Philosophical Implications Of Infinite Parallel Multiverses

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

And? Its a plausible theory held by many credible scientists as a real possibility, so its at least worth thinking about, no? 

Does it make any predictions that can be tested? Is there a way to make the concept falsifiable?

Mc2509 has bad definitions of "theory", "reality", and "proof", but I still don't think the multiverse concept qualifies as scientific. It may be a hypothetical consequence of physics as we understand it, but we can't test it, measure it, observe it. 

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Does it make any predictions that can be tested? Is there a way to make the concept falsifiable?

Mc2509 has bad definitions of "theory", "reality", and "proof", but I still don't think the multiverse concept qualifies as scientific. It may be a hypothetical consequence of physics as we understand it, but we can't test it, measure it, observe it. 

No point in talking about it then, close the thread. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Intoscience

[EmDriver]

On 1/10/2023 at 6:57 AM, Intoscience said:

I was thinking the other day about QM, uncertainty principle, superposition the multiverse theory, destiny and so forth.

I then started to consider what the philosophical implications of infinite multiverses may present. The main one I considered was what this means for a person regarding their "soul", their destiny and so forth...

I started to imagine such a scenario where we have the idea of infinite parallel multiverses where every quantum change creates a new universe that branches off. This sounds so far out there but is considered by some physicist as a plausible idea that can be used to explain many phenomena.

So in this scenario everything that could exist does exist and every scenario within the confines of the laws of nature that can happen does happen. This means that there potentially would be an infinite number of every possible person that could ever be and every possible scenario would exist. This then lend me to think about a person's sense of themselves; the choices they make, what they believe to be their destiny, all the good and all the bad experiences, the length of their lives... the list is endless.

But in short if this was how the universe functioned then what we consider to be destiny, luck, chance... each are just a tiny perception within our own experiences of one big puzzle where non of those have any real meaning. Then this led me to consider our "souls" and god even though I'm not a particular believer in either and what it means to sense oneself if there are an infinite number of you in existence.

This then made me consider the implications of how any of that would fit into the big picture,  the value of life both universally and individually and how value of any kind could have any real meaning in terms of this big picture. 

I could go on... since my mind has been going over this the last few days. I just thought I'd share it with you folks, if anyone is interested.

Thanks

     

I think the concept of destiny vs random/chaos/chance could be known if we figure out the double slit quantum mechanic experiment. Why does the waveform know that it is being measured in the future and collapse before it's being detected? The concept of luck hasn't been shown to exist. Most cultures have a belief in luck and many do create rituals because they perceive that it will increase their odds of something. We can test this by having someone guess what a chosen number is between 1-10 a 1000 times in a row while they perform their ritual each time. The pattern that emerges is they end up guessing the correct number roughly 10% of the time.

On 1/14/2023 at 10:31 AM, Genady said:

We can't know most of the future, most of the present, and most of the past. What is philosophical about this fact?

What we perceive to be the present is actually not the present moment due to the time it takes light to reach our eyes.

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

What we perceive to be the present is actually not the present moment due to the time it takes light to reach our eyes.

After the light reaches our eyes and after the signals go through our nervous system and through all the computations in the brain, our final perception at the end of the process is present.

Plus, although I cannot see it, but something is happening in Andromeda in this very moment while I am typing this comment. It is present.

[iNow]

You’re mixing up reference frames 

[EmDriver]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

After the light reaches our eyes and after the signals go through our nervous system and through all the computations in the brain, our final perception at the end of the process is present.

Plus, although I cannot see it, but something is happening in Andromeda in this very moment while I am typing this comment. It is present.

Right, but then how do we perceive what is happening in the actual present moment in Andromeda? We must make predictions about what will happen in the future based on what we see in the past.

Edited February 24, 2023 by EmDriver

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

then how do we perceive what is happening in the actual present moment in Andromeda?

There is no “actual present moment.” Comments like these implicitly suggest a preferred reference frame. It prioritizes your own experience over others. That’s a mistake in your approach 

[EmDriver]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

There is no “actual present moment.” Comments like these implicitly suggest a preferred reference frame. It prioritizes your own experience over others. That’s a mistake in your approach 

The actual present moment not existing was what I was insinuating. My approach worked as intended because it led to someone else thinking of it instead of me saying it. By asking how someone can perceive the actual present moment prevents the assumption that someone does not see the actual present moment. Now that more then 1 observer have made a connection, we can now know that the actual present moment does not exist.

[Markus Hanke]

20 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

we can now know that the actual present moment does not exist.

So why can you remember it afterwards?

[EmDriver]

37 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

So why can you remember it afterwards?

Are we remembering the actual present moment, or our perception of what the present moment was?

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, EmDriver said:

Are we remembering the actual present moment, or our perception of what the present moment was?

