A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

[Greta]

Life could not have come from nonlife because there is no way to cross that bridge without invoking magic. Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.

Noting that, from a panvitalist POV (as we spoke about earlier on this thread), it's not that the emergence of biology was "magical", rather a continuation of a pre-existing process. Certainly, the kind of rich and energetic chemical stews, full of complex organic molecules, were also something that needed to emerge before life could emerge from them. Those (technically) nonliving chemicals would also have their preconditions, and so on.

[Serendipper]

Life could not have come from nonlife because there is no way to cross that bridge without invoking magic. Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.

Noting that, from a panvitalist POV (as we spoke about earlier on this thread), it's not that the emergence of biology was "magical", rather a continuation of a pre-existing process.

Yes exactly. We are the fruit on the tree of the universe which, evidently, grew from a seed.

[Greta]

Life could not have come from nonlife because there is no way to cross that bridge without invoking magic. Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.

Noting that, from a panvitalist POV (as we spoke about earlier on this thread), it's not that the emergence of biology was "magical", rather a continuation of a pre-existing process.

Yes exactly. We are the fruit on the tree of the universe which, evidently, grew from a seed.

Or, as per chaos theory, it grew from initial conditions

[Immanuel Can]

Then explain how the "law" terminology originated.

Like I said earlier: by way of metaphor. And while, of course, that metaphor itself is Theistic in presupposition, it's in no way reflective of Theocracy. Theocracy is a comprehensive political system, enforcing its will by means of temporal power; whereas Theism is just a claim of personal belief, and cannot by forced on anyone...as John Locke wisely pointed out.

How does the light calculation factor into determining that the universe had an origin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Just read the first paragraph, and it's there.

Life and nonlife.

Are you arguing there's no difference between the two? Are you arguing that "nonlife" spontaneously produces "life"? I'm not sure what your point would be.

Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.

Oh, I see. Your premises are as follows:


P1: Life cannot ever come from non-life.
P2: We have life now.
C: Therefore, life must have always existed.

And in there, to make that argument work at all, must be the tacit supposition that...

P2b: Even the Supreme Being cannot make life from non-life.

It's that tacit premise that is the problem.

[fooloso4]

Two points that should be considered:

1. We have no satisfactory definition of life.

“There are over 100 definitions of life and they are all wrong”: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101 ... -are-wrong

“Life's Working Definition: Does It Work?”: https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/st ... ition.html

“Defining Life”: https://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evo ... ning-life/

2. The physical or natural laws in other parts of a multiverse may be different than ours.

“Other Universes May Operate Under Vastly Different Physical Laws”: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2 ... pular.html

"Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean": https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-univ ... verse.html

[Immanuel Can]

Two points that should be considered:

1. We have no satisfactory definition of life.

Good point.

But we have pretty wonderful definitions of "not-life." For example, chemical elements like hydrogen and helium are not life. An explosion in space is not life. So if these things were what were in play at the Big Bang, then there was not-life, and that was the only thing present.

We've also got some great definitions of things that are, beyond question, living. You might be one of them (unless you were secretly a bot ). I know I definitely am alive. Flowers, trees, emus and ocelots...they're life, life, life, and life.

It's only the middle ground that is any kind of issue at all. And that's a pretty narrow band. But even if it weren't, we sure know what life is and isn't, when it comes to the big cases.

So what we DO know for sure is this: at one time, the cosmos had no life in it. Now, for certain, it does.

So we're back to the key question: how did that ever happen?

2. The physical or natural laws in other parts of a multiverse may be different than ours.

That's a category error, I'm afraid: multiverses aren't "parts" of our universe. They're literally totally different planes of reality, hypothetical alternate "realities". And for these, by definition, no empirical evidence exists at all.

There's also a mathematical error in supposing it matters: it would not matter if we had infinite "worlds" even in a multiverse. If there were infinite variables, as well as infinite phenomena (which, in an infinite universe there would have to be) then no one outcome becomes any more probable than any other. All events, in fact, become infinitely improbable, since an infinite number of "other ways things could have been" always exists in an infinite universe.

