 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
The Singularity >
Taming the Multiverse
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0268.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Taming the Multiverse
In Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near, physicist Sir Roger Penrose is paraphrased as suggesting it is impossible to perfectly replicate a set of quantum states, so therefore perfect downloading (i.e., creating a digital or synthetic replica of the human brain based upon quantum states) is impossible. What would be required to make it possible? A solution to the problem of quantum teleportation, perhaps. But there is a further complication: the multiverse. Do we live in a world of schizophrenic tables? Does free will negate the possibility of perfect replication?
Originally published July 14, 2001 at New Scientist. Published on KurzweilAI.net August 7, 2001. Original article at New Scientist.
The Singularity is Near précis can be read here. The mechanics of quantum teleportation can be found here.
Parallel universes are no longer a figment of our imagination. They're so real that we can reach out and touch them, and even use them to change our world.
Flicking through New Scientist, you stop at this page, think "that's interesting" and read these words. Another you thinks "what nonsense", and moves on. Yet another lets out a cry, keels over and dies.
Is this an insane vision? Not according to David Deutsch of the University of Oxford. Deutsch believes that our Universe is part of the multiverse, a domain of parallel universes that comprises ultimate reality.
Until now, the multiverse was a hazy, ill-defined concept-little more than a philosophical trick. But in a paper yet to be published, Deutsch has worked out the structure of the multiverse. With it, he claims, he has answered the last criticism of the sceptics. "For 70 years physicists have been hiding from it, but they can hide no longer." If he's right, the multiverse is no trick. It is real. So real that we can mold the fate of the universes and exploit them.
Why believe in something so extraordinary? Because it can explain one of the greatest mysteries of modern science: why the world of atoms behaves so very differently from the everyday world of trees and tables.
The theory that describes atoms and their constituents is quantum mechanics. It is hugely successful. It has led to computers, lasers and nuclear reactors, and it tells us why the Sun shines and why the ground beneath our feet is solid. But quantum theory also tells us something very disturbing about atoms and their like: they can be in many places at once. This isn't just a crazy theory-it has observable consequences (see "Interfering with the multiverse").
But how is it that atoms can be in many places at once whereas big things made out of atoms-tables, trees and pencils-apparently cannot? Reconciling the difference between the microscopic and the macroscopic is the central problem in quantum theory.
The many worlds interpretation is one way to do it. This idea was proposed by Princeton graduate student Hugh Everett III in 1957. According to many worlds, quantum theory doesn't just apply to atoms, says Deutsch. "The world of tables is exactly the same as the world of atoms."
But surely this means tables can be in many places at once. Right. But nobody has ever seen such a schizophrenic table. So what gives?
The idea is that if you observe a table that is in two places at once, there are also two versions of you-one that sees the table in one place and one that sees it in another place.
The consequences are remarkable. A universe must exist for every physical possibility. There are Earths where the Nazis prevailed in the Second World War, where Marilyn Monroe married Einstein, and where the dinosaurs survived and evolved into intelligent beings who read New Scientist.
However, many worlds is not the only interpretation of quantum theory. Physicists can choose between half a dozen interpretations, all of which predict identical outcomes for all conceivable experiments.
Deutsch dismisses them all. "Some are gibberish, like the Copenhagen interpretation," he says-and the rest are just variations on the many worlds theme.
For example, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the act of observing is crucial. Observation forces an atom to make up its mind, and plump for being in only one place out of all the possible places it could be. But the Copenhagen interpretation is itself open to interpretation. What constitutes an observation? For some people, this only requires a large-scale object such as a particle detector. For others it means an interaction with some kind of conscious being.
Worse still, says Deutsch, is that in this type of interpretation you have to abandon the idea of reality. Before observation, the atom doesn't have a real position. To Deutsch, the whole thing is mysticism-throwing up our hands and saying there are some things we are not allowed to ask.
Some interpretations do try to give the microscopic world reality, but they are all disguised versions of the many worlds idea, says Deutsch. "Their proponents have fallen over backward to talk about the many worlds in a way that makes it appear as if they are not."
