None of these assumptions make any difference to what we’d expect to see observationally
Seems wrong. Vacuum decay would depend on the state of the observable fields, and the condition of non-decay should affect the observed probabilities (rather than observing P(A) we are observing P(A | vacuum didn’t decay) ). For a very simple example, if vacuum was pretty stable but “the creation of high-energy particles” triggered the decay, then we couldn’t observe that interaction which is triggering decay. Or some particles would be popping out of nowhere from the fluctuations, preventing decay.
Or more interestingly it may occur in very ordinary circumstances—the vacuum does not have to be even metastable. Think of an (idealized) pin standing on it’s tip, on a glass plane. Suppose that whole thing is put on a moving train—for any train trajectory, there is an initial position for the pin so that it will not fall. That pin would seem to behave quite mysteriously—leaning back just before the train starts braking, etc—even though the equations of motion are very simple. Seems like a good way to specify apparently complicated behaviours compactly and elegantly.
(edit2: Rather than seeing it as worlds being destroyed, I’d see this as an mathematically elegant single world universe, or a mathematically elegant way to link quantum amplitudes to probabilities (which are the probabilities that the one surviving world will have such and such observations) )
Yes, I’m starting to rethink that. But is still seems that we could have physics A, with vacuum decay, and physics B, without, such that internal observers made the same observation in either case.
Well, yes, but that will break the ceteris paribus for the anthropics.
I’d rather just see it as a different way of mathematically describing the same thing. Greatly simplifying, you can either have a law of X=Y or you can have plurality of solutions inclusive of one with X=Y and an unstable condition where when X!=Y everyone’s twins “die”. In a sense that’s merely two different ways of writing down exact same thing. It might be easier to express gravitation as survivor bias, that would make us use such formalism, but otherwise, the choice is arbitrary. Also, depending to how vacuum decay is triggered, one can obtain, effectively, an objective collapse theory.
With regards to probabilities, your continued existence constitutes incredibly strong evidence that the relevant ‘probability’ does not dramatically decrease over time.
Seems wrong. Vacuum decay would depend on the state of the observable fields, and the condition of non-decay should affect the observed probabilities (rather than observing P(A) we are observing P(A | vacuum didn’t decay) ). For a very simple example, if vacuum was pretty stable but “the creation of high-energy particles” triggered the decay, then we couldn’t observe that interaction which is triggering decay. Or some particles would be popping out of nowhere from the fluctuations, preventing decay.
Ridiculous idea: maybe that’s why we don’t see any superpartners in particle accelerators.
Or more interestingly it may occur in very ordinary circumstances—the vacuum does not have to be even metastable. Think of an (idealized) pin standing on it’s tip, on a glass plane. Suppose that whole thing is put on a moving train—for any train trajectory, there is an initial position for the pin so that it will not fall. That pin would seem to behave quite mysteriously—leaning back just before the train starts braking, etc—even though the equations of motion are very simple. Seems like a good way to specify apparently complicated behaviours compactly and elegantly.
(edit2: Rather than seeing it as worlds being destroyed, I’d see this as an mathematically elegant single world universe, or a mathematically elegant way to link quantum amplitudes to probabilities (which are the probabilities that the one surviving world will have such and such observations) )
Yes, I’m starting to rethink that. But is still seems that we could have physics A, with vacuum decay, and physics B, without, such that internal observers made the same observation in either case.
Well, yes, but that will break the ceteris paribus for the anthropics.
I’d rather just see it as a different way of mathematically describing the same thing. Greatly simplifying, you can either have a law of X=Y or you can have plurality of solutions inclusive of one with X=Y and an unstable condition where when X!=Y everyone’s twins “die”. In a sense that’s merely two different ways of writing down exact same thing. It might be easier to express gravitation as survivor bias, that would make us use such formalism, but otherwise, the choice is arbitrary. Also, depending to how vacuum decay is triggered, one can obtain, effectively, an objective collapse theory.
With regards to probabilities, your continued existence constitutes incredibly strong evidence that the relevant ‘probability’ does not dramatically decrease over time.