It depends largely on how exactly you define “actual present moment”, because the meaning of this is not at all clear.

We are remembering a subset of whatever mental objects were present in consciousness at the instant the memory refers to. These mental objects are the result of the reality-model that the mind has constructed - this model takes as its input sensory data (“perception”), memories, and previously accumulated habitual processing patterns, which are then filtered and further processed in certain ways, and eventually output as mental objects that we can direct our attention to and be aware of. Phenomenological reality is a mental construct.

It’s kind of like a graphical user interface on a computer - the operating system takes external inputs (user interactions, information stored in RAM, ROM and other storage media), processes these, and renders them graphically on a screen, printer, or other output device. The basic inputs and information storage units do not themselves contain GUI elements such as letters, windows, menus, dialog boxes etc etc (they are just electric potentials), but it turns out that these higher-order representations make for a useful “reality-model” for a computer to interact with its user. The specific form such reality-models take are strongly influenced by teleological concerns, ie the reason why the computer was constructed in the first place. 

But all of this aside, the basic issue is this - our memories contain what is by and large a structured and ordered sequence of remembered mind-moments. We remember perceptions from our childhood, and we remember our teenage years, and we recognise that one came before the other - in other words, we never remember the future, only the past. If the original input data does not already contain such a temporal ordering (ie there is no present moment), then why are our memories temporally structured in a self-consistent manner? A similar argument can also be made for any kind of non-sentient recording device that records a structured sequence of information based on external inputs. If there is no concept of present moment, it is very difficult to explain the emergence of this temporal structure.

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, EmDriver said:

Are we remembering the actual present moment, or our perception of what the present moment was?

When you are talking about "the present" moment are you suggesting that there is a universal now but observations/measurements taken are always an approximation?

[EmDriver]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It depends largely on how exactly you define “actual present moment”, because the meaning of this is not at all clear.

We are remembering a subset of whatever mental objects were present in consciousness at the instant the memory refers to. These mental objects are the result of the reality-model that the mind has constructed - this model takes as its input sensory data (“perception”), memories, and previously accumulated habitual processing patterns, which are then filtered and further processed in certain ways, and eventually output as mental objects that we can direct our attention to and be aware of. Phenomenological reality is a mental construct.

It’s kind of like a graphical user interface on a computer - the operating system takes external inputs (user interactions, information stored in RAM, ROM and other storage media), processes these, and renders them graphically on a screen, printer, or other output device. The basic inputs and information storage units do not themselves contain GUI elements such as letters, windows, menus, dialog boxes etc etc (they are just electric potentials), but it turns out that these higher-order representations make for a useful “reality-model” for a computer to interact with its user. The specific form such reality-models take are strongly influenced by teleological concerns, ie the reason why the computer was constructed in the first place. 

But all of this aside, the basic issue is this - our memories contain what is by and large a structured and ordered sequence of remembered mind-moments. We remember perceptions from our childhood, and we remember our teenage years, and we recognise that one came before the other - in other words, we never remember the future, only the past. If the original input data does not already contain such a temporal ordering (ie there is no present moment), then why are our memories temporally structured in a self-consistent manner? A similar argument can also be made for any kind of non-sentient recording device that records a structured sequence of information based on external inputs. If there is no concept of present moment, it is very difficult to explain the emergence of this temporal structure.

Your right! Which is why space-time does exist as a 4th dimension in our universe! The programming languages we created aren't based off 4 dimensions, which is why the scope of what you can do is different. Our DNA is based off 3 dimensions. We created new constructs so that we can take measurements on and try to understand things that we cannot fully perceive. Time does not exist in our universe, only space-time.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

When you are talking about "the present" moment are you suggesting that there is a universal now but observations/measurements taken are always an approximation?

I'm suggesting that our universe is not locally real, it's relatively real.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

space-time does exist as a 4th dimension in our universe

Spacetime has 4 dimensions. It does not exist as a 4th dimension.

 

5 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

The programming languages we created aren't based off 4 dimensions

How do you know this?

 

6 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

Our DNA is based off 3 dimensions.

How do you know this?

 

7 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

Time does not exist in our universe, only space-time.

Time is a component of spacetime.

 

8 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

I'm suggesting that our universe is not locally real, it's relatively real.

How do you distinguish between locally real and relatively real? 

[EmDriver]

Right, I agree with you.

I know the programming languages we created aren't 4 dimension because I taught myself how to program with one.

My knowledge I've researched about DNA being 3 dimensional would be based off of viewing diagrams, reading, and listening to scientists talk about our DNA. Then, whatever happens inside my brain has a result of that information.

The time that our universe uses isn't just time like the time constructs we use, so calling it time just wouldn't be accurate. I create mind experiments that could only work if time had more dimensions then us, but I couldn't show you the mathematics as to why that is. I'm better at the other types of logic processes.

