According to MWI, more than one world exists. I don’t understand why this means some worlds must be ‘parallel’ to others, or even what it would mean for two worlds to be ‘parallel’ (I understand the concept as it relates to lines, is there another scientific meaning?)
Lots of humans exist, but we don’t talk about “parallel humans”. What do you mean by doing so with worlds?
The article contains 36 occurences of the word ‘collapse’ but this certainly does not mean MWI and Collapse are the same interpretation.
The article’s own use of ‘parallel worlds’ appears to mean ’any world other than the one we currently occupy so “X is parallel to Y” means “X and Y both exist and X =! Y”.
Using this definition we can answer your question quite easily, if W1 is parallel to W2 and W2 is parallel or W3 but W1 is not parallel to W3, we can deduce that W1 = W3, and so this is what ‘second order parallel’ means, identical.
You see what I mean when I say that treating parallel as a relation on worlds is a pretty vacuous way of defining it. Essentially you have drawn the complete graph of worlds, which in terms of information is pretty much equivalent to the empty graph of worlds.
Really? Not defined? So, there is no parallel worlds?
Or what?
This question did not seem unreasonable to me! Somewhat hard to answer though, without just explaining quantum mechanics. Try reading this introduction.
MWI does not work like you think it does. The relation “X is parallel to Y” is not defined in a meaningful non-vacuous way.
Really? Not defined? So, there is no parallel worlds?
Or what?
According to MWI, more than one world exists. I don’t understand why this means some worlds must be ‘parallel’ to others, or even what it would mean for two worlds to be ‘parallel’ (I understand the concept as it relates to lines, is there another scientific meaning?)
Lots of humans exist, but we don’t talk about “parallel humans”. What do you mean by doing so with worlds?
It’s quite a synonym. Parallel worlds is the same thing as the MWI.
At least according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
24 occurences of “parallel worlds” or “parallel universes” in this article. Are they wrong about that?
The article contains 36 occurences of the word ‘collapse’ but this certainly does not mean MWI and Collapse are the same interpretation.
The article’s own use of ‘parallel worlds’ appears to mean ’any world other than the one we currently occupy so “X is parallel to Y” means “X and Y both exist and X =! Y”.
Using this definition we can answer your question quite easily, if W1 is parallel to W2 and W2 is parallel or W3 but W1 is not parallel to W3, we can deduce that W1 = W3, and so this is what ‘second order parallel’ means, identical.
You see what I mean when I say that treating parallel as a relation on worlds is a pretty vacuous way of defining it. Essentially you have drawn the complete graph of worlds, which in terms of information is pretty much equivalent to the empty graph of worlds.
This is just not true. There are all sorts of ways you can have parallel worlds.
This question did not seem unreasonable to me! Somewhat hard to answer though, without just explaining quantum mechanics. Try reading this introduction.