# Are we living in a Uni or a Multi-Verse, and what is the physics to describe it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-living-in-a-uni-or-a-multi-verse-and-what-is-the-physics-to-describe-it/373956 "2006-09-24T17:08:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-living-in-a-uni-or-a-multi-verse-and-what-is-the-physics-to-describe-it/373956/1 "2006-09-24T17:08:30Z")
I’m starting this thread to prevent further hijacking of the thread on free will and omniscience. I’m curious about the philisophical and scientific opinions of dopers on ideas like the [many worlds](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation) interpertation of QM and other theories. My primary beef with the Multi-verse visualization technique is this; The interpretation seems to be unfalsifiable, primarily useful for visualizing the idea of waveform collapse as it relates to uncertainty but disconnected from the reality that not all outcomes actually occur. You cannot get information from other alternate universes and so, like the concept of an unknowable creator-god, the MWI of quantum theory is IMO philosophical bunk as apposed to testable theory. Obviously no fully self consistent theory of elementary physics has yet been put forth. String theories, the standard model, and the many other various interpretations of the forces that direct our universe are all deviant to some extent. Any full theory must be consistent with itself as well as with the world that be observe around us, which includes all 4 fundamental forces as well as the fabric of the vacuum. Where are we at and where are we going? what theories show promise? Somewhere is a roadmap back to a deterministic and causal mechanical universe, or at least an explaination as to why the one we live in is not. What say you? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-living-in-a-uni-or-a-multi-verse-and-what-is-the-physics-to-describe-it/373956/2 "2006-09-24T17:17:50Z")
We’re at the stone knives and bearskins level re trying to formulate an accurate and comprehensive picture of the quantum universe. Your question is not remotely answerable except by hand waving and sophisticated wild ass guesses at this point in time. ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-living-in-a-uni-or-a-multi-verse-and-what-is-the-physics-to-describe-it/373956/3 "2006-09-24T17:27:41Z")
[QUOTE=astro] We’re at the stone knives and bearskins level re trying to formulate an accurate and comprehensive picture of the quantum universe. Your question is not remotely answerable except by hand waving and sophisticated wild ass guesses at this point in time. [/QUOTE] 😉 which is what i meant by “what say you” obviously anything in theoretical physics ATM is wisest taken with an uderstanding of precisely how little we understand. I’m looking for opinions, which is answerable, instead of some hypothetical 42. An interesting take on wave-particle duality, which is one of the basic “problems” of particle physics is the [Transactional interpretation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) which suggests, to simplify, that the observation of particles is an effect of wave interference, and that no duality exists in actuality. I thought a little bit of theoretical physics might break up the monotony of god-nogod debates. At least for me. ---
**Author:** ![Puzzler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@Puzzler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puzzler)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-living-in-a-uni-or-a-multi-verse-and-what-is-the-physics-to-describe-it/373956/4 "2006-09-25T12:37:37Z")
[QUOTE=Stalky] The interpretation seems to be unfalsifiable, [snip] What say you? [/QUOTE] Never mind what say I. But, acording to [David Deutsch](http://www.qubit.org/oldsite/resource/deutsch85.pdf#search=%22deutsch%20%22quantum%20theory%3A%20the%20church-turing%20principle%22%22), it is testable. > [@David Deutsch](#): > > I have described elsewhere (Deutsch 1985; cf. also Albert 1983) how it would be possible to make a > crucial experimental test of the Everett (‘many-universes’) interpretation of quantum theory by using a > quantum computer (thus contradicting the widely held belief that it is not experimentally distinguishable > from other interpretations). However, the performance of such experiments must await both the > construction of quantum computers and the development of true artificial intelligence programs. Couldn’t find a link to the actual paper, but a description of it appears, for example, in Julian Brown’s “Minds, Machines, and the Multiverse”. Basically, it uses a quantum computer as the observer in the experiment. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-living-in-a-uni-or-a-multi-verse-and-what-is-the-physics-to-describe-it/373956/5 "2006-09-25T13:01:07Z")
The transactional interpretation is interesting, and there are fewer issues with it than with ‘nonlocal variables’, which I find needlessly multiply entities. That said, while I can state it exists, and there are no problems that I can find that others have found with it, I am not of the caliber to have a solid opinion on the matter. It’s nice that it is falsifiable, and we are approaching a point where it might be falsified.