Skip to main content
History of Science and Mathematics

Return to Answer

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Conifold
Conifold
  • 80k
  • 6
  • 196
  • 308

This does notDoes this mean that hisWheeler's self-synthesized worlds can not be subsumed under some sort of "multiverse" in a vague sense.? He does not use the language but emphasizes and repeats constantly that the synthesis depends on multiple choices made by the "multitude of existences", the observers. These choices determine not just the present but even the past, since it only exists to the extent that there is information about it in the present. And that information depends on the choice of questions to be asked.

This does not mean that his self-synthesized worlds can not be subsumed under some sort of "multiverse" in a vague sense. He does not use the language but emphasizes and repeats constantly that the synthesis depends on multiple choices made by the "multitude of existences", the observers. These choices determine not just the present but even the past, since it only exists to the extent that there is information about it in the present. And that information depends on the choice of questions to be asked.

Does this mean that Wheeler's self-synthesized worlds can not be subsumed under some sort of "multiverse" in a vague sense? He does not use the language but emphasizes and repeats constantly that the synthesis depends on multiple choices made by the "multitude of existences", the observers. These choices determine not just the present but even the past, since it only exists to the extent that there is information about it in the present. And that information depends on the choice of questions to be asked.

Source Link
Conifold
Conifold
  • 80k
  • 6
  • 196
  • 308

The dissonance comes from using the term "multiverse" too loosely. As far as Everett's many worlds and its derivatives, Wheeler supported Everett as his student, but distanced himself from his interpretations. He was committed to Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation with its role of the observers in "shaping" reality. In a letter to Stern he even coopted Everett to the Copenhagen interpretation against his own explicit words, see The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett in Scientific American.

Moreover, Wheeler drew a stark contrast between his "participatory universe" proposal and popular multiverse ("ensemble of universes") conceptions in World as system self-synthesized by quantum networking (1988). The subsection is characteristically titled: No ensemble, no factory for making universes. Observer participancy the whole source of the "out there" plus life, mind, communication:

"Those constants must have nearly the values they do, Robert H. Dicke, Brandon Carter, and others point out, if life is ever to be possible—not merely life as we know it, but life of almost any conceivable form. This observation has led some investigators to the idea of an ensemble of universes, one differing from another in the values of the dimensionless constants... There operates on such an ensemble of universes, Charles Pantin argued in 1951, something "analogous to the principle of Natural Selection, that only in certain Universes, which happen to include ours, are the conditions suitable for the existence of life, and unless that condition is fulfilled there will be no observers to note the fact"...

The contrast between the two views could hardly be greater: selection-from-an-ensemble and observer participancy. The one not only adopts the concept of universe, and this universe as machine, it also has to postulate, explicitly or implicitly, a supermachine, a scheme, a device, a miracle, which will turn out universes in infinite variety and infinite number. The other takes as foundation notion a higgledy-piggledy multitude of existences, each characterized, directly or indirectly, by the soliciting and receiving of answers to yes-no questions, and linked by exchange of information."

This does not mean that his self-synthesized worlds can not be subsumed under some sort of "multiverse" in a vague sense. He does not use the language but emphasizes and repeats constantly that the synthesis depends on multiple choices made by the "multitude of existences", the observers. These choices determine not just the present but even the past, since it only exists to the extent that there is information about it in the present. And that information depends on the choice of questions to be asked.

Moreover, Wheeler's "law without law" slogan means that not just the past (initial conditions) but even the physical laws themselves are ultimately the result of those choices. Different choices, different answers, different worlds. This idea was later termed "It from Bit" (1989). The first OP quote refers to this picture, not to (what Wheeler called) "ensemble of universes". But one is free to call it the "multiverse" of observer created worlds if one so wishes. In Bohr’s “Phenomenon” and “Law Without Law” (1985) we read:

"So far as we can see today, the laws of physics cannot have existed from everlasting to everlasting. They must have come into being at the big bang. There were no gears and pinions,no Swiss watchmakers to put things together, not even a pre-existing plan. If this assessment is correct, every law of physics must be at bottom like the second law of thermodynamics, higgledy-piggledy in character, based on blind chance, insofar as it is not mere mathematical identity.

[...] The elementary quantum phenomenon has much of the character of an elementary act of creation. The phenomenon that we call "a photon from a distant quasar" reaches into the present from billions of years in the past. It is wrong to think of that past as "already existing" in all detail. The "past" is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. By deciding what questions our quantum registering equipment shall put in the present, we have an undeniable choice in what we have the right to say about the past."