And again, we're back to the question, "Why is THIS universe the way it is...especially, life-producing?" For mathematically, there are infinite reasons why it should not exist at all.

[Nick_A]

Life could not have come from nonlife because there is no way to cross that bridge without invoking magic. Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.

Noting that, from a panvitalist POV (as we spoke about earlier on this thread), it's not that the emergence of biology was "magical", rather a continuation of a pre-existing process.

Yes exactly. We are the fruit on the tree of the universe which, evidently, grew from a seed.

The universe arose from a breath sometimes called the breath of Brahma. This is not a seed but rather a continuing process.

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

[fooloso4]

Immanuel Can:

The physical or natural laws in other parts of a multiverse may be different than ours.

That's a category error, I'm afraid: multiverses aren't "parts" of our universe.

I did not say they are part of our universe. If there is a multiverse we are part of it - a member of the set multiverse.

… no empirical evidence exists at all.

No direct empirical evidence.

If there were infinite variables …

That is not a condition for or consequence of a multiverse.

… as well as infinite phenomena

Again, neither a condition or consequence. In addition a world without observers is a world without phenomena.

… which, in an infinite universe there would have to be

The variables may be restricted by the initial conditions of each world. There are various infinities - infinite duration, infinite size, infinite members, none of which entail infinite variation.

… then no one outcome becomes any more probable than any other.

If I flip a coin heads is no more probable than tails, but that does not mean that the coin will not land heads or tails. What is probable does not determine what is actual, probabilities tell us nothing about what actual is only the likelihood of this or that is. Probabilities are based on our ignorance of what is and what will be.

All events, in fact, become infinitely improbable, since an infinite number of "other ways things could have been" always exists in an infinite universe.

Other ways something could have been have no effect on the way things actually are.

For mathematically, there are infinite reasons why it should not exist at all.

Obviously there is something wrong with your reasoning since at least this universe exists, making your reasoning infinitely flawed.

[Serendipper]

Then explain how the "law" terminology originated.

Like I said earlier: by way of metaphor. And while, of course, that metaphor itself is Theistic in presupposition, it's in no way reflective of Theocracy. Theocracy is a comprehensive political system, enforcing its will by means of temporal power; whereas Theism is just a claim of personal belief, and cannot by forced on anyone...as John Locke wisely pointed out.

Locke wasn't that bright. People can't be said to choose the religion they're born into; I know I didn't have a choice for many years until I could somewhat shake off my bias and feel I could weigh things objectively in order to actually say I've indeed made a choice. Even 1 year ago I was not in a position of choice due to my ingrained bias and, for all I know, I may have further manacles yet to dismantle.

The Papal theocracy encompassed the intellectual world for many centuries and even today we're still observing the continued waning of that pervasiveness and degree of entanglement.

Even the monarchical style of government mirrors theocratic idealized vision of God's authoritarian reign over the earth. We could still observe parallels between churches and court rooms within the republic of the US today.

How does the light calculation factor into determining that the universe had an origin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Just read the first paragraph, and it's there.

Here is the paragraph:

In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

And no it's not there. Not in the 2nd or 3rd ether.

Either life does not exist now or there was never a time when life did not exist.

Oh, I see. Your premises are as follows:


P1: Life cannot ever come from non-life.
P2: We have life now.
C: Therefore, life must have always existed.

And in there, to make that argument work at all, must be the tacit supposition that...

P2b: Even the Supreme Being cannot make life from non-life.

It's that tacit premise that is the problem.

It's not a problem to me. What supreme being? Life is native to the universe; there is no supreme being.

[Serendipper]

Two points that should be considered:

1. We have no satisfactory definition of life.

Good point.

But we have pretty wonderful definitions of "not-life." For example, chemical elements like hydrogen and helium are not life.

I disagree with that and regard them as very simple forms of life.

Hydrogen - A colorless, odorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people. Whatever it is that makes us alive, it's in those elements.

An explosion in space is not life.

A star exploding is death of a star and birth of planet-material and ultimately: planets and people.

So if these things were what were in play at the Big Bang, then there was not-life, and that was the only thing present.

