The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript(hachibu.net) |
The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript(hachibu.net) |
Pretty sure this is flat out wrong; the Many Worlds hypothesis does not include universes in which universal constants differ.
MWI is just one of multiple multiverse ideas. Most multiverse ideas (like Tegmark's Levels I, II, and IV) are basically what-if ideas without any direct evidence, but MWI specifically happens to be a more-grounded idea based on trying to make sense of what the (well-tested) Schrodinger equation says about reality.
The first part of your description of MWI ("The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics imagines our universe as one node in an infinitely branching tree of universes where every possible quantum outcome exists in its own universe.") is pretty good, if a slight though common simplification (different branches aren't entirely separate, so envisioning it as a tree is only mostly correct; different branches can sum together or cancel each other out if their configurations are identical).
MWI honestly sounds like the philosophical equivalent of No True Scotsman with added Meatloaf - no one is really sure what it means in detail, but they're somehow sure it doesn't mean that.
it's questionable if it's one world or a split happens and we have multiple worlds. I would lean toward one world with phenomena that we don't really understand.
Regular quantum mechanics is compatible with the many-worlds interpretation (of course it is), but talk of fundamental constants changing would require new theories that we don't have (not to mention evidence of those theories). That would be something incompatible with quantum mechanics as we know it, within which the fundamental constants are, well, constant.
There are even some papers that suggest the worlds of eternal inflation and MWI are the same.
If variations of ‘me’ exist in all worlds, am I the universal constant?
Speaking as the center of the universe as far I’m concerned over here :p
The multiverse theory is usually used for having many universes with different constants and the like. Of course word use may vary.
Nonsense. If universes branch into many other universes, they do so when an event on the quantum level needs to be resolved. I presume that during any single decision-making operation, there are trillions of probabilistic quantum events took place in your brain, but your decision to use the for loop was almost certainly fully deterministic, because at this point in time you personally almost always pick for-loops.
For a similar reason the measurement problem and the question of whether the presence of (conscious) observers makes the wave function collapse should not be misinterpreted as "You can influence reality with your thoughts alone" or "If you believe in something strongly enough, it will happen."
Even WebAssembly's best case scenario is... Java Applets done a smidgeon better.
If every single developer ever had to write Java we would see the same complaints.
* A ridiculous amount of dependencies and tooling.
* As many competing ways to architect programs as there are Java developers.
* Lots of warts and quirks due to design missteps in hindsight. Ignored by the people who love it but grating to the people who don't.
* As many "the good parts" as there are Java developers.
* Everyone complaining about Spring like they do React.
For most languages if you don't like it you don't use it. But with JS (just like Java in the 90's and 00's) even if you don't vibe with JS it's completely unavoidable.
Pro JS (more TS) camp here.
The more interesting one is JS as a web tool. The reason I'm so against it (and I am making a point and do not want to start an argument) is that it exposes a turing complete language directly to the web, said language having very substantial access to the browser, which stores and ultimately can expose an awful lot of personal information to the world. Where else do we allow this to happen?
JS per se isn't an issue, just the dangerously privileged position it's been given. Any other lang doing the same thing would be distrusted by me equally.
I have fond memories of writing PHP because it helped build a site to share messages with my family before Facebook. I remember VB.net because I tried to write a game in college. I remember C# because I built a laptop battery meter that I still sell 10 years later. I remember learning JS with node.js because I wrote a log aggregator.
Let's stop focusing on the how we get there and celebrate what we build.
Nitpick: The Schrödinger equation predicts unitary time evolution (which is another way of saying that physical systems evolve in a deterministic manner). Interpretations of quantum mechanics exist to make sense of the part of quantum mechanics that doesn't follow unitary time evolution, namely the measurement process.
If we assume the universe is deterministic, then changing any of the starting variables of the universe will cause a different course of events playing out. If the speed of light were different, for example, a different course of events would have played out and you and I would have never come into existence.
If we assume the universe is not deterministic, then even if we had another universe with the exact same starting variables, the chances that things would play out exactly the same are also absurdly small.
Just because a set of things is infinite does not mean that it will contain everything. I could have an infinite set of odd numbers, and none of those numbers will be even. It strikes me that infinite number of universes would be the same.
You could even run Flash sites in WebAssembly, the only thing stopping that from happening is copyright law. It would probably be even safer and run faster than Adobe's plugin.
I dunno, I don't get the point. If it gets rid of the dumpster fire that is JS applications, good, but it'd be better if the web could be for documents and applications could be for applications.
I'm too cynical and I've seen too much to believe that it'll be silver bullets and rainbows.
The write-once, run-everywhere idea always falls down, and pushes everything to lowest common denominator shovel-ware.
I disagree. Being able to compile software in practically any language and have it run both natively (because native runtimes for WebAssembly do exist) and in a browser would revolutionize the way people access software.
I mean, someone wrote Pong in COBOL[0] and I can run it in a browser without having to find a COBOL runtime for Windows 10. That's pretty damn cool, and it's significantly better than what Java and Flash could provide for both developers and the end user.