
Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/66/clockwork/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary-rp
======
shiburizu
What is the _productive_ meaning of this article? Evidently, the universe does
not upload her laws into ArXiv for us to read and link on HN and for that
reason people have poured their lives into certain perceptions and publish
their findings in hope it carries some productive weight.

The idea that our established views in math and physics are all selective and
narrow is certainly correct but I'd like to see where the alternative is.
Feels like nihilist rambling.

~~~
ryacko
We miss the planet for the forest and the trees?

------
whatshisface
> _Noson S. Yanofsky has a Ph.D. in mathematics from The Graduate Center of
> The City University of New York. He is a professor of computer science at
> Brooklyn College of The City University of New York._

Remember the old stereotype[0] of physicists that thought that because they
understood physics, they were automatically experts in every field - and so
began dispensing "wisdom" to all of the actual experts?

I guess physicists aren't the only ones who are susceptible to this.

[0] [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/comic/2012-03-21)

~~~
nyc111
Thanks for sharing this cartoon! This phenomenon is not limited to physicists
either, it is pretty much true for all professionals and famous people. But
also, physicists claim that they do not deal in philosophy, yet the main
subject matter of theoretical physics is a collection of old philosophical
subjects such as time, space, the cosmos and absolute beginnings of things.
There is a confusion here.

This article makes important points about the relation of physics and
mathematics. I agree that physicists pick and choose "smooth" and solvable
system and then claim to reveal the secrets of the universe.

~~~
whatshisface
> _But also, physicists claim that they do not deal in philosophy, yet the
> main subject matter of theoretical physics is a collection of old
> philosophical subjects such as time, space, the cosmos and absolute
> beginnings of things._

Geometry used to be studied exclusively by philosophers, but after a long
string of successes the group of people who specialized in it got renamed to
"mathematicians." Likewise at one point natural science was called "natural
philosophy." Philosophy is the mother of the sciences but once the kids get
established they move out of the house.

> _physicists pick and choose "smooth" and solvable system and then claim to
> reveal the secrets of the universe._

If you are looking for knowledge about the universe, one hundred percent of it
will be found in the form of "ideas comprehensible to humans." All of the
secrets of the universe that we know are obviously going to be the knowable
ones. If you spend time studying things that aren't knowable then by
definition you are wasting your time, even if there _is_ an ontological
category of "unknowable but true."

------
deckar01
I rationize the multiverse theory this way: There may be events that are
purely chaotic. If you could rewind the universe, the outcome would change
following a probability. If our universe started, then it is possible for a
different universe to start. The initial conditions for any universe may be a
set of chaotic events. If it was possible for an infinite number of universes
to start, then maybe there is at least one universe for every possible chaotic
event that could have occurred in our universe, and infinitely more that could
not have occurred in our universe.

~~~
whatshisface
> _There may be events that are purely chaotic. If you could rewind the
> universe, the outcome would change following a probability._

Chaos is not the same thing as randomness. Chaos is defined as "completely
deterministic, but a small change in the state at one time will produce a
large and rapidly growing change in the state at later times," which implies
that if you knew today perfectly you could predict the future forever, but if
you are even a little bit wrong it will be magnified, eventually, in to being
totally wrong.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
So chaos is like a cryptographic hash function where a given input always
produces the same output, but even a slight change in the input produces
massive changes in the output?

~~~
whatshisface
That sounds right to me. Many things computers do are chaotic because one
little bit flip can flip a whole lot of other bits down the line...

------
empath75
I found this article incredibly thought provoking, particularly the
jettisoning of axioms necessary to understand more and more phenomena.

------
intralizee
Chaos is just a word, created by humans to provide a human expression to
another and for me it describes a system that is too complicated at the
current moment in time to unravel into a deterministic system.

I enjoy the multiverse theory because of how it makes infinity more imaginable
for me and how time does not need to align between universes to recreate the
current moment in one universe. The current moment in this universe can even
theoretically happen again in the exact same universe when understanding
infinity with all the variables aligning again.

Fatalism is how I view reality. If there is a deity, that being is
deterministic as well and could effect our lives but still would make it
fatalism for us. Although, I fundamentally think Spinoza is correct on the
logic & philosophy of god and thus I think there is no deity(s).

~~~
whatshisface
> _Chaos is just a word, created by humans to provide a human expression to
> another and for me it describes a system that is too complicated at the
> current moment in time to unravel into a deterministic system._

For what it's worth, chaos is defined to mean something specific in physics: a
system that is deterministic, but where a small change in today will grow in
to a very big change in tomorrow, to the point where any error in your
knowledge will eventually grow in to being completely wrong. To reiterate,
chaotic systems are all deterministic.

