The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Odin's Raven's
Basil:
The Multiverse as a trope has always irritated me. Just makes a mess of everything and drains the stakes out of any story. After all, there is always some universe within the multiverse where the protagonist made the "right choice" and their lost love still lives, etc., etc.
Also, I don't like the multiverse because physicists made it up in an attempt to avoid confronting the metaphysical impact of their discoveries.
Griffyn612:
--- Quote from: Basil on August 05, 2021, 01:42:15 PM ---The Multiverse as a trope has always irritated me. Just makes a mess of everything and drains the stakes out of any story. After all, there is always some universe within the multiverse where the protagonist made the "right choice" and their lost love still lives, etc., etc.
Also, I don't like the multiverse because physicists made it up in an attempt to avoid confronting the metaphysical impact of their discoveries.
--- End quote ---
I too hate a multiverse, in regards to actual reality. In fiction, I hate infinite multiverse. But I can appreciate a well-structured and purposeful splinterverse, especially when there are specific laws it obeys.
But to do that, a writer has to commit to rules, and often they won't because they like the idea of a mirrorverse or a mirrorverse character too much, so they preserve something, which breaks a rule, and then it's all hogwash.
BrainFireBob:
--- Quote from: Basil on August 05, 2021, 01:42:15 PM ---The Multiverse as a trope has always irritated me. Just makes a mess of everything and drains the stakes out of any story. After all, there is always some universe within the multiverse where the protagonist made the "right choice" and their lost love still lives, etc., etc.
Also, I don't like the multiverse because physicists made it up in an attempt to avoid confronting the metaphysical impact of their discoveries.
--- End quote ---
Do you know what happens with quantum entanglement, or how quantum encryption works- or are you familiar with the Born interpretation of the Schrodinger equation.
Multiverse is a decent theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions and interference/coupling patterns.
Basil:
--- Quote from: BrainFireBob on August 05, 2021, 07:53:53 PM ---Do you know what happens with quantum entanglement, or how quantum encryption works- or are you familiar with the Born interpretation of the Schrodinger equation.
Multiverse is a decent theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions and interference/coupling patterns.
--- End quote ---
Disclaimer: I'm an aerospace engineer that crossed trained as a lawyer. So you seem about to get into the weeds past where I'm competent to trade blows with you.
That being said...
I am familiar with quantum entanglement and quantum encryption. I have clients whose technology relies on quantum entanglement to create quasi-particles (like polaritons) that are then used in various applications ranging from quantum encryption and quantum computing to more exotic uses. To assist their work, I have to half-way understand this stuff, although I was warned that only a dozen people on the planet actually "understand."
I'm obviously familiar with the Schrodinger's equation, but I had to look up the Born interpretation. (Always good to learn something new).
As for a theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions, etc., I'm aware that this is one of the postulated explanation for not really explicable collapse of wave functions.
This explanation has always dissatisfied me. The uncertainty principle and the measurement problem are uncomfortable, but it seems un-parsimonious to postulate an infinite set of universes with all of their associated mass and energy just to cover up the fact that we can't know where an electron is and where it's going at the same time.
My understanding is that while the Schrodinger equation is linear, wave collapse is not and so you just go round and round and round arguing about the probability function relating to the branch where we exist and the probability function of the particle to be observed.
Worse, the attempts to use this concept to come up with a measurable observation (typically, trying to show the cosmological constant is a result of multiple universes) have failed.
Smarter people than me, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, have explained why the multiverse/multiple worlds hypothesis is not science.
Bringing this back around to my original post, the metaphysical impact that the multiverse/many worlds idea was intended to avoid is simply the fact of a cosmic beginning.
BrainFireBob:
--- Quote from: Basil on August 05, 2021, 09:39:45 PM ---Disclaimer: I'm an aerospace engineer that crossed trained as a lawyer. So you seem about to get into the weeds past where I'm competent to trade blows with you.
That being said...
I am familiar with quantum entanglement and quantum encryption. I have clients whose technology relies on quantum entanglement to create quasi-particles (like polaritons) that are then used in various applications ranging from quantum encryption and quantum computing to more exotic uses. To assist their work, I have to half-way understand this stuff, although I was warned that only a dozen people on the planet actually "understand."
I'm obviously familiar with the Schrodinger's equation, but I had to look up the Born interpretation. (Always good to learn something new).
As for a theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions, etc., I'm aware that this is one of the postulated explanation for not really explicable collapse of wave functions.
This explanation has always dissatisfied me. The uncertainty principle and the measurement problem are uncomfortable, but it seems un-parsimonious to postulate an infinite set of universes with all of their associated mass and energy just to cover up the fact that we can't know where an electron is and where it's going at the same time.
My understanding is that while the Schrodinger equation is linear, wave collapse is not and so you just go round and round and round arguing about the probability function relating to the branch where we exist and the probability function of the particle to be observed.
Worse, the attempts to use this concept to come up with a measurable observation (typically, trying to show the cosmological constant is a result of multiple universes) have failed.
Smarter people than me, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, have explained why the multiverse/multiple worlds hypothesis is not science.
Bringing this back around to my original post, the metaphysical impact that the multiverse/many worlds idea was intended to avoid is simply the fact of a cosmic beginning.
--- End quote ---
Born, like Pauli, is one of those who understood the math, instead of just how to use the math. Bohr was another, as was Dirac. Dirac's sense of humor was Dad jokes on steroids, though- I still sometimes eyeroll over bra and ket notation
The basic issue is quantum tunneling is an observed, measured phenomenon. The major issue with the multiverse, as I recall- I started in physics and moved into engineering- is that it inherently postulates infinite duplication of energy into infinite universes. But the alternative is that reality itself is fundamentally unfixed at the quantum level, and can- with low probability- just shift into a different possible state/configuration. Which doesn't really square with collective human experience.
In terms of fiction- personally, I don't mind Moorcock's take- where it was a vehicle for the weird and insane- though Marvel/DC's are for easy mode. Jordan's take was also decent- test models for reality- but that's not surprising, he was a physicist by training.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version