remember the famous motto
are we alone in the universe
are we alone in the universe
I certainly have noticed how cars are all looking the same.
On the boat design network, the question was asked what the next ten years in boat design would look like. I commented on the increasing abilities of AI, and that coupling the power of instant custom designs and automated manufacturing, we were likely to start seeing all kinds of wild designs, when the architect's experience and influence were removed from the process. I was yelled at for potentially endangering people's lives with my comments. Essentially, they said, "Shut the
up!"
I didn't realize naval architects were so sensitive.
-Will
On the boat design network, the question was asked what the next ten years in boat design would look like. I commented on the increasing abilities of AI, and that coupling the power of instant custom designs and automated manufacturing, we were likely to start seeing all kinds of wild designs, when the architect's experience and influence were removed from the process. I was yelled at for potentially endangering people's lives with my comments. Essentially, they said, "Shut the
up!"I didn't realize naval architects were so sensitive.
-Will
Their livelihoods are threatened by AI. It seems a natural response.
If alternate (parallel) universes exist, then the same branches of time must already exist in every universe. We just choose different branches to follow.
If these branches do exist, then the consequences of choosing that specific branch must already exist.
This is not pre-determinism, because WE choose the branches of decisions.
Therefore all time must exist simultaneously.
Every moment in time (past, present and future) all exist at the same time.
Also, if we liken alternate universes to space bubbles, then they would have to be separated by a distance to keep them from interfering with each other? Then wouldn’t the distance between them be Subspace? Literally the space between space.
Just a theory.
If these branches do exist, then the consequences of choosing that specific branch must already exist.
This is not pre-determinism, because WE choose the branches of decisions.
Therefore all time must exist simultaneously.
Every moment in time (past, present and future) all exist at the same time.
Also, if we liken alternate universes to space bubbles, then they would have to be separated by a distance to keep them from interfering with each other? Then wouldn’t the distance between them be Subspace? Literally the space between space.
Just a theory.
I like the way you think, but I don't quite follow.
-Will
I don't see how the branches of time being the same follow from the existence of alternate universes.
Please elaborate on this conditional argument. If branches of time exist, then why does it follow that their outcomes already exist?
I can certainly agree with that. Even if the only decision we can make is to be "asleep" to our movement through the universe (our pre-laid rollercoaster ride through existence) or to be awake for the ride, that is still a non-deterministic universe, regardless of our inability to jump the tracks.
I'm not getting the connections, not that I disagree, I just can't understand the logic. I'm afraid I needed more.
-Will
If alternate (parallel) universes exist, then the same branches of time must already exist in every universe. We just choose different branches to follow.
If these branches do exist, then the consequences of choosing that specific branch must already exist.
This is not pre-determinism, because WE choose the branches of decisions.
Therefore all time must exist simultaneously.
Every moment in time (past, present and future) all exist at the same time.
Also, if we liken alternate universes to space bubbles, then they would have to be separated by a distance to keep them from interfering with each other? Then wouldn’t the distance between them be Subspace? Literally the space between space.
Just a theory.
here is a i guess theory lol lol
what if every single dream we have had since we were on earth when we all sleep are the unlimited infinity alternate earths in the multiverse
and or what if every single thing we think of in my minds about anything and everything since we were put on earth are also the unlimited infinty alternate earths in the multiverse
[Speculation]
Dreams and anaesthesia are perhaps clues, and I would also add various metaphysical phenomena that make no apparent sense otherwise. If base reality consists of all possible mind states then it can encompass much that is otherwise rejected by orthodox science. The question then becomes why seemingly outlandish phenomena are so rare. My dabbling with ChatGPT suggested this is because the actikns of outliers from genuine physical behaviour tend to phase cancel with only a very small probability of "leaking" through.
As to whether free will exists, perhaps question just how much "conscious" control you really have given that experimental results from neuroscience suggest none. If one had a time machine, one might envisage correcting one's choices, but stepping in the same stream twice appears to be almost impossible.
My suspicion is that, like time, individuality of consciousness is an illusion. Whether all possible threads of consciousness are observed or recorded is unknown and possibly unknowable. It's very hard to get traction on such notions as we're stuck inside the system itself. Metalevel understanding would itself consist of mind states and a sufficient number of threads sharing these to achieve concensus might be very unlikely. Even if we did, what use would that knowledge be?
Perhaps that we are in some ways both much less and much more than what we perceive ourselves to be. It's all too easy to become ensnared by language that assumes a contrary viewpoint.
[/Speculation]
Dreams and anaesthesia are perhaps clues, and I would also add various metaphysical phenomena that make no apparent sense otherwise. If base reality consists of all possible mind states then it can encompass much that is otherwise rejected by orthodox science. The question then becomes why seemingly outlandish phenomena are so rare. My dabbling with ChatGPT suggested this is because the actikns of outliers from genuine physical behaviour tend to phase cancel with only a very small probability of "leaking" through.