If you're not talking about the world but are instead talking about your
experience of the world then chaos means whatever it means in that field of
study, I guess. But if you want to understand the universe then physicists are
the people you'll want to listen to, so you should know what chaos means.

~~~
intralizee
I find your last paragraph an attempt at dismissing what I wrote? The
interpretation I gave is based on how physicists interpret chaos.

~~~
whatshisface
Chaos isn't interpreted in physics, it's defined in physics, and it happens to
be deterministic by definition. Many chaotic systems have already been
"unraveled in to deterministic systems," including the double pendulum and
weather models.

~~~
intralizee
My philosophy is everything is deterministic and how I wrote the above
illustrates that with my expression of the word chaos. I don't understand your
point?

~~~
fingerlocks
In this context, a non-deterministic system is stochastic. That means there's
an inherent random probability in the behavior. Chaos has no "chance"; you get
the same result with the same initial conditions.

~~~
intralizee
I agree with all that and I'm still confused to why the original commenter
suggests my interpretation is incorrect to how I phrased chaos.

~~~
whatshisface
To break down the original sentence, "it describes a system that is too
complicated at the current moment in time to unravel into a deterministic
system," it implies that chaotic systems are not already "unraveled" into
deterministic ones. The reality is that chaotic systems are all already
deterministic by definition, and in fact many of them are completely
"unravelled" (insofar as the equations that govern them are known.)

~~~
intralizee
No, I never once implied chaos systems are not already unraveled into a
deterministic one.

Me writing, "it describes a system that is too complicated at the current
moment in time to unravel into a deterministic system" uses the word "unravel"
as how humans are incapable of understanding all the cause & effects in the
current moment of time; when they define it as chaos but may eventually be
able to understand all the cause & effects.

I have no understanding to why you wrote your last paragraph in the original
comment to me and how the comments transpired from then to now; other than you
have a fragile ego to how I prefer to use my expression of the word chaos.

~~~
Koshkin
As you said, “it’s just a word,” and words can have several meanings. This is
just one example: you gave a _definition_ of chaos “in your philosophy,” but
arguing about definitions (and philosophies) is usually pointless.

------
miopa
> "Symmetry of time means that the outcomes of experiments should not depend
> on when the experiment took place."

I don't think that this is correct.

~~~
krastanov
On the contrary, it is a pretty fundamental assumption in all of our
fundamental theories (with some bows and whistles).

A point of confusion might be that the surroundings of the experiment might
influence it and the surroundings would depend on whether it is a workday or a
weekend, etc. But this is a bad experiment. The correct interpretation is "if
my experiment is isolated so that external events do not influence it (like
all good experiments), then I will get the same results no matter whether I do
it today or wait until tomorrow". Another way to phrase it is "there is no
dependence on the variable 't' in the fundamental laws".

------
jamesrcole
_" These laws of nature appear fine-tuned to bring about life, and in
particular, intelligent life."_

The "to" implies purpose, and there's no evidence of this. That fact that we
exist could only happen in a universe that we can exist in, but this says
nothing about why the universe is like that.

 _" One answer to some of these questions is Platonism (or its cousin
Realism). This is the belief that the laws of nature are objective and have
always existed"_

Platonism is a type of Realism
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism))

And the idea that the laws of nature are objective and have always existed
does not equate to Platonism. It doesn't mean they are therefore Platonic
Forms
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism)

 _" The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite
fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the
life-giving laws that it does"_

It's really misleading to present the multiverse notion as an attempt to
explain a universe suitable for life.

There are many other reasons people have proposed it. For example, in the
Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
worlds_interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
worlds_interpretation)

 _"...while the multiverse would answer some of the questions we posed if it
existed, who says it actually exists? Since most believe that we have no
contact with possible other universes, the question of the existence of the
multiverse is essentially metaphysics."_

I think that's misleading - there are stronger theoretical grounds for
hypothesising it than what this suggests. I'm not saying there's evidence for
it, I'm saying that the quoted statement misleadingly makes it out be an empty
speculation.

 _" Some people say that science studies all physical phenomena. This is
simply not true. Who will win the next presidential election and move into the
White House is a physical question that no hard scientists would venture to
give an absolute prediction. Whether or not a computer will halt for a given
input can be seen as a physical question and yet we learned from Alan Turing
that this question cannot be answered. Scientists have classified the general
textures and heights of different types of clouds, but, in general, are not at
all interested in the exact shape of a cloud. Although the shape is a physical
phenomenon, scientists don’t even attempt to study it. Science does not study
all physical phenomena. Rather, science studies predictable physical
phenomena. It is almost a tautology: science predicts predictable phenomena."_

I don't agree with that characterisation. Just because it can't give complete
predictions of phenomena does not justify saying it doesn't study those
phenomena. Just because we can't predict halting doesn't mean we don't study
halting at all. The fact that we know for certain that we can't predict
halting demonstrates that we study, and have a certain level of understanding
of, that phenomenon.

...and I've run out of time to read more of the article.

