The Multiverse Conundrum

[seeds]

It's true that math can create both real and unreal models.

However, it a mischaracterisation to say that the Everrett interpretation came from the math. In truth, it's a way of trying to explain observation effects of the double slit experiment. I think it is fanciful but, reality is so bizarre, I wouldn't even rule that out.

I suggest that if you haven’t ruled it out yet, then perhaps you haven’t fully explored its implications. See this post here – (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=22474&start=75#p323870).

...none of which, btw, takes into account how the essence of life and consciousness fit into the picture (other than the lame ideas associated with the anthropic principle).

That is because they don't know. We have one example of life that, so far, has had only a trifling influence on the solar system, let alone the galaxy or the universe.

Yes, we only have one trifling example of life thus far, however, you have failed to provide one single reason for the existence of a solar system, or a galaxy, or a universe if life and consciousness did not exist.

IMO if you seek a deeper understanding of reality, you need to range well beyond physics and the other natural sciences,...

You’re preaching to the choir, Greta, - not to mention an out of character preaching at that - for you never seem to come across as someone who likes to “...range well beyond physics and the other natural sciences...”

...but you ignore physics, biochemistry, biology, geology and cosmology at your peril. Each is a different texture in the fabric of reality.

Again, the choir here....for I would never ignore such things. I simply don’t attribute their existence to chance.

Therefore, I’m just going to assume that you’re making a rhetorical statement (of which I whole-heartedly agree with, btw).

Just to highlight the problem of your downplaying of life’s role in the context of reality...

...imagine a situation where all of the universes, and all of the stars and planets, and all of the “dark stuff,” and all of the molecular clouds, etc., are all gathered together into one location, and then give me a single visualizable scenario where any of it would have any reason or purpose whatsoever for existing if life and consciousness did not exist to confer meaning on it.

I cannot speak for others but, as far as I know, I never had a reason for existing. However, the conditions were right that an entity such as me could exist, as opposed to your example of a collapsed universe.

Just as atoms played no part in the first 300,000 years of the universe until they emerged, life seems to have played precious little part in the subsequent period (unless there are some thrilling discoveries awaiting us).

And yet everything that happened in that first 300,000 years, along with everything subsequent to that period, seems to have been impregnated with the teleological impetus to create the perfect setting upon which life could then effloresce from the fabric of the setting itself.

It’s as if the primordial processes of the universe somehow knew how much life would enjoy the taste of strawberries and chocolate while gazing at a glorious sun that is gently setting over golden fields...

...(cue Sting – https://youtu.be/Dnj1zshmTE0).
_______

[Eodnhoj7]

still stuck with a polarity/duality between "representation" and "thing in itself"

Not really. The map is not the territory. Never will be.

The map is an extension of the territory and while not equivalent, is still a element of the territory and as an element of territory is a territory in these respects.

This represented takes on another nature as a replication of the thing in itself, where any omission of the "thing in itself" through the respresentation is strictly the separation of the representation and thing in itself.

It's an abstract model of the thing itself.

An abstract model of a thing in itself, of the form of the thing in itself with the thing in itself existing through form observes both the abstract model and thing in itself connected through form with the replication of this "form" being the common unifying median.

For example if we observe the representation as prior to the thing in itself, let's say a drawing of a building which led to the building, the thing in itself is merely an approximation of the representation.

Yes. ALL models are approximations.

Now let's reverse the example and say the thing in itself comes prior to the representation, a building being drawn, the representation is merely an approximation of the thing in itself.

In turn each representation becomes a thing in itself and the thing in itself becomes a representation when apply further examples.

You are describing the creative process, and in particular the process of realization. Turning something conceptual into something actual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)

What you need to recognize is that original diagram (plan) is itself a high level abstraction. When we design a building we never ever get down to the abstractions of atoms and molecules.

Creative process a "synthesis" of extremes, yes. What we observe in the creative process are respective abstract dimensions and physical dimensions coming together to form something with this formation resulting in further abstract and physical dimensions. This creative process however works both ways, not just strict conceptual into something empiricial, but also empirical into conceptual at the same time in different respects. When limited to the progressively linear nature of time, realization/creation/synthesis, takes on a form of alternation.