In this category, Deutsch includes David Bohm's "pilot-wave" interpretation. Bohm's idea is that a quantum wave guides particles along their trajectories. Then the strange shape of the pilot wave can be used to explain all the odd quantum behaviours, such as interference patterns. In effect, says Deutsch, Bohm's single universe occupies one groove in an immensely complicated multi-dimensional wave function.
"The question that pilot-wave theorists must address is: what are the unoccupied grooves?" says Deutsch. "It is no good saying they are merely theoretical and do not exist physically, for they continually jostle each other and the occupied groove, affecting its trajectory. What's really being talked about here is parallel universes. Pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe theories in a state of chronic denial." Back and forthAnother disguised many worlds theory, says Deutsch, is John Cramer's "transactional" interpretation in which information passes backward and forward through time. When you measure the position of an atom, it sends a message back to its earlier self to change its trajectory accordingly.
But as the system gets more complicated, the number of messages explodes. Soon, says Deutsch, it becomes vastly greater than the number of particles in the Universe. The full quantum evolution of a system as big as the Universe consists of an exponentially large number of classical processes, each of which contains the information to describe a whole universe. So Cramer's idea forces the multiverse on you, says Deutsch.
So do other interpretations, according to Deutsch. "Quantum theory leaves no doubt that other universes exist in exactly the same sense that the single Universe that we see exists," he says. "This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a logical consequence of quantum theory."
Yet many physicists still refuse to accept the multiverse. "People say the many worlds is simply too crazy, too wasteful, too mind-blowing," says Deutsch. "But this is an emotional not a scientific reaction. We have to take what nature gives us."
A much more legitimate objection is that many worlds is vague and has no firm mathematical basis. Proponents talk of a multiverse that is like a stack of parallel universes. The critics point out that it cannot be that simple-quantum phenomena occur precisely because the universes interact. "What is needed is a precise mathematical model of the multiverse," says Deutsch. And now he's made one.
The key to Deutsch's model sounds peculiar. He treats the multiverse as if it were a quantum computer. Quantum computers exploit the strangeness of quantum systems-their ability to be in many states at once-to do certain kinds of calculation at ludicrously high speed. For example, they could quickly search huge databases that would take an ordinary computer the lifetime of the Universe. Although the hardware is still at a very basic stage, the theory of how quantum computers process information is well advanced.
In 1985, Deutsch proved that such a machine can simulate any conceivable quantum system, and that includes the Universe itself. So to work out the basic structure of the multiverse, all you need to do is analyze a general quantum calculation. "The set of all programs that can be run on a quantum computer includes programs that would simulate the multiverse," says Deutsch. "So we don't have to include any details of stars and galaxies in the real Universe, we can just analyze quantum computers and look at how information flows inside them."
If information could flow freely from one part of the multiverse to another, we'd live in a chaotic world where all possibilities would overlap. We really would see two tables at once, and worse, everything imaginable would be happening everywhere at the same time.
Deutsch found that, almost all the time, information flows only within small pieces of the quantum calculation, and not in between those pieces. These pieces, he says, are separate universes. They feel separate and autonomous because all the information we receive through our senses has come from within one universe. As Oxford philosopher Michael Lockwood put it, "We cannot look sideways, through the multiverse, any more than we can look into the future."
Sometimes universes in Deutsch's model peel apart only locally and fleetingly, and then slap back together again. This is the cause of quantum interference, which is at the root of everything from the two-slit experiment to the basic structure of atoms.
Other physicists are still digesting what Deutsch has to say. Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna remains unconvinced. "The multiverse interpretation is not the only possible one, and it is not even the simplest," he says. Zeilinger instead uses information theory to come to very different conclusions. He thinks that quantum theory comes from limits on the information we get out of measurements (New Scientist, 17 February, p 26). As in the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no reality to what goes on before the measurement.
But Deutsch insists that his picture is more profound than Zeilinger's. "I hope he'll come round, and realize that the many worlds theory explains where the information in his measurements comes from."