As to whether free will exists, perhaps question just how much "conscious" control you really have given that experimental results from neuroscience suggest none. If one had a time machine, one might envisage correcting one's choices, but stepping in the same stream twice appears to be almost impossible.
My suspicion is that, like time, individuality of consciousness is an illusion. Whether all possible threads of consciousness are observed or recorded is unknown and possibly unknowable. It's very hard to get traction on such notions as we're stuck inside the system itself. Metalevel understanding would itself consist of mind states and a sufficient number of threads sharing these to achieve concensus might be very unlikely. Even if we did, what use would that knowledge be?
Perhaps that we are in some ways both much less and much more than what we perceive ourselves to be. It's all too easy to become ensnared by language that assumes a contrary viewpoint.
[/Speculation]
Last edited:
LOL, seriously, they think Quantum Physics can be used to do anything.
Sabine gave it an 8/10 on her BS meter.
Advanced waves are a solution of wave equations such as that in EM propagation. However, we usually ignore them as being nonphysical and consider only retarded wave solutions. Wheeler and Feynman had a different rationale for what happens to them.
Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory - Wikipedia
Then allow me to try to elaborate.
The current theory is that if parallel universes exist, then they may exist independently, or they are an off-shoot of the decisions we make in this (let’s call it the Prime) universe.
If you think about time like a tree: each decision we make leads to other branches, which split into other branches, which split into other branches, into infinity.
The theory for parallel universes is that we make the same decisions up until a certain point; at which point the universes diverge.
If all decisions before the diverging point are the same, then it is logical, that the same branches must also extend into the future.
Therefore, if these branches exist in one universe, these branches must already exist in all universes in order for this to occur. Otherwise, where do the branches come from?
If all branches in time occur in every dimension, then it is logical that the consequences for each action must also exist, although we are unable to see them. Otherwise there would be no consequences.
If all branches already exist, in every universe, then time itself exists simultaneously; i.e. each moment in time contains the past, present, and future.
So, then:
-All universes exist.
-Every universe has the same branches.
-We choose each branch (decision)
-The consequences are pre-determined
-There are infinite choices, therefore infinite branches
- All time exists (past, present, future)
If you think of each universe like a bubble, then it would have to be separated from the others by a gap, which is Subspace.
It is simply logical.
I don’t know how to explain it more simply than that.
The current theory is that if parallel universes exist, then they may exist independently, or they are an off-shoot of the decisions we make in this (let’s call it the Prime) universe.
If you think about time like a tree: each decision we make leads to other branches, which split into other branches, which split into other branches, into infinity.
The theory for parallel universes is that we make the same decisions up until a certain point; at which point the universes diverge.
If all decisions before the diverging point are the same, then it is logical, that the same branches must also extend into the future.
Therefore, if these branches exist in one universe, these branches must already exist in all universes in order for this to occur. Otherwise, where do the branches come from?
If all branches in time occur in every dimension, then it is logical that the consequences for each action must also exist, although we are unable to see them. Otherwise there would be no consequences.
If all branches already exist, in every universe, then time itself exists simultaneously; i.e. each moment in time contains the past, present, and future.
So, then:
-All universes exist.
-Every universe has the same branches.
-We choose each branch (decision)
-The consequences are pre-determined
-There are infinite choices, therefore infinite branches
- All time exists (past, present, future)
If you think of each universe like a bubble, then it would have to be separated from the others by a gap, which is Subspace.
It is simply logical.
I don’t know how to explain it more simply than that.
Last edited:
There is a difference between predetermined and preexisting.
If I strike the cue ball at the perfect angle with the right amount of force to send the 4-ball into the corner pocket; once I execute the shot, the 4-ball ending in the corner pocket is predetermined, but that doesn't mean the 4-ball's future presence in the corner pocket already exists before I make the shot, or even at the same time I make the shot. Maybe the future and the past and the moment of the cue stick striking the cue ball all exist at the same time, but that is not demonstrated by the inevitability of the 4-ball landing in the corner pocket.
This is by definition. So, I agree.
Also by definition: "If all branches already exist, in every universe..." and a little bit circular.
This is not explicit, but if we define the many branches of time as the consequences of a decision, and that all decisions results in a branching, then I can follow this.
This is a sticking point. Pre-determined consequences would, if all branches already exist, lead to the conditions that dictate the next decision. That would mean that Pre-determined outcomes lead to Pre-determined decisions, which is the definition of determinism. Therefore, there are no decisions, only predetermined paths. That would also lead to only one branch, not multiple branches.
To actually have multiple branches that are the consequences of a true free-will decision, there needs to be a suspension of existence for an undetermined decision. Only in this way can multiple branches, or multiple potential universes exist.