If that is the case, then assemblage of those materials would not be life until some magic pixie dust were applied. Or maybe some god breathes on it; same thing.

We've also got some great definitions of things that are, beyond question, living. You might be one of them (unless you were secretly a bot ). I know I definitely am alive. Flowers, trees, emus and ocelots...they're life, life, life, and life.

I've asked about 3-4 times now for you to draw the line between life and nonlife: animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, prions, proteins, amino acids, organic molecules, molecules, atoms, quarks, energy fields. <---- draw a line in there or tell me ________ and _________ is where the line should go. And since you are the one drawing lines, the burden of proof is on you that there should indeed be a line there.

So what we DO know for sure is this: at one time, the cosmos had no life in it. Now, for certain, it does.

I don't know that.

So we're back to the key question: how did that ever happen?

That's only a question for you within your theory. Mine has less assumptions and less problems to solve.

If you assert there are things and events, you have to show how one thing affects another thing within causality and no one has been able to do that since Descartes anyway, so I'm concluding there are no separate things; just the one big thing.

There's also a mathematical error in supposing it matters: it would not matter if we had infinite "worlds" even in a multiverse. If there were infinite variables, as well as infinite phenomena (which, in an infinite universe there would have to be) then no one outcome becomes any more probable than any other. All events, in fact, become infinitely improbable, since an infinite number of "other ways things could have been" always exists in an infinite universe.

Yes, I think you're trying to say within that paragraph that every probability is a certainty in an infinite set. So in infinite causality, anything that can happen, will happen infinite times, so the occurrence is either: infinity or zero.

And again, we're back to the question, "Why is THIS universe the way it is...especially, life-producing?"

"No reason" and "it was never void of life".

For mathematically, there are infinite reasons why it should not exist at all.

No such thing as infinity.

Infinity: does it exist?? A debate with James Franklin and N J Wildberger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA

Bio:

I was educated at Adam Scott High School in Peterboro Ontario, Richmond Hill High School in Richmond Hill Ontario, University of Toronto (BSC 1979) and Yale University (PhD 1984). I taught at Stanford University (1984-1986) and the University of Toronto (1986-1989) before coming to UNSW (University of New South Wales), Sydney, in 1990. http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/

Here is his essay http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/pa ... Theory.pdf

Here is a blog post about infinity http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist

Another https://plus.maths.org/content/does-infinity-exist

[Serendipper]

The universe arose from a breath sometimes called the breath of Brahma. This is not a seed but rather a continuing process.

Yeah that could be. I was just going along with the starting-point analogy.

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

They say we're in the Kali Yuga now.

[Serendipper]

Noting that, from a panvitalist POV (as we spoke about earlier on this thread), it's not that the emergence of biology was "magical", rather a continuation of a pre-existing process.

Yes exactly. We are the fruit on the tree of the universe which, evidently, grew from a seed.

Or, as per chaos theory, it grew from initial conditions

When initial conditions were right, it sprouted

[Immanuel Can]

People can't be said to choose the religion they're born into; I know I didn't have a choice for many years until I could somewhat shake off my bias and feel I could weigh things objectively in order to actually say I've indeed made a choice.

If it's a culture, you can be born within it. If it's a belief system, you can no more be born with it than you can be born married. And the fact that you could change your beliefs is a clear case showing that's true.

If one doesn't really believe something, and believe it by choice, then one's just nominal in one's beliefs -- one then doesn't actually know what one really believes at all.

Even 1 year ago I was not in a position of choice due to my ingrained bias and, for all I know, I may have further manacles yet to dismantle.

We all have things we need to work through. That's normal.

How does the light calculation factor into determining that the universe had an origin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Just read the first paragraph, and it's there.

Here is the paragraph:

In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

And no it's not there. Not in the 2nd or 3rd ether.

[/quote]
I'm not sure what part of that you're not understanding, but I'm happy to expand. What Hubble et al. observed was that the red shift effect showed stars and distant galaxies moving away from the epicentre of the universe. The wavelength revealed that these things were not stationary at all, but were observably moving outward. The universe was expanding linearly, in other words.

