There are basically two routes to so called 'scientific' multi-universe or alternate reality theories, from the cosmology and from quantum mechanics. According to general relativity Spacetime is shaped by matter. The universe that we are part of is a particular shape. Some models are closed shapes, some are open. In either case the universe is not infinite because spacetime cannot extend very far beyond the matter that shapes and creates it. It is difficult to imagine the universe as a closed four dimensional shape without picturing it as 'floating' in something, perhaps another infinite space. However this image is not justified by the science and implies further dimensions for the four dimensional universe to be in. If someone wished to speculate about this in a non-scientific way they could imagine an infinite number of 'island universes' dotted about in this multi-dimensional space much as galaxies are spread out in the four dimensional space that we know about. However these universes could have no contact with each other and could not exchange information (I am aware that there are 'wormhole speculations about transference of information but these are ot based on testable science and presume that alternative universes exist to create wormholes to). From a scientific point of view they could not be detectable and hence effectively do not exist. In many scientific theories there are often terms of equations that are neglected for this very reason. Non-interaction is effectively non-existence. It is in this unexplorable realm that believers place their gods and it is no more justifiable for scientists. The many universe quantum theories are an attempt to resolve problems of superposition of states. When these states decohere there are problems for classically deterministic systems. The supposed solution offered by multi-universe theories is that all possible states of a quantum system lead to real observable solutions in alternate universes. This implies that effectively an infinite number of mature alternative universes come into being every moment as a result of each alternative state cross-referencing with every other alternative state. There are many more problems with this than the obvious one of where does all this matter and energy come from and in what ‘space’ does it exist. A damning consequence for the speculation is that every possible alternative universe will exist. This means that even if there were a experimentally testable consequence of this hypothesis there are universes where scientific experimentation always fails and hence 'proves' that the hypothesis itself is incorrect. As a solution to anything this hypothesis is not only untestable but also must refute itself. Whatever this hypothesis is it is not a scientific one and has no meaning in terms of explaining experience. Given that there are at least ten alternative hypothesise to resolve the problem of interaction between quantum world and the classical world that do not require the creation of infinite universes at each moment in time (i.e. everything happens because everything is possible) it is unnecessary to leap to an unscientific metaphysical one that creates more problems than it resolves (personally I favour a variation of einselection).
Discuss
sciencesaves on November 20, 2008, 9:33 AM
Wow, Herbie! As musycks would say…Time for a nice cup of tea and a lie-down after that one!
I read through it twice, and honestly, thinking about such things only seems to bring about more questions.
Perhaps that’s why a lot of folks bypass the true search for knowledge, and fall back on the religious/spiritual crutch.
We don’t know a lot, but that’s no excuse to perpetuate primitive musings.
Distractions.
Musycks on November 20, 2008, 10:06 PM
‘Non-interaction is effectively non-existence’.
that’s all I need. Lovely, says it all.
Interesting stuff… thanks HP.
HerbieP on November 21, 2008, 4:29 AM
I don’t know why I posted that guys. I suppose that it’s a rant about my thoughts that scientific academia can become like a priesthood and is even creating it’s own semi-religious ideas.
Giesela Dohrmann on November 22, 2008, 3:27 AM
never mind the “rant” HerbieP …
you said it and I could not agree more, scientific academia could (or already does?)create semi religious ideas and I would like to add: it even imposes dogma, almost as bad as the medieval church.
Let’s take Richard Dawkins for example, would it be a sacrilege to criticize him or even ask what his real motives are. His status is almost that of a semi-deity in certain circles. I know that I might have stirred up the proverbial hornets nest by saying this…..
Matt Pidlysny on November 23, 2008, 1:52 AM
Non-interaction is effectively non-existence.
Just because you cannot see the vision, Herbie, doesn’t mean nobody else can’t. I can see infinite dimensions existing perfectly well, thank you. It doesn’t matter how I have to explain it, I can visually compare a theory to a real object in my mind. Form of mass directly proves existence, and by mass I can mean anything that creates structure. What that means for me is that I’m giving myself the benefit of the doubt and saying “Well, let’s say there’s nothing that suggests these things CAN’T exist, rather than say that it’s not logical,”. In that way you directly apply a certain passion for the idea you’re now starting to create, applying more focus and attention to detail. I’m not sure, but I’m fairly positive that anything done otherwise does not go far at all in terms of a progression.
The way I see it, I could visualize myself looking at what would most resemble a pie chart in Microsoft Excel (A Three-Dimensional one), and looking into the face of each slice I can see worlds synchronized with each other but different in exactly one different way, any different way you could think of. They were cut into 2 pieces the day time could formally exist because of a single choice, and then when another choice was made, the pie divided into 4 slices, one for each choice again. And so on and so forth. If anything happens by coincidence in any of those worlds, it’s by pure logic alone in that manner. And the pie continues to divide by doubles until time no longer exists, and the last slices are cut.
