What types of parallel universe do you find most plausible?

[Westbrook]

Ours is just one of many, unknowable amounts of simulations

[War Chef]

Why use all this fancy terminology?

Yes there are parallel universes but all are subject to arise and fall, birth and decay. All stem from a space-less & timeless dimension known as Nibbāna.

[Oneeye]

I meant number 4. I didn't realize that M theory didn't necessarily include brane collisions.

[Insuperable]

Actually Everetts view on quantum mechanics is more consistent than Copenhagen interpretation.

You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't know what I meant. I am currently on my phone and will explain soon what I meant when I get my hands at laptop.

In the meantime define consistent? Did you mean elegant? That it is, probably gives the most elegant explanation and that is what makes it attractive. But that is about it.

[War Chef]

I write this while drinking a big stein of Heineken:

You guys are all dumb, using big mumbo jumbo that you clearly do not understand in attempt to look "smart".
Why get specific on such a topic that is so speculative at best? String theory has only been scratched and we hardly know 10% of the implications of quantum mechanics.

It does point that multiverses exist and that's enough. Narrowing it down beyond that is absurd.

Quantum physics hits a giant brick wall where only Buddhist philosophy will fill the gaps.

[pulstar]

You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't know what I meant. I am currently on my phone and will explain soon what I meant when I get my hands at laptop.

In the meantime define consistent? Did you mean elegant? That it is, probably gives the most elegant explanation and that is what makes it attractive. But that is about it.

I'm talking about wave function. According to Copenhagen interpretation there are two sets of rules, one when you're not observing (Schrodinger equation) and another when you make an observation (wave function collapse). Everetts many-worlds interpretation has one set of rules, allowing other possible outcomes to "survive" in other universes. This also sounds like it is not breaking good principle we used to find other laws of nature - Occam's razor. Schordingers' cat thought experiment was actually an attempt to prove that popular view on Copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

[War Chef]

You guys will all drive yourselves crazy.

This is beyond conceptualized thinking.

Give your mind a rest.

You'll thank me later

[pulstar]

You guys will all drive yourselves crazy.

This is beyond conceptualized thinking.

Give your mind a rest.

You'll thank me later

Wardog, my Pima Indian bud, how are the women today? Still giving you hard time?

[War Chef]

Wardog, my Pima Indian bud, how are the women today? Still giving you hard time?

Cheapest come-back ever.

As if the validation of women lowers or increases my value as a man. hahaha

[Insuperable]

I'm talking about wave function. According to Copenhagen interpretation there are two sets of rules, one when you're not observing (Schrodinger equation) and another when you make an observation (wave function collapse). Everetts many-worlds interpretation has one set of rules, allowing other possible outcomes to "survive" in other universes. This also sounds like it is not breaking good principle we used to find other laws of nature - Occam's razor. Schordingers' cat thought experiment was actually an attempt to prove that popular view on Copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

dude

Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was an attempt to prove that Copenhagen was wrong, but it turned out that Schrodinger was wrong as well as Einstein (entanglement). You know what people say: when good scientists are wrong they are wrong for a good reason. And today thanks to them and Copenhagen interpretation which stood tests of time people are working on quantum computers. Copenhagen interpretation also led to the jewel of quantum physics, the quantum field theory (from 1927 to 1930) and its many extensions, the quantum electrodynamics, chromodynamics etc. You can say that every particle discovery and physics discovery is the achievement of the Copenhagen interpretation. If scientist wants to do a serious physics he has to do according to the rules of the Copenhagen interpretation. Meanwhile all other interpretations are having trouble in incorporating main ideas into field theories.

Regarding your first sentence ... yes so what? Precisely because of that and other things as you can see even the creators of Copenhagen interpretation weren't fond of CI. Why? Because you must take many things for granted and some seem counterintuitive for a human mind. And once you step into quantum field theory (where fields are more fundamental than particles - our current notion of the world) things get very abstract.

Most scientists who are into MWI and such are to science what modern liberal snowflakes are to society. Mainstream is not that cool thing thing. They are drawn to it not only because of their sense of objectivity which is mostly based on the elegance of solution, but also because of their subjectivity, that is, they don't like Copenhagen interpretation. Scientist should uphold scientific values and not get tangled into untestable theories or whatever they should be called. MWI for example is as such that even if one or hundred experiments go seemingly into the favor of it, they will hardly be conclusive for it and experiments themselves will be open to many interpretation and debates that would go on and on. For a somewhat different reason Sheldon Glashow for example protested and camped in front of his university hoping authorities will forbid string theory and supersymmetry to be taught at the university.