Talk:Only Fourteen Other Worlds Paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
|
- Keep, This is a perfectly logical arguement against the idea of infinite other universes. It is a perfectly valid contest to the idea of infinite other worlds and so i see no reason for deleting this article!Taffmonster 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete total nonsense
- Keep That is a nonsensical rebuttle. Find a philosophical flaw in the theory before simply saying it's nonsense.
- Keep I think we shouldn't be in such a hurry to dismiss this entry as it seems to me to present an interesting and potentially valid new approach to current infinite universe theories. The article as it stands is rather non-rigorous and certainly the suggested Fourteen are somewhat off-the-wall but there is undoubtedly the kernel of an interesting theory here (perhaps it should be marked as a Stub?) and I would like to see a proper debate including citations of papers which have preempted this line of thinking before we declare it "nonsense".
In particular, does it stand up to the rigorous approach to "many worlds" thought experiments suggested by Max Tegmark in his excellent paper "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?" (journal ref: Fortsch.Phys. 46 (1998) 855-862), and where do the differing theories of the Everett vs the Copenhagen interpretations leave this paradox? I suspect the answer involves considering the divergence of each world proposed here as a set of vectorspace axioms and considering the consistency of this model, and I think it collapses under this approach, but it bears further consideration. Of course what the author neglects to point out is that while we may have proven by contradiction that (some?) existing infinite universe theories are incorrect we have certainly not shown that this one must be, but this is a minor oversight for the first draught of a stub article.
In conclusion, this page should be left, as I believe after time for growth and new contributions it will be a valuable resource, and it has already provoked quite some debate for me!
(Oh, I refresh and see you have already deleted it. This kind of arrant groundless article-fascism by self-appointed "experts" who believe it beneath their dignity to consider or explain is exactly why I am so saddened that the students of today apparently think copying Wikipedia constitutes research. Such closedmindedness may be permitted, though one would hope not from those such as you who give no name or argument whatsoever, at the publishers of a "real" encyclopedia merely on the grounds of time constraints, but they should not be stood for in this supposed brave new world of online collaboration. I am quite disgusted by this unilateralism.)
Rafal M. Brzieciew, PhD.