Granted, that’s just me imagining how one could perceive it, and make sense of what they see. I know you said you didn’t want to post it in the first place, but at least it can draw out your imagination. Which I think I’m going to help you with. I will teach you the art of imagining, methinks :)
Perhaps that's why a lot of folks bypass the true search for knowledge, and fall back on the religious/spiritual crutch.
When you show this statement the focus I just talked about, you’ll understand why I want to use your own words to send you a message, and what that message is.
Is there another dimension/universe?
Until science proves it through the current model of physics we possess that it is definitely not possible, or at least not possible to interact with another dimension (The dimension being what it is, and for whatever reason), it remains to be seen. Thus far, all signs point to yes.
HerbieP on November 23, 2008, 5:16 AM
“Well, let’s say there’s nothing that suggests these things CAN’T exist, rather than say that it’s not logical,”
Saying something is not logical is in effect saying that it can’t exist. That is unless you have no discrimination in what you choose to believe. If you can believe anything then you might as well believe everything. I think that this is what SS and musycks have been saying to believers.
sciencesaves on November 23, 2008, 7:15 AM
“If you can believe anything, then you might as well believe everything”
Thanks, HP, I’m not sure I understand…elaborate?
Matt Pidlysny on November 23, 2008, 9:29 AM
If you can believe anything then you might as well believe everything.
So would the same be said to the neurologist back in Solomon’s days:
“WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ON?!”
That’s probably a big stretch, but what if anything is possible? Our universe is huge, guaranteed there is a medium for EVERYTHING to exist in. Thinking of all the ways a particle can exist, then that must be a given, no?
Musycks on November 23, 2008, 9:55 PM
Hey verisoph… lay off Dicky D! he may be a twee and dull and earnest Oxfrod type, but he’s at least put Darwin on the front page and taken the fight to the Evangelicals. That someone has to in 2008 is off course a scandal…. but for an atheist poster boy, I’ll stick with Hitchens… warts and all… alright.. Sam Harris as well.
Giesela Dohrmann on November 24, 2008, 3:22 AM
o, yes musycks, R.Dawinks might be the dull & earnest Oxford type but he also is the propagandist,fundamental “new” atheist type.
So far not too may have taken his intellectual superhighway to atheism, he is preaching to the converted more or less.
Science, be it with the scent of incense or pure, is not needed, or even necessary to
explain: there is no god.
I am saying this an an “old” atheist.
HerbieP on November 24, 2008, 4:06 AM
SS resonator has stressed that the condition of an idea being logical is not required for one to believe in it. He has further suggested that one can ‘take a leap of faith’ to believe in things. By abandoning a logical filter there is no way to distinguish between the infinite number of ridiculous things to believe in (flying spagetti monsters and oribiting teapots are favourite examples). This is a position taken by many believers.
The problem is if we can allow ourselves to uncritically believe every possibility (and some impossibilities), however absurd, and not apply logic then one might as well believe everything.
It is bizzare how someone such as Jeff can believe some crazy ideas whilst for no good reason rejecting other crazy ideas. As far as I can tell resonator does believe everything.
Matt Pidlysny on November 24, 2008, 12:58 PM
flying spagetti monsters and oribiting teapots are favourite examples
I would have you know that it’s an entire possibility that someone placed teapots in a gravitational orbit around the earth in a distant universe, probably purely for shits and giggles. You think it’s strange (As do I, point in fact), but then again these people think it’s funny and just don’t care. The teapot is going to burn up in the atmosphere anyway, who cares?
And what is to say that a purely natural sentient spheroid that has membranes made from a similar composition to pasta doesn’t exist? What if it lives in symbiosis with a different animal who can eat nothing but pasta? A purely natural source would be most efficient, if it can give something to the spaghetti monster. Point is, you just contradicted your own evolution theory by saying it cannot exist because you did not bother to imagine WHY and HOW such a thing could exist.
Musycks on November 24, 2008, 6:34 PM
verisoph… ‘preaching to the converted’.. that’s the domain of the religious. Since when does making logical sense have to be defended to anyone?
Resjeff, still talking round in circles I see? I’d tell you that your idea that Herbie ‘contradicted’ evolution was utter nonsense if I thought it’d do any good…… sadly….. it’s indistinguishable from every other sentence you author.
HerbieP on November 25, 2008, 1:45 AM
I think that you have missed the point of the now standard arguments about teapots and such Resonator. The point is that if you are willing to believe in anything that cannot be disproved why don’t you believe in everything that cannot be disproved? The examples in the original arguments were chosen to be ridiculous to highlight the fallacious argument. However it appears that the examples aren’t quite ridiculous enough for some…
sciencesaves on November 25, 2008, 8:30 AM
I understand.
res, time to replace the filter, too much spam coming through!