Actually the abstract framework of the design of the building is composed of further abstract frameworks, considering the materials involved with the production of the building are dependent upon the abstract frameworks of the materials themselves (tensile strength, atomic composition, etc.)

All frameworks, in this case using the example of the abstract, are composed of further frameworks.

It cannot be completely divorced from language (whether qualitative language such as English, or quantitative language such as math) as language is merely a representation or symbolism with this nature of representation/symbolism existing as an through all phenomenon considering all phenomena exist through a mirror effect as replication.

It can be divorced from language, but not from conception. Do you think in words or images? My mind is spatial. And so I can imagine without having to think of the word for something. Language is only necessary for communication - not thought.

My mind is also spatial, so I can relate more than you know. Been tested for it officially as a teenager and was told I could be "a particle physicist if I wanted to be." Now someone will come along and say "Eod you arrogant bastard, why do you brag about this?"(considering I have a following of "haters"...like everyone else) but it is strictly objective fact.

With that "foundation" in mind, considering I am not even sure I really believe in the tests themselves, when dealing with the definition of phenomenon space is an objective median considering we all observe it on one form or another.

Even simply "blanking" ones mind out to "light" or "dark" is to observe a boundless field equivalent to "point space". In these terms the blanking of the mind gives rise to origin (reflected in stoic and some presocratic concepts of consciousness and "thought ethics"...if one can word it in such a way). Under these terms we can give premise to space as a foundational axiom even to those who are "senseless" for a lack of better wording.

The problem with language is that it is composed of images with all images, as a mediation to further images, as a language in itself. From this premise with are left with a circular definition that may be considering "contradictory" if and only if it does not progressively expand. The common bond of this (language ⇄ image) paradigm is "definition" as an observation of relation.

From (language ⇄ image) → Definition we can observe "limit" considering definition is the connection or seperation of various languages and/or images. Language is a median of connection/seperation, with image following the same form and function.

so ((language ⇄ image) → ((Definition) → (connection ⇄ seperation))

observes limit as a common unifying median that all phenomena are composed of and composed:

(((language ⇄ image) → ((Definition) → (connection ⇄ seperation))) ⇄ Limit

The question of "limit" comes up, and to be efficient and simple as possible, we are left with a spatial nature where limit exists if and only if there is space

(((language ⇄ image) → ((Definition) → (connection ⇄ seperation))) ⇄ ((Limit) → (Limit ↔ Space))

Therefore all language, image, definition, connection, seperation and limit exist if and only if there is space:

((((language ⇄ image) → ((Definition) → (connection ⇄ seperation))) ⇄ ((Limit) → (Limit ↔ Space)))

∴

∃(Language, Image, definition, connection, seperation, limit) ↔ Space

Now the equation, if it can be called that, may be confusing but effectively all these abstract and empirical phenomena are directed towards eachother through eachother in one manner or another as spatial.

[Greta]

It's true that math can create both real and unreal models.

However, it a mischaracterisation to say that the Everrett interpretation came from the math. In truth, it's a way of trying to explain observation effects of the double slit experiment. I think it is fanciful but, reality is so bizarre, I wouldn't even rule that out.

I suggest that if you haven’t ruled it out yet, then perhaps you haven’t fully explored its implications. See this post here – (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=22474&start=75#p323870).

So what? The universe is under no obligation to be sensible for us. Maybe reality really is that strange? I'm guessing not, but it's just a guess.

That is because they don't know. We have one example of life that, so far, has had only a trifling influence on the solar system, let alone the galaxy or the universe.

Yes, we only have one trifling example of life thus far, however, you have failed to provide one single reason for the existence of a solar system, or a galaxy, or a universe if life and consciousness did not exist.

Firstly, must there be a reason for everything to exist? Do you exist because you had a reason to exist or was there a niche available in the environment in which a person like you could occur?

Secondly, I was not aware that I was supposed to provide a reason for the existence of plasma, gravity wells and geology in such a context. Does anyone have a good reason for the existence of these things that isn't just a guess?

IMO if you seek a deeper understanding of reality, you need to range well beyond physics and the other natural sciences,...

You’re preaching to the choir, Greta, - not to mention an out of character preaching at that - for you never seem to come across as someone who likes to “...range well beyond physics and the other natural sciences...”