Why are physicists reluctant to accept many worlds? Deutsch blames logical positivism, the idea that science should concern itself only with objects that can be observed. In the early 20th century, some logical positivists even denied the existence of atoms-until the evidence became overwhelming. The evidence for the multiverse, according to Deutsch, is equally overwhelming. "Admittedly, it's indirect," he says. "But then, we can detect pterodactyls and quarks only indirectly too. The evidence that other universes exist is at least as strong as the evidence for pterodactyls or quarks."
Perhaps the sceptics will be convinced by a practical demonstration of the multiverse. And Deutsch thinks he knows how. By building a quantum computer, he says, we can reach out and mold the multiverse.
"One day, a quantum computer will be built which does more simultaneous calculations than there are particles in the Universe," says Deutsch. "Since the Universe as we see it lacks the computational resources to do the calculations, where are they being done?" It can only be in other universes, he says. "Quantum computers share information with huge numbers of versions of themselves throughout the multiverse."
Imagine that you have a quantum PC and you set it a problem. What happens is that a huge number of versions of your PC split off from this Universe into their own separate, local universes, and work on parallel strands of the problem. A split second later, the pocket universes recombine into one, and those strands are pulled together to provide the answer that pops up on your screen. "Quantum computers are the first machines humans have ever built to exploit the multiverse directly," says Deutsch.
At the moment, even the biggest quantum computers can only work their magic on about 6 bits of information, which in Deutsch's view means they exploit copies of themselves in 26 universes-that's just 64 of them. Because the computational feats of such computers are puny, people can choose to ignore the multiverse. "But something will happen when the number of parallel calculations becomes very large," says Deutsch. "If the number is 64, people can shut their eyes but if it's 1064, they will no longer be able to pretend."
What would it mean for you and me to know there are inconceivably many yous and mes living out all possible histories? Surely, there is no point in making any choices for the better if all possible outcomes happen? We might as well stay in bed or commit suicide.
Deutsch does not agree. In fact, he thinks it could make real choice possible. In classical physics, he says, there is no such thing as "if"; the future is determined absolutely by the past. So there can be no free will. In the multiverse, however, there are alternatives; the quantum possibilities really happen. Free will might have a sensible definition, Deutsch thinks, because the alternatives don't have to occur within equally large slices of the multiverse. "By making good choices, doing the right thing, we thicken the stack of universes in which versions of us live reasonable lives," he says. "When you succeed, all the copies of you who made the same decision succeed too. What you do for the better increases the portion of the multiverse where good things happen."
Let's hope that deciding to read this article was the right choice. Interfering with the multiverseYou can see the shadow of other universes using little more than a light source and two metal plates. This is the famous double-slit experiment, the touchstone of quantum weirdness.
Particles from the atomic realm such as photons, electrons or atoms are fired at the first plate, which has two vertical slits in it. The particles that go through hit the second plate on the far side.
Imagine the places that are hit show up black and that the places that are not hit show up white. After the experiment has been running for a while, and many particles have passed through the slits, the plate will be covered in vertical stripes alternating black and white. That is an interference pattern.
To make it, particles that passed through one slit have to interfere with particles that passed through the other slit. The pattern simply does not form if you shut one slit.
The strange thing is that the interference pattern forms even if particles come one at a time, with long periods in between. So what is affecting these single particles?
According to the many worlds interpretation, each particle interferes with another particle going through the other slit. What other particle? "Another particle in a neighboring universe," says David Deutsch. He believes this is a case where two universes split apart briefly, within the experiment, then come back together again. "In my opinion, the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment. It reveals interference between neighboring universes, the root of all quantum phenomena."
Reproduced with permission from New Scientist issue dated July 14, 2001.
Original article at New Scientist.
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Essential reality
|
|
 |
|
Many-Worlds, by definition, makes absolutely no predictions that that distinguish it from other interpretations of quantum mechanics with respect to anything we might observe or experience.
Yet Deutsch keeps insisting that Many-Worlds is the only interpretation that can explain quantum computing.
He keeps saying that when we have quantum computers to marvel at, we'll no longer be able to deny the existence of his "multiverse." Yet all matter around us is carrying out quantum computations all the time. At the atomic level and below, it is behaving in ways that cannot be simulated efficiently by classical computers. If a quantum computer would prove the multiverse hypothesis, so would ordinary quantum mechanics. But it doesn't, because there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics which make sense, even if David Deutsch keeps insisting they don't.