Matt Pidlysny on November 25, 2008, 9:19 AM
Look, you can’t seriously expect the author of anything to recognize the error offhand. I see nothing but value in my posts so if you see a pile of shit you better say which parts are turds and which ones are things you just can’t understand because it’s fucking FRUSTRATING to be arguing with people who don’t know shit about imagination and how to use it, a natural part of your own mind that you just cannot seem to access because of childhood trauma or pure ignorance (Take your pick).
it's indistinguishable from every other sentence you author.
What if I was to inform you Neil Armstrong left his grandmothers tea pot orbiting the earth in a constant orbit, perfect enough to keep itself up there for 10 years? Would that come off as impossible, or just unjustifiable? Obviously it’s logical, since he did it, but then again you don’t seem to grasp that IF it’s possible, it’s logical.
==However it appears that the examples aren’t quite ridiculous enough for some…
If everything that can be defined as a change in our environment can be different in one way, I'm sure you would be agreeing with me. Let me go back to our spaghetti monster here:
If an animal developed a deficiency for a protein that can ONLY be found in pasta, the spaghetti monster now serves purpose in that world. Now there is opportunity for symbiosis or adaptation, as we have seen proven in our own universe.
But just for the record, if it can be proven I would most certainly believe it. If ANYTHING can be proven, even in theory, why can't you believe it, or should I repeat myself when I say you haven't used your imagination at all in any of our discussions?
res, time to replace the filter, too much spam coming through!==
Ignorant hypocrisy, motion denied.
HerbieP on November 25, 2008, 11:27 AM
Resonator there is a big difference between something being possible and it being likely. If you want to believe in everything that is possible that is your prerogative. However you will quickly become unable to function (this may indeed be why PastorJ was concerned about you).
We all know that many unlikely things are possible that doesn’t mean that we believe in them.
To take your example it would be very unlikely even if he/she tried it for an astronaught to deliberately place an item in a stable orbit manually during a space walk withoutout being detected (plenty of observations of the recent loss of a tool bag). Hence it is reasonable to suppose that no one has done it. If one claimed that he/she had the first reasonable response would be doubt. If this wasn’t your first reasonable response then you would be the sort of person who was the victim of many practical jokes throughout your life – gulible. The next response might be to ask for some evidence. In the absence of evidence any reasonable person would continue to doubt. The fact is that no astronaught has even made the claim so no reasonable person would spontaneously start to believe that it had happened.
In the case of many beliefs some person or persons are making claims and they do not present any supporting evidence. Some claims are more likely than others but in the absence evidence there is no need to entertain them.
Musycks on November 25, 2008, 6:31 PM
Imagination is fantastic.. but not the tool you need when dealing with reality… it’s great for writing interesting stories or entertaining screenplays… but the thing you need when dealing with the probability of certain events is critical thinking. When you lack that you are prone to believe any horseshit.
Prosecution rests.
Luke Allen on December 2, 2008, 9:02 PM
Hey HerbieP,
First I want to thank you and Musycks for calling Resonator, Jeff. I can rest easy knowing that the ramblings of a child who can’t distinguish scientific fact from scientific fiction doesn’t come from a middle-aged, what I thought was a homeless, potential David Koresh. I will ignore Resonator like I do Jeff, because if one can’t distinguish between the objective and subjective, then there is no basis for communication.
As I hope you know Herbie you are someone I respect immensly and when I read that you like answering the problems of quantum and classical world with einselection I immediately started researching it. What I couldn’t find though are any refutions to it. The formula is over my head but sometimes I learn quicker if I can know the problems with something because that brings clearer to focus the statements that the equation is attempting to answer. So could you tell me the problems with einselection? Why isn’t it more generally accepted? And so far the only author I found on it was Wojciech. Did he orginate the formula?
BTW as an aside I started boxing again. I was hoping to have my first pro fight in Dec. But then realized I had a hernia so I haven’t been able to train for the last three weeks but I will have my first fight in Jan. or Feb. and will post it on youtube when I do. Stay Strong my fellow pugilist & physics aficionado.
HerbieP on December 3, 2008, 10:18 AM
very kind of you to say so Luke.
My position on einselction is complex and not straightforward acceptance.
That said, einselction is not one of the most popular of the main dozen rationalisations of quantum decoherence. It was developed by Zurek in the early 90s mostly as an enclosed measuring system vehicle. It was worked on by Tegmark, Shapiro, Paz and Habib. Zurek was just working on the effects a marcoscopic measuring device has in dechohereing quantum states. As such it was a sort of small scale experimental throw away rather than a theorists paper and does not seek to agree with the various versions of string theory. It wasn’t until ‘98 that he published a Royal Society paper about the broader implications.