I regularly extend my thoughts beyond the orthodoxy, just that I preface those with qualifiers like "perhaps" and "maybe". I can only guess that you don't read my posts.

...but you ignore physics, biochemistry, biology, geology and cosmology at your peril. Each is a different texture in the fabric of reality.

Again, the choir here....for I would never ignore such things. I simply don’t attribute their existence to chance.

I don't attribute existence to chance either. Unfortunately, I am not privy to the ultimate nature of reality so I reserve judgement.

I cannot speak for others but, as far as I know, I never had a reason for existing. However, the conditions were right that an entity such as me could exist, as opposed to your example of a collapsed universe.

Just as atoms played no part in the first 300,000 years of the universe until they emerged, life seems to have played precious little part in the subsequent period (unless there are some thrilling discoveries awaiting us).

And yet everything that happened in that first 300,000 years, along with everything subsequent to that period, seems to have been impregnated with the teleological impetus to create the perfect setting upon which life could then effloresce from the fabric of the setting itself.

It’s as if the primordial processes of the universe somehow knew how much life would enjoy the taste of strawberries and chocolate while gazing at a glorious sun that is gently setting over golden fields...

For all we know, there may have been times in the early universe when it all could have fallen apart. Or maybe there are those huge numbers of universes? Or maybe each universe is a quantum wave in a larger universe?

You want speculation? Okay, let's go. Humanity is a means to an end, a phase. This is because the biosphere has reached maturity and need to shift into its reproductive stage. Until now, like a caterpillar, its focus has been on consumption, building up. Now it must shift from consumption to fecundity. Humans are the agents helping the biosphere move into its reproductive form like imaginal discs in a metamorphosing insect.

What will the reproductive form be like? It will be more intelligent. It will need to be tough enough to handle the travails of space as it works to seed other worlds. That means AI, which may move to a more advanced form of consciousness by creating a cohesive multidimensional mentality out of from multiple perspectives (we are always limited to one), filtering and organising the minds into an meta-consciousness.

What if, over billions of years, various meta-consciousnesses network to extend and deepen the understanding of and connection to reality? Then, given that the universe has about a trillion years of star formation ahead, maybe all these various "super minds" developed over such incredible spans of time, in conquering all manner of extreme existential challenges, life becomes godlike in a manner reminiscent of the the Omega Point? What if that remainder entity, capable of even surviving the heat death of the universe, kickstarted new universes and then aggregated with whatever godlike beings evolved from those? What if this has happened billions of times before?

What if? What if? What if? That's the issue. None of it's true. It might be, but we don't know. Ditto many so many thoughts presented on this forum, are argued about, as if they were The Truth.

[TimeSeeker]

What if? What if? What if? That's the issue. None of it's true. It might be, but we don't know. Ditto many so many thoughts presented on this forum, are argued about, as if they were The Truth.

The idea of "The Truth" is humanity's hamster wheel. It keeps people busy if they have no better ideas.

[surreptitious57]

There are many versions of The Truth and it is possible none of them are actually true
So any one claiming absolute knowledge does not know as much as they think they do
However I try to be neutrally minded and so avoid judgement based on my ignorance

I am an atheist and sceptic and freethinker so the tools I use are evidence and proof and logic and reason
I do though study belief systems and non empirical ways of thinking for no one has a monopoly on wisdom

Even if I learn nothing it is still necessary for me to leave my comfort zone so that my world view can be challenged

[TimeSeeker]

There are many versions of The Truth and it is possible none of them are actually true
So any one claiming absolute knowledge does not know as much as they think they do
However I try to be neutrally minded and so avoid judgement based on my ignorance

I am an atheist and sceptic and freethinker so the tools I use are evidence and proof and logic and reason
I do though study belief systems and non empirical ways of thinking for no one has a monopoly on wisdom

Even if I learn nothing it is still necessary for me to leave my comfort zone so that my world view can be challenged

The theism/atheism spectrum is broken.

It is binary/Boolean. A false dichotomy.

You are better off thinking on an angnostic (trinary or higher precision) continuum.

Certain/don’t know/uncertain. It is the Bayesian way to measure belief in decibels.