The implication of this was quite staggering, and quite clear: the universe itself was not eternal, but had an origin point in time and space, from which it was expanding at a measurable rate.

It's that tacit premise that is the problem.

It's not a problem to me.

And it won't be a problem -- if you're right about there being no origin to the universe, and hence no necessity of a Supreme Being to create it.

Then your life will end, as will mine, and eternal darkness will follow for both of us. You will be proved right; but neither you nor I will ever know it.

However, if you're not right...

[Immanuel Can]

I've asked about 3-4 times now for you to draw the line between life and nonlife: animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, prions, proteins, amino acids, organic molecules, molecules, atoms, quarks, energy fields. <---- draw a line in there or tell me ________ and _________ is where the line should go. And since you are the one drawing lines, the burden of proof is on you that there should indeed be a line there.

Actually, my response does something even better. It shows that a) we know that at one time there was no life in the universe: just basic elements floating in the vacuum of space (which must have also come from somewhere, but let's let that slide for a moment). So we know for a certainty that there was none at all of what we call "life." Equally certain is that we have an abundance of life now. So there must be a line in there somewhere, even if you want to argue we don't know where precisely to fix it. You can argue about the exact position: but about the existence of SOME line, there's no rational way to argue.

So here's the only question that matters: not "where is the line," but "how could there be any such 'line' at all" -- which we know there must have been.

So you've been fully answered. Now the problem is this: how do you account for life suddenly appearing from non-living materials?

So what we DO know for sure is this: at one time, the cosmos had no life in it. Now, for certain, it does.

I don't know that.

You think that basic elements are "living" entities? Unless you do, you ought to know that for sure.

That's only a question for you within your theory. Mine has less assumptions and less problems to solve.

Au contraire: your theory requires us to believe that life just appears magically. Chemicals turn into immensely complex living entities with finely balanced systems, and do it all by themselves. That's what I call a huge assumption.

Yes, I think you're trying to say within that paragraph that every probability is a certainty in an infinite set.

No: I'm pointing out the opposite. If you have infinite events, but only a finite set of possible combinations, you might make such an argument. But in an infinite universe, you have not only infinite recursions, but also an infinite set of ways these things can be recombined.

Think of it this way: if you roll a six-sided die ten times, you can increase your odds of rolling a 6 over your chances of rolling a 6 once. But if your die had an infinite number of sides, then mathematically, no number on it could ever be expected to recur, no matter if you rolled it for a billion years.

And again, we're back to the question, "Why is THIS universe the way it is...especially, life-producing?"

"No reason" and "it was never void of life".

If the Red Shift is correct, and every reputable cosmologist today accepts it as fact, then it indicates that this universe once didn't exist at all...let alone contain any life.

No such thing as infinity.

Actually, I would agree with that, if by "infinity" you mean "an actual infinity," as opposed to a merely mathematical construct, like pi. I would also point to "Hilbert's Hotel" as a good mathematical-philosophical illustration of this fact.

However, to say so certainly strikes a decisive blow against the idea of an infinite number of universes existing.

[Greta]

That's only a question for you within your theory. Mine has less assumptions and less problems to solve.

Au contraire: your theory requires us to believe that life just appears magically. Chemicals turn into immensely complex living entities with finely balanced systems, and do it all by themselves. That's what I call a huge assumption.

"Life just appears magically" is a misrepresentation of S's, views. Like me, he sees the entire edifice as alive. In context, biological emergence is merely one wondrous emergence out of many - no magic needed. All that's needed for emergence are laws of physics that limit possibilities. Thus, when thresholds are passed, emergences can happen, and have happened.

In fact we are not only emergences ourselves, new things have emerged from us that are not us - corporations and intelligent technology - and when they increasingly meld, it will be a game changer. These largely automated corporations won't be magical either, just that as the parts integrate the entity becomes ever more capable of sustaining itself.

This is where natural selection comes in - it's the game of persistence. That which can persist, does so, and that's what we see today, and that's why today's reality is as it is. Meanwhile, that which cannot persist is what has been and gone. We exist at the end of a long line of survivors.