https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OlGaPiUJUI

What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:29:28 PM UTC-7, bozo de niro wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OlGaPiUJUI
>
> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?

That is an old SF theme. There was a lot of it around in the 1940s and 50s.

bill

Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :
>
> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? [...]

Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)

It seems our vast Universe is almost entirely inanimate, life a rare
behaviour of matter, and life clever enough to wonder about itself rarer
yet. (I find this a useful thought, especially when I catch myself
fretting over the petty.)

It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
small a sample. (There's a parallel with the flea that thinks the dog
has been created for its benefit.)

On 30/05/23 16:05, Hibou wrote:
> Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :
>>
>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive
>> experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? [...]
>
> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>
> It seems our vast Universe is almost entirely inanimate, life a rare
> behaviour of matter, and life clever enough to wonder about itself rarer
> yet. (I find this a useful thought, especially when I catch myself
> fretting over the petty.)
>
> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> small a sample. (There's a parallel with the flea that thinks the dog
> has been created for its benefit.)

The costs can be spread out if you run multiple experiments, located on
different planets. Given the size of the universe, it would be easy to
place those planets so far apart from one another that there is zero
chance of the different groups discovering one another, even if they
develop advanced forms of space travel.

But why such a big universe? The experimenters might not have a lot of
control over this detail. Having chosen a "big bang" model with an
inflationary phase, they are possibly unable to prevent the generation
of far more stars than are needed.

Bill has mentioned that this theme was big in the SF of the 1940s and
1950s. Newer versions have, however, appeared now and then. For example,
in Heinlein's "Job" (1984, which might have amused Orwell) the creator
of our universe is revealed to be a minor apprentice deity who is
finally censured for doing such sloppy work.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
>>expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
>>and how we react? [...]
>Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)

God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"

>It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>small a sample.

That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> >>expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> >>and how we react? [...]
> >Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>
> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
>
> >It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> >small a sample.
>
> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!

Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
there are always infinitely many worlds.
Always have been, and always will be.
Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,

Jan

On 30-May-23 12:14, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 30/05/23 16:05, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :
>>>
>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive
>>> experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react?
>>> [...]
>>
>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>
>> It seems our vast Universe is almost entirely inanimate, life a rare
>> behaviour of matter, and life clever enough to wonder about itself rarer
>> yet. (I find this a useful thought, especially when I catch myself
>> fretting over the petty.)
>>
>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>> small a sample. (There's a parallel with the flea that thinks the dog
>> has been created for its benefit.)
>
> The costs can be spread out if you run multiple experiments, located on
> different planets. Given the size of the universe, it would be easy to
> place those planets so far apart from one another that there is zero
> chance of the different groups discovering one another, even if they
> develop advanced forms of space travel.
>
> But why such a big universe? The experimenters might not have a lot of
> control over this detail. Having chosen a "big bang" model with an
> inflationary phase, they are possibly unable to prevent the generation
> of far more stars than are needed.

If they initiated the Big Bang, they would have to wait around 200
million years for the process to operate before the first stars formed.
If that/those deities were actually interested in squidgy pink bipeds
living on a single planet (why?!?), then they would have to wait another
13 billion years or so to encounter them. This seems less than credible
- even for an immortal deity.
>
> Bill has mentioned that this theme was big in the SF of the 1940s and
> 1950s. Newer versions have, however, appeared now and then. For example,
> in Heinlein's "Job" (1984, which might have amused Orwell) the creator
> of our universe is revealed to be a minor apprentice deity who is
> finally censured for doing such sloppy work.
>

--
Sam Plusnet

On 30-May-23 21:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
>>>> and how we react? [...]
>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>
>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
>>
>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>>> small a sample.
>>
>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
>
> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> there are always infinitely many worlds.
> Always have been, and always will be.
> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,

Buzz Lightyear had a more catchy version of this.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:40:01 PM UTC-7, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:29:28 PM UTC-7, bozo de niro wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OlGaPiUJUI
> >
> > What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?
> That is an old SF theme. There was a lot of it around in the 1940s and 50s.
>
> bill

I'm from the 40s and 50s, and I didn't say it was original, I just said it sounds eminently reasonable and practical. Like there's been the same Jewish accountant on the same experimental project for the last effing million years or so and he doesn't want anybody fucking with any of the parameters, so nothing much changes, cuz it's not supposed to — Capiche?

Le 30/05/2023 à 21:26, Sam Plusnet a écrit :
>
> If they initiated the Big Bang, they would have to wait around 200
> million years for the process to operate before the first stars formed.
> If that/those deities were actually interested in squidgy pink bipeds
> living on a single planet (why?!?), then they would have to wait another
> 13 billion years or so to encounter them.  This seems less than credible
> - even for an immortal deity.