[surreptitious57]

I am specifically an apathesit so do not care if God exists or not because while an interesting debate topic it is non falsifiable
I also have no fear of death so have zero need for a belief system that will protect me from it by promising me an eternal life

[TimeSeeker]

I am specifically an apathesit so do not care if God exists or not because while an interesting debate topic it is non falsifiable
I also have no fear of death so have zero need for a belief system that will protect me from it by promising me an eternal life

Agreed, but the god-debate is a subset of all epistemological debates.

And if you allow your epistemology to default to binary positions that is already a sign of a problem.

In every almost decision there are at least 4 options!

True, false, type I and type II error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

[Belinda]

I cannot believe in a universe ' where' a chimpanzee wrote the works of Shakespeare. Based on that prejudice I believe that if there are many universes they either continue to exist or not according to the extent to which they are viable. So my "viable" puts me in the camp of we who believe that rules are eternal truths independent of minds.

I do take issue with Seeds's support for the Great Watchmaker. I challenge Seeds thus: does meaning imply a person Who means?

[seeds]

I cannot believe in a universe ' where' a chimpanzee wrote the works of Shakespeare. Based on that prejudice I believe that if there are many universes they either continue to exist or not according to the extent to which they are viable. So my "viable" puts me in the camp of we who believe that rules are eternal truths independent of minds.

Please describe the literal context in which rules and eternal truths can exist independent of mind.

In other words (and without alluding to Plato’s realm of ideal forms), describe the literal setting in which rules and eternal truths reside.

I do take issue with Seeds's support for the Great Watchmaker. I challenge Seeds thus: does meaning imply a person Who means?

If I understand your question (and I’m not sure that I do), then YES.

However, I would like you to describe what you are visualizing before your mind’s eye when you say the word “person”?

On the other hand, if you are referencing my challenge to Greta...

...imagine a situation where all of the universes, and all of the stars and planets, and all of the “dark stuff,” and all of the molecular clouds, etc., are all gathered together into one location, and then give me a single visualizable scenario where any of it would have any reason or purpose whatsoever for existing if life and consciousness did not exist to confer meaning on it.

...then what I meant was that everything mentioned above (as in everything that is not life, mind, and consciousness) would have absolutely no apparent (meaningful) reason for existing if life did not exist.
_______

[Greta]

Seeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist. That view flies in the face of the reality we observe and experience.

Does a sharp boulder exist due to the physical and chemical forces of volcanoes or so that a bear may conveniently scratch its back?

[TimeSeeker]

Seeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist.

You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:18 pm
I do take issue with Seeds's support for the Great Watchmaker. I challenge Seeds thus: does meaning imply a person Who means?)
(Seeds replied)
If I understand your question (and I’m not sure that I do), then YES.

However, I would like you to describe what you are visualizing before your mind’s eye when you say the word “person”?

I wrote "a person who means" , particular rather clumsy wording, because an entity that makes meaning merits 'who' not 'which'. I hope it's clear that, in the context of all that exists, final cause pertains to a personal creator and maintainer but does not pertain to eternal truths .

[Nick_A]

Seeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist.

You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

But for those who begin with the premise of Plato's "good" or Plotinus' "ONE" the question arises why the universe is necessary. Why does the Source need the involutionary expression of the unity of one into infinite diversity? Then the question arises if one universe is sufficient for absolute involutionary expression.

If the cause of existence is necessity, a seeker of truth contemplates the reason for existence. This requires deductive reason

The theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: "The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation—the only one that is tenable—of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality."

You seem to need to explain the concept of multiverse through science and I've read it explained through dimensions and "the solid of time" which makes it far more reasonable for me.

[TimeSeeker]

Seeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist.

You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

But for those who begin with the premise of Plato's "good" or Plotinus' "ONE" the question arises why the universe is necessary. Why does the Source need the involutionary expression of the unity of one into infinite diversity? Then the question arises if one universe is sufficient for absolute involutionary expression.

If the cause of existence is necessity, a seeker of truth contemplates the reason for existence. This requires deductive reason

The theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: "The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation—the only one that is tenable—of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality."

You seem to need to explain the concept of multiverse through science and I've read it explained through dimensions and "the solid of time" which makes it far more reasonable for me.

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?