The existence of a multiverse has to either be probabilistic, like the state of Schrödinger's Cat, where the outcomes of each branch of time are probablistic, not pre-existing, or even pre-determined,
Or...
the individual multiverse universes are independent. They may exist in past, present, and future at once, or they may also exist with a probablistic future only.
This is a very physicalist view that suggests a limit to the dimensions in which the multiverse exists. The other option would be another set of dimensions that separate the universes the way one Cartesian plane is separate from another. No real intervening space, only the ability or inability to move in the perpendicular to those separate planes.
-Will
Last edited:
Again, I only meant that the consequences are already predetermined.
Perhaps pre-defined is a better term.
With multiple paths to follow, the choice is still ours to make as to which path to follow.
If these branches are not defined, then how does each branch form?
How are consequences defined? What causes them?
I am just trying to figure this out by reasoning it out.
Following each step like breadcrumbs.
Using your pool analogy, if every possibility of time exists, then the ball is predefined to go into the pocket.
It is also predefined to miss.
It is also predefined to fly off the table and land in someone’s beer.
You are not thinking fifth dimensionally.
If all time exists at the same time, (past, present, future) then the ball exists before the shot, it exists now, it exists in the hole, it exists as a miss, and it exists in every possibility until you make the shot.
Every possibility exists in every dimension.
That is the point.
Now the part that will blow your mind.
If each of us make these decisions every day, then each of us live in our own dimension.
Perhaps pre-defined is a better term.
With multiple paths to follow, the choice is still ours to make as to which path to follow.
If these branches are not defined, then how does each branch form?
How are consequences defined? What causes them?
I am just trying to figure this out by reasoning it out.
Following each step like breadcrumbs.
Using your pool analogy, if every possibility of time exists, then the ball is predefined to go into the pocket.
It is also predefined to miss.
It is also predefined to fly off the table and land in someone’s beer.
You are not thinking fifth dimensionally.
If all time exists at the same time, (past, present, future) then the ball exists before the shot, it exists now, it exists in the hole, it exists as a miss, and it exists in every possibility until you make the shot.
Every possibility exists in every dimension.
That is the point.
Now the part that will blow your mind.
If each of us make these decisions every day, then each of us live in our own dimension.
Last edited:
Of course, that's what most of us are here to do, explore, reflect and refine.
Your suggestions and insight are extremely helpful to me. Most of the time, my disagreements with people are not with their conclusions, only with the path by which they got there. I certainly don't know anything, but that doesn't stop me from trying out an idea or two.
-Will
Some apposite quotes from Wittgenstein:
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
"Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself."
"All I know is what I have words for."
"If we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world."
"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push it."
If someone wants to believe that what they perceive as reality is real, there's very little one can do to change that mind state. After many years of observing the futile attempts being made to open the door, I've chosen to pull instead of push.
Mathematics is just as limiting a language as any other. Any form of symbol processing eventually runs into computational irreducibility. We search for neat aphorisms of whatever kind to describe a perceived reality when that experience might consist fundamentally of a set of mental states drawn from all that are possible.
See also the novella "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang on which the Denis Villeneuve movie Arrival was based.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
"Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself."
"All I know is what I have words for."
"If we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world."
"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push it."
If someone wants to believe that what they perceive as reality is real, there's very little one can do to change that mind state. After many years of observing the futile attempts being made to open the door, I've chosen to pull instead of push.
Mathematics is just as limiting a language as any other. Any form of symbol processing eventually runs into computational irreducibility. We search for neat aphorisms of whatever kind to describe a perceived reality when that experience might consist fundamentally of a set of mental states drawn from all that are possible.
See also the novella "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang on which the Denis Villeneuve movie Arrival was based.
Last edited:
If the thousand monkeys did not type, because they knew not how, they would never produce the works of Shakespeare.
This is, in my humble opinion, a truism that in practicality, is not true, because any current finite state of a symbolic language is only currently limited. We "creators" (The real image of God by which we were created, if you will) can always add another symbol to the infinite countable set of symbols by which we can represent our world.
In the end, languages' strength is in the ability to grow and change with their needs.
-Will
When the experiment was tried with actual monkeys and keyboards, the result was very messy.
That Time Someone Actually Tested the Infinite Monkey Theorem (And Who Came Up With It)
The idea that given enough time, even completely random activity could produce something complex goes back at least a couple thousand years, though not without its detractors even then. For example, Cicero states in his De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) in 45 BC: Is it possible for...
www.todayifoundout.com
If you put an infinite amount of monkeys, at an infinite amount of keyboards, would they eventually write The Planet of the Apes?
Last edited:
Last edited:
If we can include discussion about other worlds and life this was what I wrote in the Disclosure Day thread.
The main objections are why they would be so secretive and leave so little evidence.
My suspicion is that many such unexplainable phenomena might arise if all that really exists are mind states and what is perceived as real (including stubbing one's toe) is a projection encoded in those states - much like a hologram encodes an image as a Fourier transform.