Based on my interpretation of quantum tunneling experiments the specific "X,Y,Z" coordinates are not being specifically kept track of unless it would be necessary too. From my research of these experiments, there isn't evidence that a wormhole is opening, they teleport because they don't have the energy to pass through barriers like they use in these experiments. The waveform is a way to save tremendous amounts of energy, because keeping track of the exact location and values of every single particle in a universe would take a ridiculous amount of energy. Our programming language isn't designed to see this occurring, but by using constructs that we have created, we can measure quantum effects happening, which then the universe would have to apply specific values for, but only because it had to.

What do you think Genady?

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

I know the programming languages we created aren't 4 dimension because I taught myself how to program with one.

I have Master degree in Computer Sciences and have learned and used more than a dozen of programming languages, and I don't see how you conclude that they "aren't 4 dimension." Can you help?

 

5 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

My knowledge I've researched about DNA being 3 dimensional would be based off of viewing diagrams, reading, and listening to scientists talk about our DNA.

I have also Master degree in biology and know quite a lot about DNA. I still don't see how you conclude that it is "3 dimensional." Can you help?

 

Your last paragraph is not an answer to my question:

1 hour ago, Genady said:

How do you distinguish between locally real and relatively real? 

is it?

[EmDriver]

Genady you honor me, but I don't think I would have the ability to program using a 4 dimensional programming language. I have a computer degree (AA) as well, but it's in graphics. I mean come on, at it's base, it's displayed form is digitized letters and numbers. Were causing lots of little light bulbs to create colors on a monitor to create the illusion that were actually looking at an image. Our universe does this as well but in a much grander and amazing way with more dimensions. People talk about how amazing our video game graphics have gotten and I'm just thinking: if you want to see good graphics just go outside lol.

From what I've learned, our DNA just blows my mind. I am so interested in it. I could probably listen to you talk about it for hours. It's ability to fit letters together and fold them in a blink of an eye to create a 3 dimension word just astounds me.

I am an autodidact. I spend multiple hours every day researching. Some days I spend 14-15 hours researching if I need to understand something. From the knowledge I have gained, yes, my opinion is that the universe is only relatively real. Oh yea, thanks for catching that grammar error. I got a B in English Comp because it was hard for me. I graduated valedictorian with honors 3.5 GPA.

 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, EmDriver said:

at it's base, it's displayed form is digitized letters and numbers

These letters and numbers that you refer to, are meaningless on their own. But when you consider what they mean when they are executed by a computer, you shall see that each elementary step of execution of a program has 4 independent variables:

1) a current state of computer registers,

2) a current state of computer memory,

3) a state of the registers that replaces the current state, and

4) a state of the memory that replaces the current state.

These four variables make the computer program at least 4 dimensional.

 

1 hour ago, EmDriver said:

DNA

DNA molecule has 3-dimensional structure, but it is not enough for DNA to function. To do anything, it has to dynamically change. This adds a new dimension making it 4-dimensional.

1 hour ago, EmDriver said:

I spend multiple hours every day researching. Some days I spend 14-15 hours researching

Congratulations about it. But if you research Google or Youtube and alike, then large part of these hours is wasted and even is counterproductive. If you want to study for real, you need to study from textbooks. 

[EmDriver]

Thx Genady, this dynamic change has convinced me to continue my education.

[Genady]

31 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

Thx Genady, this dynamic change has convinced me to continue my education.

I'm glad to hear this. Good luck to you!

[EmDriver]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:21 AM, Genady said:

1) a current state of computer registers,

2) a current state of computer memory,

3) a state of the registers that replaces the current state, and

4) a state of the memory that replaces the current state.

These four variables make the computer program at least 4 dimensional.

We actually get at least 5 dimensions from 2 base states.

5) a state when the state of the registers and the state of the memory are replacing their current states at the same time.

Depending on how fast your computer was, we could only have access to information that was stored in 5 dimensions for a few picoseconds.

Edited March 8, 2023 by EmDriver

[EmDriver]

There's some theoretical mathematics we could do here perhaps utilizing the speed of light in a vacuum and how long it takes a particle collision to convert energy. There could be information accessible in a 5 dimensional state we could access for only a minuscule fraction of a second.

Edited March 8, 2023 by EmDriver

[EmDriver]

I guess that would apply then to when the waveform is converting to a particle and vice versa as well. All the possible (hidden) variables could be accessed during that 5 dimensional state.

[EmDriver]

I don't know, I have an image of something like a flip-flop in my mind but I need to plot it out on paper to understand it. I'll see what I can come up with.

[EmDriver]

Yea it's possible. This morning I found an amazing abstract electronic circuit design that would utilize 5 dimensions: https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033203. When electrons are shot into the waveform, their accessing the 5-dimensional map of the possible locations the waveform can convert into a particle. We have at least 5 dimensions in our universe.