A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

[Walker]

Too bad.

Maybe if it lodges in your subconscious awhile it will make sense to you.

So far your answers have amounted to, you don't know, and it doesn't make sense.

Try thinking.

I know how to think, you don't. You have already demonstrated that last time with that cat in the car.

This universe, or this history of this universe, plays out in a certain way, that's just how it works. Some things will be part of it, like certain chessgames, others won't. But across a multiverse, all chessgames may happen.

It doesn't make sense because you musta quit.

When something doesn't make sense, folks often just disregard and make it invisible in another universe.

Could be that built in safety valve.

If it did make sense, your head might explode.



I'm transitioning to the music multi-verse, to give that subconscious a bit-o-time to process, which is greatly aided by thinking at a different brain frequency than sleep.

[Atla]

Too bad.

Maybe if it lodges in your subconscious awhile it will make sense to you.

So far your answers have amounted to, you don't know, and it doesn't make sense.

Try thinking.

I know how to think, you don't. You have already demonstrated that last time with that cat in the car.

This universe, or this history of this universe, plays out in a certain way, that's just how it works. Some things will be part of it, like certain chessgames, others won't. But across a multiverse, all chessgames may happen.

It doesn't make sense because you musta quit.

When something doesn't make sense, folks often just disregard and make it invisible in another universe.

Could be that built in safety valve.

If it did make sense, your head might explode.



I'm transitioning to the music multi-verse, to give that subconscious a bit-o-time to process, which is greatly aided by thinking at a different brain frequency than sleep.

How could we have this discussion, if everything possible happened in our universe at the same time? How could there even be humans. Everything would be just a chaotic mess of infinitely many things or whatever.

But I'm sure this makes sense to you.

[Dontaskme]

Look idiot, I did try to explain to you roughly what "real" nondualism is, like 2 months ago. You didn't understand any of it. Besides I'm not your teacher.

Today I copied a complete word salad nonsense bullshit from a New Age bullshit generator for you, and you gave it 11 points out of 10. Could it be that you haven't reached the pinnacle of nondual understanding after all?

The info in the bullshit generator was of a nondual understanding imho, that's why I gave it a thumbs up, but doesn't matter if it was just a prank to you, it had real nondual meaning to me.

If you are not my teacher then you have no business telling me that I have no understanding of what real nondualism is...for how the heck would you know what I know?

Link me to the 2 months ago explanation you wrote...I do not remember what we talked about.

Also just because two people disagree with each other on certain ideas, does not mean one knows the real and the other one doesn't...that has absolutely nothing to do with nonduality...you are so unbelievably thick, it's not even funny, it's pityful.

[Atla]

Look idiot, I did try to explain to you roughly what "real" nondualism is, like 2 months ago. You didn't understand any of it. Besides I'm not your teacher.

Today I copied a complete word salad nonsense bullshit from a New Age bullshit generator for you, and you gave it 11 points out of 10. Could it be that you haven't reached the pinnacle of nondual understanding after all?

The info in the bullshit generator was of a nondual understanding imho, that's why I gave it a thumbs up, but doesn't matter if it was just a prank to you, it had real nondual meaning to me.

If you are not my teacher then you have no business telling me that I have no understanding of what real nondualism is...for how the heck would you know what I know?

Link me to the 2 months ago explanation you wrote...I do not remember what we talked about.

Also just because two people disagree with each other on certain ideas, does not mean one knows the real and the other one doesn't...that has absolutely nothing to do with nonduality...you are so unbelievably thick, it's not even funny, it's pityful.

If I anger you then keep telling yourself the story that I don't exist. That should fix things.

I'm no one, not addressing anyone, not saying anything. This is all just a made-up story told by no one.

[Dontaskme]

If I anger you then keep telling yourself the story that I don't exist. That should fix things.

I'm no one, not addressing anyone, not saying anything. This is all just a made-up story told by no one.

My only anger is your certainty of what you believe other people know and do not know.

This comes across so loud and clear.



Yes, it's all story, and your big fat noddy head loves it's story so much that it's the only real story in toy town.

It's a good job none of us have to believe any of this BS





.

[Walker]

I know how to think, you don't. You have already demonstrated that last time with that cat in the car.

This universe, or this history of this universe, plays out in a certain way, that's just how it works. Some things will be part of it, like certain chessgames, others won't. But across a multiverse, all chessgames may happen.

It doesn't make sense because you musta quit.