Why does this matter so much to Deutsch? Why does it matter to people who don't even know enough quantum mechanics to argue intelligently about this issue?
Why do people care, when it makes absolutely no difference to any aspect of anything we might experience or do?
I can only guess that the reason is because people read a metaphorical significance into the idea of a multiverse, just as people read a metaphorical significance into the Ptolemaic vs. Copernican world systems. Ptolemy put the Earth, hence Man, at the center of the universe. People liked that idea, and were upset when Copernicus said it wasn't so. What should have been a purely scientific question became overlaid by philosophical issues.
Why do people who have absolutely no basis for making an informed judgement like the multiverse idea so much? I think they like it because it jives with capitalist ideology, in which we are all entitled to go our own ways, and believe our own beliefs, with no responsibility to the community or the human race as a whole.
Some mathematical physicists like it, also, because it restores the idea of a clockwork universe (multiverse) in which everything that happens is mathematically predetermined with no chance events. This may be Deutsch's main motivation.
The alternative to the multiverse concept is simply to accept that there are random events in the universe. Everything is not predetermined, and some events occur without cause. However, in this view, we do live in one universe, and what happens in other places is completely real, which makes us potentially responsible for what happens to other people.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: Essential reality
|
|
|
|
Where is the "logic" that excludes the possibility of a middle ground between total determinism and absolute chaos?
Modern physics reveals that certain events can occur without any apparent immediate prior cause. An example is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Of course, you have to have such a nucleus to begin with; they don't pop into existence without cause (it's theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely).
In general, larger-scale events appear perfectly causal. Our universe seems to have large-scale order, small-scale randomness. However, the small-scale randomness affects large-scale events, as well, via amplification (the "butterfly effect," etc.), so that even large scale events which have immediate causes may be ultimately determined by chance.
This is what physics tells us about our world. People like David Deutsch don't like it, so they invent outlandish notions like the "multiverse" that eliminate randomness at the cost of making untestable propositions that in no way alter reality as we experience it.
Libertarian ideologues, who dominate the technology cult, like the "multiverse" because it provides a metaphor for personal isolation. Why even bother to try to be connected with others, when you are constantly being forcibly disconnected not only from others but even from uncountably many versions of yourself? How can anyone hold you responsible for the fate of starving children, when each person is constantly suffering, or enjoying, every possible fate in uncountably many alternative histories?
It is this metaphorical understanding of the many-worlds interpretation that accounts for most of its popularity, although some mathematical physicists like many-worlds for aesthetic reasons. The irony is that many-worlds cannot possibly have any moral significance whatsoever, since it in no way modifies the world we know and experience. Absolutely nothing in your life or experience would be any different if you lived in a universe or a multiverse. It makes no sense to draw a moral inference from something that has no consequences whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Essential reality
|
|
|
|
> Your examples do not represent randomness
> because each outcome is the direct result of
> prior causes. We just can't keep track of those causes.
Actually, the dynamical systems which determine the outcome of the lottery, the weather, who we meet and marry, and others which exhibit "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" are actually randomized by quantum indeterminacy at some point prior to the actual event, even if the mechanics are essentially classical and deterministic after that point.
Thus, for example, tomorrow's weather may be essentially immune to the influence of quantum fluctuations, but the weather on a particular day one year from now certainly is not.
That is, if you ask what the temperature will be in Bangor, Maine, on November 26, 2002, the answer isn't just unknown, it actually does not even exist. We can say it will not be 100 C, and we can say it will not be 100 K, but we can't say what it will be within the range of possible values. It isn't just that we can't know, it's that it is not yet fully determined. The present state of the universe does not determine it.
At least, that is what our present knowledge of the matter is. Deutsch's "multiverse" doesn't really change this fact, it only avoids the aesthetically unpleasant task of mathematically formalizing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Essential reality
|
|
|
|
> Don't you think that there must be some
> mechanism or process selecting quantum
> outcomes out of the set of possible outcomes?