That's the essence of faith, I think. The more unlikely a thing is, the
greater and more praiseworthy the faith needed to believe it or in it.

I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).

On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
>>>> and how we react? [...]
>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>
>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
>>
>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>>> small a sample.
>>
>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
>
> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> there are always infinitely many worlds.
> Always have been, and always will be.
> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
>

'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?

In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
'time' is not a problem for Her.

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
>has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).

Richard Sosis' article "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual" says,

|Rituals promote group cohesion by requiring members
|to engage in behavior that is too costly to fake
in "American Scientist", Vol. 92, March-April 2004.

When something makes believers struggle, it is costly, which promotes
cohesion according to Sosis. So, it has to be unreasonable.

Le 31/05/2023 à 10:47, Stefan Ram a écrit :
> Hibou writes:
>> I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
>> has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).
>
> Richard Sosis' article "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual" says,
>
> |Rituals promote group cohesion by requiring members
> |to engage in behavior that is too costly to fake
> in "American Scientist", Vol. 92, March-April 2004.
>
> When something makes believers struggle, it is costly, which promotes
> cohesion according to Sosis. So, it has to be unreasonable.

... "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again:
draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one
can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I
was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." ...
- 'Through the Looking-Glass', Lewis Carroll.

Le 31/05/2023 à 11:28, Hibou a écrit :

... "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again:
draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one
can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast." ...
- 'Through the Looking-Glass', Lewis Carroll.

(Line breaks tidied.)

On Wed, 31 May 2023, at 09:47:08, Stefan Ram posted:
>Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
>>has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).
>
> Richard Sosis' article "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual" says,
>
>|Rituals promote group cohesion by requiring members
>|to engage in behavior that is too costly to fake
>in "American Scientist", Vol. 92, March-April 2004.

Why would it be so costly to fake behaviour in "American Scientist"?
>
> When something makes believers struggle, it is costly, which promotes
> cohesion according to Sosis. So, it has to be unreasonable.

I don't think this answers my question.
--
Paul W

On 31-May-23 10:26, occam wrote:
> On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
>>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
>>>>> and how we react? [...]
>>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>>
>>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
>>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
>>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
>>>
>>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>>>> small a sample.
>>>
>>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
>>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
>>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
>>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
>>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
>>
>> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
>> there are always infinitely many worlds.
>> Always have been, and always will be.
>> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
>>
>
>
> 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
>
> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> 'time' is not a problem for Her.

Surely even monkeys have abandoned typewriters by now?

Young folk would probably fail to understand the concept.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 01/06/23 07:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 31-May-23 10:26, occam wrote:

>> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
>> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember
>> that 'time' is not a problem for Her.
>
> Surely even monkeys have abandoned typewriters by now?
>
> Young folk would probably fail to understand the concept.

In any case, the "imfinite number of monkeys" experiment has already
been tried in places like Facebook, and the results have not been
encouraging.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> >>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> >>>> and how we react? [...]
> >>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
> >>
> >> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> >> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> >> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> >> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
> >>
> >>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> >>> small a sample.
> >>
> >> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> >> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> >> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> >> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> >> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
> >
> > Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> > there are always infinitely many worlds.
> > Always have been, and always will be.
> > Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
> >
>
>
> 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?

There is nothing to rule.

> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> 'time' is not a problem for Her.

You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.

Jan

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 31-May-23 10:26, occam wrote:
> > On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> >>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> >>>>> and how we react? [...]
> >>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
> >>>
> >>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> >>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> >>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> >>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
> >>>
> >>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> >>>> small a sample.
> >>>
> >>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> >>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> >>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> >>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> >>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
> >>
> >> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> >> there are always infinitely many worlds.
> >> Always have been, and always will be.
> >> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
> >>
> >
> >
> > 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
> >
> > In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> > infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> > 'time' is not a problem for Her.
>
> Surely even monkeys have abandoned typewriters by now?
>
> Young folk would probably fail to understand the concept.

They might be able to understand real numbers instead.
(which was what it was all about to begin with)

Jan

On 01/06/2023 09:57, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
>>>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
>>>>>> and how we react? [...]
>>>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>>>
>>>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
>>>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
>>>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
>>>>
>>>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>>>>> small a sample.
>>>>
>>>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
>>>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
>>>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
>>>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
>>>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
>>>
>>> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
>>> there are always infinitely many worlds.
>>> Always have been, and always will be.
>>> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
>>>
>>
>>
>> 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
>
> There is nothing to rule.
>
>> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
>> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
>> 'time' is not a problem for Her.
>
> You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
> actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.
>

All that is possible by the laws of physics that *you and I are aware
of*. Can I suggest that the 'infinite universes' theory is nothing but
conjecture.