I think that it has not gained wider acceptance because it was outside of the fashion of the 90s when string theories came into their own. However it has a lot to offer the way I think about things.
One of the problems is does it apply to unconstrained systems? and another is that the ’pointer states’ seem to be a mid-way transition to decoherence and what does that mean exactly?
Look forward to seeing you perform in the ring.
Matt Pidlysny on December 4, 2008, 2:22 PM
First I want to thank you and Musycks for calling Resonator, Jeff. I can rest easy knowing that the ramblings of a child who can't distinguish scientific fact from scientific fiction doesn't come from a middle-aged, what I thought was a homeless, potential David Koresh. I will ignore Resonator like I do Jeff, because if one can't distinguish between the objective and subjective, then there is no basis for communication.
I think you’re making an excuse to not read my posts. You can’t face up to what I’m saying, otherwise you’d prove me wrong like Herbie does. Which tells me you’re in a bad place, actually. I can’t really tell offhand but you seem to be in a pretty fucked up mental spot right now. Not even caring about what other people believe is a sign of mental weakness on YOUR part.
It’s that lack of curiosity that divides the scientists that just know, and the scientists who want to find out. I’m thinking you don’t give a shit about the latter, and that really speaks volumes about your personality to me.
So that being said, are you letting your emotions get in the way of arguing with me in a constructive manner or are you simply a walking textbook?
But if I may draw on something here, you speak like David Koresh serves no purpose on Earth. But he is, in fact, a part of your history and this, the deaths of a couple thousand has served the benefit (In knowledge) of millions of people.
Yep, this God seems pretty utilitarian to me :)
Luke Allen on December 10, 2008, 1:52 AM
HerbieP,
I won’t embarress myself with amateur observational questions but I look forward to studying more and coming back with question more appropriate. Thank you for your response and a backround to begin studying.
Luke Allen on December 10, 2008, 1:52 AM
Resonator isn’t worth being Christian to because his ignorance will always keep him away from the light that is Christ. Those wading in ignorance whether, Christian, Atheist or new age I am a God idiots, make themselves my enemy and I don’t have to turn the cheek a second time if they are dumb enough to slap my first turn. Ignorance is my understanding of Satan and therefore I don’t treat fools as anything other then what they are and when I am being foolish I appreciate the same directness.
Stay Strong.
Matt Pidlysny on December 11, 2008, 5:04 PM
Resonator isn't worth being Christian to because his ignorance will always keep him away from the light that is Christ. Those wading in ignorance whether, Christian, Atheist or new age I am a God idiots, make themselves my enemy and I don't have to turn the cheek a second time if they are dumb enough to slap my first turn. Ignorance is my understanding of Satan and therefore I don't treat fools as anything other then what they are and when I am being foolish I appreciate the same directness.
If you have ever turned the other cheek for me, my friend, you better be ready to back that claim up. When YOU understand, and you will in time, that I am not christian, and that there ARE things that go along with not being Christian, you’ll know that they are not made of ignorance and it is because you mate with mindlessness in judgment that you would jump so hastily to serving it false justice.
Was Jesus was a Setian? This is an assertion I make but the answer, the real answer, can be fed from multiple directions. Do you wonder about God’s existence being superficial, much like ourselves interacting with the things around us, or purely nature? I would say with certainty that IF ANYTHING, God being human is most definitely a human creation.
I only say this because you speak of Satan. When you know, you can consider yourself in the know because of how you got to knowing (If I may twist some words).
Musycks on December 11, 2008, 8:59 PM
now you know… Jesus was a Setian (whatever that is?!)…. good luck with that Cool Hand… :)
Luke Allen on December 11, 2008, 11:33 PM
Haha Musycks I feel my God has survived through thousands of years and doubt a madman’s illogical rant would have the big guy shaking upstairs. Musycks, how have you interacted with this lunatic so long? He’s too dumb to even know he is dumb.
Matt Pidlysny on December 12, 2008, 4:35 PM
Jesus was a Setian (whatever that is?!)
Seth was a son of Adam. He is also the leader of one of 13 kingdoms on Earth during the beginning times after creation. He physically created through power of thought a race of humans, either by literally creating them or manipulating his DNA through mental and physical conditioning. Either way, that’s how the story goes anyway.
The point is that they were also some of the first people to walk the Earth, the descendants of Seth. That, coupled with the fact (Make what you will of that word) of 12 other kingdoms out there in the beginning increases the chance of coincidence for something that relates back to Adam, like a chosen descendant, if we can use that as an inevitable anomaly for someone in the bloodline to do some great things by the rules applied by nature. But I ramble, that’s the basic jist of Seth of Earth.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register