In which case you have different universes, since they don't interact beyond sharing a single state, so neither of the observers needs to worry about the idea (or could have evidence) that other observers and their universes exist.
-
-
-
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
The universe with respect to an observer is only the causal network that feeds back to him. All causal branches that cannot lead back are part of a different universe. Thus, we can be in a setup like the one you have in mind but it makes no difference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
I think there is only one universe. But the link of causality is constrained for certain observers who cannot see the othe paths in which the universe is unfolding. But it is not true always. For example, the double slit experiment in quantum interference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
If we cannot have any evidence for the number of universes in existence, it is logically wrong to have a nonzero confidence in the belief that there is only one. What would such evidence look like? Likewise, speculation about observers in other universes is pointless.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
We disagree merely about how we define the word "universe". I am sticking to the etymology of the word: uni+verse.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
Isn't it confusing to pick meaning for words that cannot have a referent with assignable truth values?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
Life is confusing :) There are many concepts for which truth values cannot be assigned. We try to do the best with what we have (language). Sometimes we convey meaning. It is easier to convey meaning when there is a human on the other side, and not a computer.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
But humans are computers. Just confused ones. Thinking should be used to reduce confusion, not to increase it :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
vakibs Retweeted vakibs
We already disagreed about this Joscha :) I agree that thinking (via language) should reduce confusion. But communication between humans is ultimately about communicating experience, which may not be reducible to language i.e to computation.https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/940231746360152065?s=17 …
vakibs added,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, I know, the religious indoctrination of your culture broke your mind.
-
-
Joscha, you're projecting <3
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mylesbyrne @vakibs and
No, I am just living in a computational universe, and I think Vakibs is not seeing it because his culture has given him an antimechanist null hypothesis that is anchored in a need for meaning
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.