When something doesn't make sense, folks often just disregard and make it invisible in another universe.

Could be that built in safety valve.

If it did make sense, your head might explode.



I'm transitioning to the music multi-verse, to give that subconscious a bit-o-time to process, which is greatly aided by thinking at a different brain frequency than sleep.

How could we have this discussion, if everything possible happened in our universe at the same time? How could there even be humans. Everything would be just a chaotic mess of infinitely many things or whatever.

But I'm sure this makes sense to you.

You're worried about making sense of everything and you can't make sense of a cat.

[Atla]

My only anger is your certainty of what you believe other people know and do not know.

This comes across so loud and clear.



Yes, it's all story, and your big fat noddy head loves it's story so much that it's the only real story in toy town.

It's a good job none of us have to believe any of this BS

Yeah I'm horrible, but then why don't you just erase me from the story or something. Use your imagination powers and I shall disappear.

[Atla]

You're worried about making sense of everything and you can't make sense of a cat.

Yes, a cat crawling into a car is a clear sign of eternal values and that God is in everything.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it's worse than that. It's such wild speculation that nothing we know objectively conforms to it. In other words, it is about as counter-scientific and counter-rational an idea as anyone can express.

As such, it's not even really conceivable.

Well that's not entirely true. We know OUR universe, it objectively conforms to itself. That's more than nothing, while the alternative, the God idea has nothing at all.

"Nothing at all?" And yet you believe in a universe that has natural laws that come from "nothing at all," apparently. How odd is that?

You've just moved the problem back one step, not solved anything. Instead of asking, "Who created the universe," now you have to ask, "How did the universe, and all its natural laws, just create itself?" The problem there looks even more difficult.

Yes, but I replied to you writing that the idea itself (as in the thought, idea itself) might not be possible (maybe I misunderstood).

I'm suggesting that you're only thinking you're imagining a real thing, if that real thing is impossible. For example, if you told me, "Right now, I'm imagining a square circle, a married bachelor, and the smell of purple, I'd have reason to think, "No, you're not: I don't know what it is you ARE imagining, but none of those things is actually imaginable; so you can't be imagining them at all, whatever you're thinking about.

I'm just suggesting that your real-canine-styrofoam Superman-woman universe is the same. You may THINK you're imagining it, but it seems more likely you're really not; because the terms themselves are absurdities, and are themselves actually not capable of being imagined by anyone.

"Namely, that we have no sensible way of thinking that the idea of "everything being possible" is actually itself possible."

That raises a question, though. If the term "natural" bounds a specific set of possible items, and rules out other things that are "impossible," then it's not true to say "everything can happen," and certainly not true to say, "everything that can happen does happen somewhere in the universe or in the multiverse." We would be saying, "Only natural things happen anywhere, no matter how much space is out there."

But that kills the multiverse hypothesis as a useful postulate to try to explain why we're in the particular kind of naturally-bounded universe in which we're found. And the "spiritual consequence" (to use your term) is then that we can no longer say that our existence is unsurprising and needs no explanation due to the multiverse idea. The multiverse idea now fails to explain that.

Not sure what you mean, I consider the multiverse to fall under the "natural" category here. In this picture all of existence is made of things from this category and that's it.

Ah, I see. You are imagining that "multiverse" means "very big universe." But essentially, you're not imagining at all what is implied by "multiverse."

The Multiverse Hypothesis holds that anything we CAN know about, or have any empirical contact with, is part of THIS universe. Multiverses are speculative realms that come in no contact at all with our universe, and allegedly have their own separate existence. As such, they are (by definition) eternally not open to empirical testing. No "multiverses" have been, or can be found. So they have the permanent status of non-scientific fiction or speculation. There is, by definition, and can be, by definition no evidence for them ever.

And yet you say that the God hypothesis has "nothing at all" for it, and that's your reason for rejecting it? Well, I would deny that's true; but if it were, then I submit to you that by the same logic, you should have rejected the Multiverse Hypothesis even more quickly.

I wonder why you didn't.

[Walker]

You're worried about making sense of everything and you can't make sense of a cat.

Yes, a cat crawling into a car is a clear sign of eternal values and that God is in everything.

The cat’s curiosity is satisified by the limits of its comprehension, same as yours.

Your understanding is limited by your comprehension.

*

Do those words make sense?

Do they explain everything to you, as a cat crawling into a car should have explained everything to you, had you the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and the heart to feel?

