 
Rainer Dickermann wrote that the uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics exists
only below a certain range, but he forgot the "butterfly effect" : in some
systems there in a very important amplification, such that little causes
may produce big effects. For example in a brain if the electric potential
of one neuron is near its threshold (which is probable because of the
great number of neurons) a very little variation could cause the neuron to
be excitated or inhibited. And, this neuron being connected to thousand
others, this may have a significative repercussion on the state of the
brain, and then on the actions of its owner.
 
He also wrote that for free will as a basis for ethics we need
determinism. But if all events that will happen are completely
determinated then the concept of ethics is an absurdity ! What use trying
to do good things if what will happen is fully determinated ?
 
I agree with Andrzej Pindor : I think that physical laws are a-moral, and
it is up to living beings to bring morality in the universe by their
actions. But the problem is that the definition of what is good or bad is
not unique : something is good if it tends to realize the goal of life,
but what is the goal of life ? "What is goodness, what is badness ? For me
goodness is what I want", said so well Fantomas...
 
I also agree with Rainer Dickermann on the fact that the uncertainty is
not only a problem of measurement. Roger Penrose also thinks that it is
not a question of observation but of difference between possible states.
In "The Emperor's new mind, concerning computers, minds and the laws of
physics", at the end of chapter 8, he wrote that the reduction of wave
function occurs when the difference between the gravitational fields of
the different possible states reaches the level of one graviton.
 
I had the idea that one way to interpret this theory might be to consider
that the differents possible worlds are like super-particles in a super-
universe, the coordonates of these particles representing the state of the
corresponding world. If the distance (i.e. the difference between
gravitational fields) between several of these particles-worlds is less
than one graviton, they interact together, and the equations of quantum
mechanics describes this interaction. When the distance becomes greater
than one graviton, the interaction becomes insignifiant, and each of these
particles-worlds goes its own way independently from the others.
 
So the physical laws of this super-universe might be considered as
deterministic, and the apparent non-determinism concerning *our* world
might be caused by the fact that we are in one world among many others
that are so near now that we cannot perceive in which world we are,
but these worlds may separate in the future.
 
Is the many world theory true ? This question leads to a deeper one : what
is true ? The only absolute truth is our immediate perception, all the
rest is mental construction, mathematical modelling. For example, if the
universe had been created yesterday and some coherent artificially created
memories had been put in our brains, what would be our perception of
reality ? Exactly what it is. So in a way this theory can be considered as
true, because it is coherent with our perception. But physicians are
searching for another quality of the theory : its simplicity, and it is
simpler to imagine that all the complex creatures living in our universe
have evolved by self-organizing from an initial chaotic state than if they
had been created from nothing, with all their complexity. This is the only
reason to prefer the standard model to the theory of the universe created
yesterday. But one could imagine that in other domains than physics (for
example psychology) the main quality of a theory after according with our
perceptions might be other than simplicity...
 
People often says that the many world theory is not good because it is not
economic. But God has not to pay cash for the worlds He creates...
More seriously, I think that this is a simplist conception of economy, and
the real reason is perhaps that we like to feel ourselves at the center of
the Universe. It has been difficult to admit that the Earth is not the
center of the world but just one planet turning around one of the billions
stars of the universe, and it is much more difficult to admit that our
world is just one among an infinity of possible worlds.
 
What would be the simplest Theory of Everything ? Probably this one :
"For each mathematical model of a possible universe, there exist a
corresponding physical universe."
This theory is probably the simplest one could imagine, and is coherent
with our perception. So why not ?
It also explains the "anthropic principle" (the fact that if the physical
laws had been very little different from what they are, complex
intelligent creatures could not have appeared) : in most universes, no
intelligent life is possible and there is noone which can ask himself such
questions...
 
Connecting the idea of many worlds with different physical laws with the
one of many worlds explaining apparent non-determinism may also lead to an
explanation of the principle of formative causality of Rupert Sheldrake,
saying that if one physical system in one situation evolves in one way it
increases the probability that later a similar system in a similar
situation evolves in a similar way : suppose we are in one world among
several worlds which are almost identical at one time and then diverge. It
is perhaps because the physical laws in these world are very similar but
not exactly the same, and there occured a situation in which this little
difference becomes critical, and these worlds separate. In each branch,
the physical laws become more precise, so if a similar situation occurs
later the result will be similar. So, making a choice could be seen as
chosing a refinement of the physical laws which suppress the non-
determinism in this case, determining which branch you will explore, Such
a choice does not concerns only you but affects the whole universe.
 
The idea of mathematical theory generating physical universes had also
been explored by the polish science-fiction novelist Stanislas Lem, who
wrote in "Profsor A. Donda" that Rosenblatt discovered that the more a
perceptron is big the less it needs learning. An infinite perceptron needs
no learning because it knows everything. To formulate his law, Donda took
the opposite direction : what a small computer can do with a big program,
a big computer can do it with a small program. Then the logical
consequence is that an infinite program can run alone, i.e. without the
help of any computer.
Is our universe an infinite program running by itself ? or in other terms
the manifestation of an infinite mathematical theory ?
I think that spirit and its properties of consciousness and freedom of
choice might emerge from the fact that physical laws are infinite : if
they were finite we would be finite automatas and there would be no place
for spirit. Living beings are made of an imbrication of organization
levels : societies, persons, cells, molecules, atoms, particles...
One can modelize them at one of these levels but this is only an
approximation, because the correct way of modelizing any level is to
consider it as an assembly of entities of the level below. And this
imbrication might be infinite. If we define spirit as what does not take
place in the frame of the theory, spirit might be a limit approaching but
never reaching zero when the precision of the theory approaches absolute
precision.
 
 
 
 
