The Problem of the Influence of Possible Worlds on the Nature of Their Perception under the Conditions of Various Fundamental Physical Principles

The article is devoted to the problem of interpreting of the several consequences that derive from multi-world concepts of modern physics. The inflation scenario and the associated string landscape model are the objects of analysis. The reviewed multi-world concepts are exposed to presume the existence of a plenitude (possibly infinite) of various fundamental principles (laws of nature) that govern the physics of one or another possible reality. The research is based on the hermeneutical method, comparative method, dialectical method, formal translation method, and scientific modeling method. The author represents specifics of physical theories (the criteria and requirements for them) that claim to describe all possible worlds in the conclusions. In this regard, the issues of the status of “possible” and “impossible” worlds and practicable ways to determine them are discussed. The main result of the study is the justification (based on the assumption of many fundamentally different worlds scenario possibility) that each type of world must correspond to a certain structure of consciousness defined by its basic physical principles (and probably other mathematics). This possibly means that a unified “theory of everything” that includes all possible mathematical and physical fundamental structures cannot exist since every one of them determines a specific type of consciousness (where it is possible).

cosmology, philosophy of science, inflation, multiple possible worlds, string landscape, consciousness, solipsism

1. Arshinov V.I. (2013) Complexity Observer in the Context of the PostNon-Classical Rationality Paradigm. In: Philosophy of Science in the World of Complexity (pp. 42–61). Moscow: Institute of philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russian).

2. Ashok S. & Douglas М. (2004) Counting Flux Cacua. Journal of High Energy Physics. Vol. 1, p. 60.

3. Barrow J. (2008) New Theories of Everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Bermúdez J.L. (2014) Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Science of the Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

5. Carroll S. &Chen J. (2004) Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from https://arxiv.org/pdf/hepth/0410270.pdf

6. Chalmers D. (1985) Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies. Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 200–219.

7. Chalmers D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Dennett D. (1992) Consciousness Explained. New York: Back Bay Books.

9. Deutsch D. (2015) The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1508/1508.02048.pdf

10. Everett H. (1973) The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (B.S. DeWitt & N. Graham, Eds.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

11. Guth A (1981) Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems. Physical Review D. Vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 347–356.

12. Guth A. (1997) The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. New York: Basic Books.

13. Karpenko A.S. (2016) Superrealism. Part I: From the Conceivable to the Possible. The Philosophy Journal. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 5–23 (in Russian).

14. Karpenko A.S. (2016) Superrealism. Part II: From the Possible to Reality. The Philosophy Journal. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 5–24 (in Russian).

15. Lewis D. (2001) On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

16. Linde A. (1983) Chaotic inflation. Physics Letters B. Vol. 129, no. 3-4, pp. 177–181.

17. Linde A. (1982) A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems. Physics Letters B. Vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 389–393.

18. Nozick R. (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

19. Porus V.N. (2019) Philosophical Status of “Metaphilosophy of Science.” Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 134–150 (in Russian).

20. Pronskikh V.S. (2017) Trends in the Development of the Philosophy of Scientific Experiment: A Regulatory Turn. Filosofija nauki. Vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 117–127 (in Russian).

21. Pruss A.R. (2011) Actuality, Possibility, and Worlds. London: Continuum.

22. Seval’nikov A.Y. (2009) Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. In Search of a New Ontology. Moscow: URSS (in Russian).

23. Starobinsky A. (1980) A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity. Physics Letters B. Vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 99–102.

24. Susskind L. (2003) The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory. Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0302219.pdf

25. Tegmark M. (1988) Is “the Theory of Everything” Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory? Annals of Physics. Vol. 270, no. 1, pp. 1–51.

26. Tegmark M. (2008) The Mathematical Universe. Foundations of Physics. Vol. 38, pp. 101–150.

27. Тong D. (2012) Lectures on String Theory. Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0333.pdf

28. Vasilyev V. V. (2009) A Hard Problem of Consciousness. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya (in Russian).

29. Vizgin V.P. (2007) The Idea of Multiple Worlds. Moscow: LKI (in Russian).

30. Weinberg S. (1987) Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant. Physical Review Letters. Vol. 59, no. 22, pp. 2607–2610.