Observation creates the universe--but only one universe.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Rushtown - 28 Jun 2007 07:10 GMT

I mentioned in my last post that a recent experiment worked better
when it was assumed that a yet to be observed particle existed in a
randomized state.
When I observe and therefore cause a real particle to be measured I
have created a different universe than had I not made the
observation. This difference includes the now real (not statistical)
previously entangled sister particles far distant. (It also includes
all the other pairs of particles made real by other peoples (and
amoeba's) observations.)
So the question arises--was there another whole unique universe ready
to spring into existence (or waiting to be chosen) had I made another
choice? Or ("many worlds" being correct), are all those alternative
universes (resulting from alternative choices) now "real"? The
answer:
The whole universe is in a randomized statistical condition from
instant to instant. This randomization extends to the entire
universe---however the relationships of individual particles in each
"random" statistical state of the entire universe are not random.
So when "all of us" (I include my unicellular brothers and sisters---
sexless as they are) make an observation then we all jointly and at
the same time pick one consistent (but random) version of the
universe. (sorry for all the ( ) )).

Reply to this Message

'foolsrushin.' - 28 Jun 2007 22:39 GMT

> I mentioned in my last post that a recent experiment worked better
> when it was assumed that a yet to be observed particle existed in a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> the same time pick one consistent (but random) version of the
> universe. (sorry for all the ( ) )).

There are national, political, economic, cultural and other universes,
though some are more optimised than others. You can have any universe
you like so long as someone is prepared to pay for it! Most of them
are mindless, unconsidered and undesigned, though you cannot make any
sense of any of them in the absence of an aim of some sort, implicit
or explicit. Otherwise, no measurement! Random can only be defined
once you have a goal in mind. That this is so can be seen had I
promised to repay you a loan but, say, got shot on my way to discharge
my obligation to you! How could you ever empirically test my promise?
--
'foolsrushin.'

Reply to this Message

Bob Cain - 30 Jun 2007 06:28 GMT

> The whole universe is in a randomized statistical condition from
> instant to instant. This randomization extends to the entire
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the same time pick one consistent (but random) version of the
> universe. (sorry for all the ( ) )).

By Jove, you've got it! I've been trying to tell people this for years.

Bob

Signature

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Reply to this Message

'foolsrushin.' - 30 Jun 2007 14:57 GMT

> > The whole universe is in a randomized statistical condition from
> > instant to instant. This randomization extends to the entire
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> By Jove, you've got it! I've been trying to tell people this for years.

> Bob
> --

> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
> A. Einstein

Very, very funny! Thanks, Bob. ROTFLMAO. All the same, even if
Rushtown has unnecessarily multiplied entitities (gwin),.'no simpler'
ought to involve not just time distance and speed but also, for
example, hate and love - if we are not paradoxically to leave
ourselves out of the picture!
--
''foolsrushin.'

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / June 2007

Observation creates the universe--but only one universe.