No. We haven't seen any such mechanism, nor have we seen any otherwise unexplained patterns in the random events ("Hello from God") that would betray the existence of such a mechanism.
This is something at the edge of human understanding. But I don't find it any more fundamentally puzzling than any number of other weird and mind-blowing facts.
We should be prepared to accept reality as we find it, rather than demanding it make sense in terms of our preconceptions.
> If our reality is a computer program that was
> designed to operate its smallest details with
> randomizing functions, that would at least be
> a logical explanation for the things we've detected.
I assume you mean a pseudorandom function, otherwise the computer would have to have access to a truly random process, which your "logic" forbids.
But I can't understand why such a hypothesis would be any easier for you to accept than the apparent fact of randomness in the world.
"If our reality is a computer program that was designed," then who designed it? Where did the designer come from? What then is the "real" universe (the computer and its designer) made of? Each of these questions would be at least as deep a mystery as the randomness you abhor.
What you describe strikes me as a modern sort of "Before the beginning, there was this turtle" story. You have this unfathomable mystery, and you try to do away with it by telling a story in familiar terms, in this case terms familiar in the modern world (computers) -- and somewhat magical, at that!
Here again, the religious cult of computer technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Essential reality
|
|
|
|
A science that claims to prove that an object can be in place A and place B at the same time violates the law of existence, which states that an object is located in one place at one time.
Events can happen for no reason, such as I can drop my keyboard on the floor all of a sudden, with no reason for doing so.
The kind of events that always have a reason for happening are those that follow logical rules (the keyboard always falls to the floor if I drop it, and if nothing interferes). If you see a comet flying in space, which suddenly makes a 90 degree turn right up there in the sky, you may not know the reason for it doing so, but the reason exists. In regard to those events I am asking you to show why and how they can act against those rules at some times.
I don't have to prove axioms such as existence and causality, for the same reason that I don't have to prove nonexistence of elves and goblins. If you state causality is not permanent, you have to prove it, much in the same way as if you had to prove existence of elves if you claimed they did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Essential reality
|
|
|
|
> The sun becomes a pink sqare...
> do we simply "accept reality as we find it"
> or do question what happened to cause
> such a transition? Sound silly? Nothing is
> silly if things happen randomly.
This is not one of the things that modern physics tells us has any reasonable probability of happening.
Actually, it is possible for spontaneous excitations of the Sun's corona to cause it to suddenly take the appearance of a pink square. But that is so extremely unlikely that we take no risk in asserting that it will never happen.
If it did happen, we would have to accept that fact and look for a possible explanation, as you say. One possible explanation is the one I suggested, but since it is so extremely unlikely, we might want to think if there could be another explanation.
On the other hand, we can observe the random decay of uranium nuclei any day of the week. It is not that there is no understanding of the process which produces the decay. It is just that each individual decay event has no cause that we know of.
Each individual click of the geiger counter is a completely random event. The exact time of the next click is completely undetermined. Only the average rate of clicking is determined by the physical situation.
> That the past causes the future
> is the basis of all logic.
Why do you say this? Of course, if there were no order in the universe, thought itself would be impossible. But you have not given any argument why it is illogical to suppose that at least some future events are not determined by the present state of the universe.
> Don't get frustrated and start making
> random personal attacks now--
> --"Here again, the religious cult of
> computer technology."--
Sorry if you felt personally attacked. I was simply noting that your idea, which is actually a fairly common notion these days ("the universe might be a giant computer") represents a deification of computers, which is related to the mystical way in which the "magic" of computer technology ("creating virtual worlds," etc.) has lately come to be regarded in our culture -- yet another reflection of the cult of technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NO Multiverse
|
|
|
|
"It's even a "little" worse. 100 tosses gives you about 10^30 Universes."
In a multiverse the only Universe branches that would occur in a coin toss are two, because only two options are available. If you got heads in this Universe, then in another Universe, you would get tails. There would never be a situation in which you always got either heads or tails in this Universe, and so that situation would never occur in another Universe. A branch of a multiverse is only created proportionate to how many options are available to you, particularly.