Or, do you think these words are an incomprehensible, head-scratching nonsense that only imparts the understanding that you possess?

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

And

In an world of infinite possibilities
It can be you
Without the clue
Because of their abundance

[Atla]

"Nothing at all?" And yet you believe in a universe that has natural laws that come from "nothing at all," apparently. How odd is that?

I don't, "laws" aren't supernatural actors and don't come from nothing.

You've just moved the problem back one step, not solved anything. Instead of asking, "Who created the universe," now you have to ask, "How did the universe, and all its natural laws, just create itself?" The problem there looks even more difficult.

No, I believe time basically goes in circle, so there is no such thing as creation, beginning and end. The universe is sitting in the middle of eternity, existence is timeless. Simplest explanation by far imo.

I'm suggesting that you're only thinking you're imagining a real thing, if that real thing is impossible. For example, if you told me, "Right now, I'm imagining a square circle, a married bachelor, and the smell of purple, I'd have reason to think, "No, you're not: I don't know what it is you ARE imagining, but none of those things is actually imaginable; so you can't be imagining them at all, whatever you're thinking about.

I'm just suggesting that your real-canine-styrofoam Superman-woman universe is the same. You may THINK you're imagining it, but it seems more likely you're really not; because the terms themselves are absurdities, and are themselves actually not capable of being imagined by anyone.

Where did I say that I can actually imagine unimaginable things. I can merely think of the concept of something being unimaginable.
I can imagine a purple canine Superman though (and I don't like it).

Ah, I see. You are imagining that "multiverse" means "very big universe."

No, but I think you are being dishonest on purpose.

But essentially, you're not imagining at all what is implied by "multiverse."

The Multiverse Hypothesis holds that anything we CAN know about, or have any empirical contact with, is part of THIS universe.

No not really, the debate is out on that one. Some physicists are confident that one day the multiverse hypothesis will be testable. Some even think we will communicate with other universes. (Personally I suspect that it might become testable, but we will never communicate.)

Multiverses are speculative realms that come in no contact at all with our universe, and allegedly have their own separate existence. As such, they are (by definition) eternally not open to empirical testing.

No not really, the debate is also out on whether or not they would be separate, or to what degree.

No "multiverses" have been, or can be found. So they have the permanent status of non-scientific fiction or speculation. There is, by definition, and can be, by definition no evidence for them ever.

No not really, actually in the last 10-20 years, multiverse theories have become pretty mainstream in physics. It's not just Sci-Fi anymore.

And yet you say that the God hypothesis has "nothing at all" for it, and that's your reason for rejecting it? Well, I would deny that's true; but if it were, then I submit to you that by the same logic, you should have rejected the Multiverse Hypothesis even more quickly.

I wonder why you didn't.

The God idea has nothing supporting it, God hasn't been seen yet nor any magic or supernatural.
The multiverse idea has one universe supporting it, this unvierse has been seen.

That's all, but in the end both are speculation, at least right now.

[Atla]

You're worried about making sense of everything and you can't make sense of a cat.

Yes, a cat crawling into a car is a clear sign of eternal values and that God is in everything.

The cat’s curiosity is satisified by the limits of its comprehension, same as yours.

Your understanding is limited by your comprehension.

*

Do those words make sense?

Do they explain everything to you, as a cat crawling into a car should have explained everything to you, had you the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and the heart to feel?

Or, do you think these words are an incomprehensible, head-scratching nonsense that only imparts the understanding that you possess?

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

And

In an world of infinite possibilities
It can be you
Without the clue
Because of their abundance

You are hallucinating, and think you are better than others, who don't have your hallucinations. That's all there is to it.

You think that the infinite possibilities of changing your own state of mind have some kind of magical power on reality, don't you.

[Walker]

No I’m not hallucinating, you ninny, and therefore all that follows from your premise is subject to a much lower probability of truth than if your premise wasn’t a delusion.

Those italicized words are the immortal words of William Blake, and if you want to read the rest of the poem you’ll have to find it yourself.

That’s your punishment for being delusional.

Well, that and the attack connoted by the word, ninny.

Why do you suppose his words are immortal?

Or is that just something folks say, like they say the words in the bible are divine, they just say it because it’s something to say, and they were hallucinating, or whatever?

Or do they just say that because you don't know.

[Immanuel Can]

"Nothing at all?" And yet you believe in a universe that has natural laws that come from "nothing at all," apparently. How odd is that?