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 01/06/2023 09:57, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> >>>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> >>>>>> and how we react? [...]
> >>>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
> >>>>
> >>>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> >>>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> >>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> >>>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
> >>>>
> >>>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> >>>>> small a sample.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> >>>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> >>>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> >>>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> >>>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
> >>>
> >>> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> >>> there are always infinitely many worlds.
> >>> Always have been, and always will be.
> >>> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
> >
> > There is nothing to rule.
> >
> >> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> >> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> >> 'time' is not a problem for Her.
> >
> > You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
> > actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.
> >
>
> All that is possible by the laws of physics that *you and I are aware
> of*. Can I suggest that the 'infinite universes' theory is nothing but
> conjecture.

It isn't a theory, and it never was one.
And it isn't a conjecture either.
It is -an interpretation-, like its full name:
'The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics'
explicitly says.

Your awareness (or mine) has nothing to do with it,
because there is nothing to be aware of.
The MWI depends on standard Quantum Mechanics,
like all other interpretations.

If you want it to be more than just another interpretation
you'll have to invent new physics,

Jan

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:57:58 +0200
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
> > On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> > >>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> > >>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> > >>>> and how we react? [...]
> > >>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
> > >>
> > >> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> > >> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> > >> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> > >> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
> > >>
> > >>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> > >>> small a sample.
> > >>
> > >> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> > >> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> > >> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> > >> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> > >> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
> > >
> > > Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> > > there are always infinitely many worlds.
> > > Always have been, and always will be.
> > > Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
> > >
> >
> >
> > 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
>
> There is nothing to rule.
>
> > In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> > infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> > 'time' is not a problem for Her.
>
> You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
> actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.
>
Just show me *one* parallel universe, OK?

Infinities are dubious things to juggle with.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 01/06/2023 10:43, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:57:58 +0200
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
>>>>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
>>>>>>> and how we react? [...]
>>>>>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>>>>
>>>>> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
>>>>> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
>>>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
>>>>> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>>>>>> small a sample.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
>>>>> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
>>>>> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
>>>>> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
>>>>> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
>>>>
>>>> Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
>>>> there are always infinitely many worlds.
>>>> Always have been, and always will be.
>>>> Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
>>
>> There is nothing to rule.
>>
>>> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
>>> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
>>> 'time' is not a problem for Her.
>>
>> You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
>> actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.
>>
> Just show me *one* parallel universe, OK?
>

One I can manage. This one. For two, you'll have to ask Jan.

> Infinities are dubious things to juggle with.
>

Infinitely dubious, when it comes to universes.

"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:
>Just show me *one* parallel universe, OK?

Parallel universes can already be seen in the famous double-slit
experiment.

On the left is a source of photons that are emitted to the right.
In the middle is a wall with two small holes of equal size.
On the right is a black wall with a light-sensitive surface
that turns white when hit by a photon.

[Imagine a picture here!]
From left to right: photon source, two-hole wall, photosensitive wall.

We make the source emit exactly one photon (Alain Aspect can do this).
Then the photon travels to the right and finally creates a white
spot on the right wall. (If the photon does not reach the right wall,
we can repeat the experiment until a photon gets through).

So far there is no parallel world in sight.

But now you notice that there are certain "forbidden zones" on
the wall where you never see a white spot. This is explained by
the interference of the photon "with itself". The single photon
goes "through both holes". Now, there are your parallel worlds!
"Coherent" parallel worlds can still interfere and thus be
observed via the effects of their interference!

After an observation, the coherence is likely to be lost, and that's
why we don't usually see parallel worlds in everyday life.

The modern version of the two-hole wall is the Mach-Zehnder
interferometer.

As a good (and not too difficult) introduction to modern quantum
physics (albeit with no emphasis on parallel worlds) I recommend:

"Quantum Processes, Systems, and Information" (2010) -
Benjamin Schumacher and Michael D. Westmoreland.

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:57:58 +0200
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> > > On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> > > >>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> > > >>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> > > >>>> and how we react? [...]
> > > >>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
> > > >>
> > > >> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know
> > > >> what? Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God)
> > > >> just an expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching
> > > >> me and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email
> > > >> address?"
> > > >>
> > > >>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to
> > > >>> study so small a sample.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> > > >> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> > > >> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> > > >> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> > > >> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
> > > >
> > > > Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> > > > there are always infinitely many worlds.
> > > > Always have been, and always will be.
> > > > Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?
> >
> > There is nothing to rule.
> >
> > > In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> > > infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> > > 'time' is not a problem for Her.
> >
> > You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
> > actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.
> >
> Just show me *one* parallel universe, OK?

Too bad, so you are still not there after all.
It isn't about real universes,
it is -an interpretation- of standard quantum mchanics,
it is not a different theory.

> Infinities are dubious things to juggle with.

All of quantum electrodynamics is juggling with infinities.
If juggled right they agree with experiment to 9 significant digits,

Jan