Let's say that another version of myself is also flipping a coin, then another Universe branch would specifically be created for that other version of myself only -- specifically. It wouldn't make sense to think that if another version of myself were a professional gambler in Vegas, playing Blackjacks, that the different Universe branches created for that version of me would be relevant to my life: the Universe branches are only created to my own options, not to that of other versions of me, so it makes no sense to think of the thousands of versions of me who may decide to flip a coin at the exact same time that I do, because they are not relevant or related to me. In my existence, when I flip a coin, I don't create 10^30 Universes, I create only one other Universe, that will show the opposite result of my coin toss in this Universe.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NO Multiverse
|
|
|
|
>In the multiverse, when you flip a coin you have >one universe where it comes up heads, another >universe where it comes up tails. Each time you >flip the coin another branch occurs. That means you >would have one universe where heads always came up, >no matter how many times you flipped the coin.
I know this a pretty late response, considering you posted the above message in 2001, but I just wanted to hopefully clarify something. I understand your example of the coin flip, but it doesn't apply to the multiverse because the only universe branches that would occur in a coin toss are two, because in a coin toss, only two options are available. If you got heads in this universe, then in another universe, you would get tails. There would never be a situation in which you always got either heads or tails in this universe, and so that situation would never occur in another universe. A branch of a multiverse is only created proportionate to how many options are available. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Tony |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Taming the Multiverse
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the QM versus classical physics argument represents an unsolvable problem. Just as the quark is currently the indivisible particle, so the state of an atom is the indivisible unit of a decision. There must be a point at which such a decision is made. All that those saying QM does not exist are saying is that something else is the cause of the decision. However, surely there must be some point at which the decision is made? No matter what theory we suggest, something must be fundamental to the events which we observe. As in the radioactive decay example, if there is a specific event which happens to cause it, currently undetectable, something must still happen to cause that event. Therefore, at some level, even if we have not detected it, QM must exist. At some point, the last 'Cause' must be found, and whatever caused that must be quantum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Taming the Multiverse
|
|
|
|
the multiverse is merely a mathematical model that describes the apparent behavior of probalistic potentialities at the quantum level . No more, no less. This particular model is attractive because it dispenses with infinities caused by pertubation calculations. The side-effect is that you get these infinite "universes" instead of collapsing the Schrodinger Wave leaving only one universe and having all of these "left over" parts to have to explain away. Very messy.
Trying to explain a multiverse is like trying to explain what a complex number is as it pertains to everyday 4-dimensional reality. What exactly does it mean to have the square-root of negative two things in your hand? These numbers are used all of the time from light diffusion equations to electro-magnetism equations, from relativity to quantum mechanics, so... they must touch a reality that we are not ordinarily accustomed to in some fashion. They work, therefore, we can infer that there is something that we can't detect with present technology, but, in the vacuum of numerical purity, must be there.
There ARE philosophical problems with the Many Worlds theory not to mention that many physicists think that this approach is a cop-out - "just create another universe and that factors away your problems!". However, one must point out that, regardless of the far-fetchedness of the concept, quantum predictions work when equations are solved through using this model especially as they pertain to quantum computation.
I say that if this model is useful for the development of a quantum computer, then, perhaps we can infer that the multiverse exists in the same manner that the square root of negative two exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Taming the Multiverse
|
|
|
|
Robin,
I agree, and would go even further.
Not only the squareroot(-1), but even a number as simple as "2", is a conceptual invention, intended to "map well" to our attempts at describing reality.
The value "2" has no reality per-se. It cannot be "demonstrated", except in terms of an imagined relation upon "real things".
We demand that our "theories of reality" behave logically, and are free from contradictions, etc. But what if the universe is actually non-logical at its foundation? It need not declare itself so to us (though increasingly it seems revealed!)
Our deep faith in causality leads us to "conclude", perhaps erroneously, that the universe at time T contains sufficient information to determine its state at time T+1. In fact, there may be truly "spontaneous events", events without preceding cause (at least, in terms of anything "localizable" to the event, rather than through the universe acting as some kind of self-manifesting and self-defining holism.)
If the universe defies a complete reductionist determinism, we may just have to accept the incompleteness of any "Theory Of Everything" crafted under purely deterministic assumptions.
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