I don't, "laws" aren't supernatural actors and don't come from nothing.

Right. So what did they come from? Why is there something, rather than nothing? Why is there anything, given that such physical laws as we have are mostly wildly against anything existing at all? And why does this allegedly accidental collocation of atoms-proceeding-from-nowhere have "laws" at all? That's surely terribly surprising.

You've just moved the problem back one step, not solved anything. Instead of asking, "Who created the universe," now you have to ask, "How did the universe, and all its natural laws, just create itself?" The problem there looks even more difficult.

No, I believe time basically goes in circle,

It doesn't. We know that. Time is linear. Our universe has a beginning (long prior to the Big Bang, necessarily) and an end (called "heat death"). This has been scientific orthodoxy for half a century now.

Actually, that's the reason the Multiverse Hypothesis was first produced. A linear universe requires an origin point, and origins require causes. If the universe is not eternal, then we have to ask, "What made it, and what made it what it is?" The MH is an attempt to escape talking about origins again...but as I said in my previous message, you'll find out it's a totally non-scientific and speculative model, not an empirical one.

Where did I say that I can actually imagine unimaginable things.

In your last message. You said you were imagining the universe I proposed to you.

I can merely think of the concept of something being unimaginable.

No, you can't. You can say it in words, but if you think you can imagine it, then you would be able to tell me what it looks like.

I can imagine a purple canine Superman though (and I don't like it).

Male-Female, and composed of six molecules only, who still works at The Daily Planet, and flies?

Ah, I see. You are imagining that "multiverse" means "very big universe."

No, but I think you are being dishonest on purpose.

That's unkind. I was genuinely trying to figure out what you meant.

The Multiverse Hypothesis holds that anything we CAN know about, or have any empirical contact with, is part of THIS universe.

No not really, the debate is out on that one.

Actually, no. By definition, it's not. "Uni-verse" means "the oneness of everything that exists," not merely, say, "solar system" or "galaxy." So by definition, anything actually known scientifically to exist is part of this "uni-verse." A "Multi-Verse" means there have to be universes that have no relation to this one at all.

Some physicists are confident that one day the multiverse hypothesis will be testable. Some even think we will communicate with other universes. (Personally I suspect that it might become testable, but we will never communicate.)

I was right. You're clearly thinking that "multiverse" means something smaller, and tied to the laws and existences we currently understand, like a cluster of galaxies or system of stars within the existing universe, not a multiverse. But if another galaxy or star-cluster ever communicated with ours, it would give evidence that OUR universe was bigger than we knew, perhaps; but it would not argue for a multiverse.

The God idea has nothing supporting it,

Have you ever looked? I can't believe you have, if you make this claim. Even Richard Dawkins, who has spent his waning years trying to convince everyone that God is a "delusion" has frankly admitted that the Design Argument is psychologically very powerful (see the intro to The Blind Watchmaker, for example). And that's just one possible evidence.

I'm not saying you ought to believe the Design Argument, or any other argument on the basis that I say so; but to imagine that no such arguments exist? Nobody, not even the most ardent Atheists, would say that, at least, not if they have any understanding of the issue at all.

The multiverse idea has one universe supporting it, this unvierse has been seen.

Non-sequitur, I'm afraid. you can't deduce the existence of other planes of being from the existence of this one. In fact, if this is indeed the "uni-verse," then there's not going to be another one, and this would argue, if anything, against the MH.

[Atla]

No I’m not hallucinating, you ninny, and therefore all that follows from your premise is subject to a much lower probability of truth than if your premise wasn’t a delusion.

Those italicized words are the immortal words of William Blake, and if you want to read the rest of the poem you’ll have to find it yourself.

That’s your punishment for being delusional.

Well, that and the attack connoted by the word, ninny.

Why do you suppose his words are immortal?

Or is that just something folks say, like they say the words in the bible are divine, they just say it because it’s something to say, and they were hallucinating, or whatever?

Or do they just say that because you don't know.

Ok look, I know damn well that there is only the eternal now and that we are sitting in the middle of it.
I know that we are one and the same with the world, with everything else.
I probably know better than you how truly infinite infinity really is, hence this topic.
And I know how a flower reminds us of the beauty of this world.

But then you start hallucinating and it puts you on a high horse, you start referring to eternal values or whatever that don't exist. And I start to think that you don't truly understand the meaning of seeing things as they really are.