~~~
ars
The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other.

Multiverse postulates multiple universes with _different_ laws of physics,
while many worlds postulates worlds with the _same_ laws, just different
results for quantum events.

You could even have many-worlds _inside_ multiverse. And some multiverse's
with and without many worlds.

~~~
jamesrcole
> _The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other._

Some examples

"The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, ...
multiverse theory or just many-worlds. [...] MWI is one of many multiverse
hypotheses in physics and philosophy." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
worlds_interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
worlds_interpretation)

For those who don't know, the Everett mentioned in the following is the person
who came up with the Many Worlds view.

"The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by Raphael Boussoa and
Leonard Susskind Abstract: We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics
and the many worlds of the multiverse are the same thing, and that the
multiverse is necessary to give exact operational meaning to probabilistic
predictions from quantum mechanics.
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf)

"Identity and probability in Everett's multiverse", by P Tappenden. The
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 51, Issue 1, 1 March
2000, Pages 99–114
[https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.1.99](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.1.99)

"The Structure of the Multiverse", by David Deutsch 1\. Introduction The idea
that quantum theory is a true description of physical reality led Everett
(1957) and many subsequent investigators (e.g. DeWitt and Graham 1973, Deutsch
1985, 1997) to explain quantum-mechanical phenomena in terms of the
simultaneous existence of parallel universes or histories.
[https://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0104033](https://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-
ph/0104033)

~~~
whatshisface
> _The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other._

> (paraphrasing) The terms "multiverse" and "many worlds" are used
> interchangeably by many.

You two aren't really disagreeing. The parent commenter was just highlighting
that there are two totally separate concepts that are associated in public
vernacular with a single word.

~~~
jamesrcole
I take "The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other"
to mean there does not exist _any_ notion of multiverse that has to do with
many-worlds.

~~~
ars
Did you actually read
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf) ?

As best as I can tell the multiverse he describes is not the type with varying
laws of physics. He's using yet another definition of the term.

~~~
jamesrcole
You said it has nothing to do with multiverse, not "it has nothing to do with
one particular notion of the multiverse". The examples are countering the
former. And what about the other examples?

~~~
ars
You are overdoing it.

I specifically defined what I meant by multiverse in my first message. You
can't nit pick my words by giving them a new definition, then argue that my
words don't work for that new definition.

~~~
jamesrcole
You defined it and treated it as the only meaning the word has, making the
blanket statement that MW has nothing at all to do with the notion of the
multiverse. So you accept that it does have something to do with how many
people use the term?

~~~
ars
Did you forget that there is an actual article we are discussing here? And it
uses the term? And it has a specific definition of it? The same one I used?

I mean you did object to _this_ article right? Not some other one, that used a
completely different definition of the word?

~~~
jamesrcole
The article is not sacrosanct -- a number of people here, including myself,
have made criticisms of it -- and you seem to be forgetting that my point
started with a criticism of the article, not of your comment. It, like you,
talks of _the_ multiverse in one specific way, and I was pointing out a
problem with that. It said:

 _" The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite
fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the
life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that
our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of
rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules."_

See where it says "The multiverse is" and "This theory is", as if the
multiverse notion is only that?

and the full text of my response to that point was

> _It 's really misleading to present the multiverse notion as an attempt to
> explain a universe suitable for life.

>

> There are many other reasons people have proposed it. For example, in the
> Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
> worlds_interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
> worlds_interpretation) _

~~~
ars
Yes, but we are not talking about that theory. It's about as relevant as
complaining about epicycles.

That theory simply has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, other than
the name.

Why are you bringing up a random theory that has nothing to do with article at
hand? Is it just because the name reminded you of it?

It is unfortunate that two completely different theories both have the same
name, but there's nothing I can do about that. You simply have to pay
attention to which one is being discussed.

------
keyle
This reads more like a mad man's ramble "hear me out for a minute" than an
interesting point of view.

------
willio58
Sure, unnecessary. Just like life.

