopes of getting more readers. Like a low-end rock band that switches over to “Christian rock.”

Is there much “Christian science-fiction”? Besides those after-the-rapture “left behind” books. My sales HAVE been rather slow of late…

Remus, I meant to add the notion of “Quantum Computation” to my list of SF goodies, and will indeed take that up in SF & QM #2. Your idea of merging universes is an attractive one, partly because it serves as kind of metaphor for love and marriage.

I use some kind of QM handwaving explanation for teleportation in POSTSINGULAR and HYLOZOIC, too. If I’m uncertain enough about whether I’m here in Los Gatos or in Lousiville then maybe…wham I’m in Louisville. Would be nice not to need the airlines.

Quantum Foam — the idea that space is quantized leads to the concept that photons do not exist between X and X+h, where h is the Planck length. That leads to two neat possibilities. One is teleportation; if a particle teleports across a distance of h, why not across macroscopic distances? This is the kind of twist that Greg Bear used in ‘Moving Mars’.

In addition, if space is quantized then it begins to look like discrete elements on a gigantic grid. Does the quantum foam prove that our universe is just a big simulation in a computer somewhere?

Multiverse — I think the multiverse has been overused, and I prefer the Copenhagen interpretation, which leads to some neat SF possibilities if you work with it. But the one idea I haven’t seen used with the multiverse is the idea of holistic entropy. If there is an entropic element to the multiverse, then the breaking of the universe into many multiverses decreases entropy. Which means that divergent universes *want* to merge back into each other…and their reunion will create free energy. For a universe-hopping protagonist that’s a recipe for adventure and peril. I wrote an (unpublished) novel about this concept, and I think there’s a lot more that can be done with it.

Yes and No — The concept that our brains are quantum in nature is gaining popularity. What I find exciting about this is that it may relegate robots to fantasy. It might not be possible to make a sentient mind out of parts that obey classical mechanics. This gives us the rational to create stories set in a human, not post-human, future.

Looking forward to part 2!

http://www.commonsensescience.org/quantum_reality.html

Oh boy oh boy