The Multiverse Conundrum

[Atla]

Your model for future human life expectancy boils down to this (adjust to scale):

F24C6CBB-2675-4B03-BA49-594264BE8956.jpeg

Again, very little to do with the multiverse hypothesis.
Maybe the scientists who propose such things should be shot too.

Everything is connected, except multiverses?
If multiverses interact Does that make it a universe or a multiverse?


And if they don’t interact then they are untestable/unfalsifiable?

So those “scientists” are wasting our tax money on bullshit? In one word: theft.

I don’t care what you do when you self-subsidize your research. When we pay for it - I care. A lot!

Let's shoot those damn thieves then.

[TimeSeeker]

Again, very little to do with the multiverse hypothesis.
Maybe the scientists who propose such things should be shot too.

Everything is connected, except multiverses?
If multiverses interact Does that make it a universe or a multiverse?


And if they don’t interact then they are untestable/unfalsifiable?

So those “scientists” are wasting our tax money on bullshit? In one word: theft.

I don’t care what you do when you self-subsidize your research. When we pay for it - I care. A lot!

Let's shoot those damn thieves then.

That is a little extreme!

I am happy with them being fired. As well as their supervisors.

Maybe even seize their assets to pay for their wasted salaries.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your model for future human life expectancy boils down to this (adjust to scale):

F24C6CBB-2675-4B03-BA49-594264BE8956.jpeg

Again, very little to do with the multiverse hypothesis.
Maybe the scientists who propose such things should be shot too.

Everything is connected, except multiverses?
If multiverses interact Does that make it a universe or a multiverse?


And if they don’t interact then they are untestable/unfalsifiable?

So those “scientists” are wasting our tax money on bullshit? In one word: theft.

I don’t care what you do when you self-subsidize your research. When we pay for it - I care. A lot!

And that is why I place emphasis on logic over strict empirical only arguments. The scientists fail to take into account that evidence still requires an interpretation. Most scientists become scientists because of poor reasoning abilities.

They are just a modern version of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

[TimeSeeker]

Again, very little to do with the multiverse hypothesis.
Maybe the scientists who propose such things should be shot too.

Everything is connected, except multiverses?
If multiverses interact Does that make it a universe or a multiverse?


And if they don’t interact then they are untestable/unfalsifiable?

So those “scientists” are wasting our tax money on bullshit? In one word: theft.

I don’t care what you do when you self-subsidize your research. When we pay for it - I care. A lot!

And that is why I place emphasis on logic over strict empirical only arguments. The scientists fail to take into account that evidence still requires an interpretation. Most scientists become scientists because of poor reasoning abilities.

They are just a modern version of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

Yeah... people don’t grasp that the testability/falsifiability criterion is about the limits of epistemology e.g a limit of consciousness itself. Not the limits of science.

If the scientist can’t tell a difference - there is no difference!

Empiricism is juxtaposition is all.

Is A the same as А?

[Eodnhoj7]

Everything is connected, except multiverses?
If multiverses interact Does that make it a universe or a multiverse?


And if they don’t interact then they are untestable/unfalsifiable?

So those “scientists” are wasting our tax money on bullshit? In one word: theft.

I don’t care what you do when you self-subsidize your research. When we pay for it - I care. A lot!

And that is why I place emphasis on logic over strict empirical only arguments. The scientists fail to take into account that evidence still requires an interpretation. Most scientists become scientists because of poor reasoning abilities.

They are just a modern version of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

Yeah... people don’t grasp that the testability/falsifiability criterion is about the limits of epistemology e.g a limit of consciousness itself. Not the limits of science.

If the scientist can’t tell a difference - there is no difference!

Empiricism is juxtaposition is all.

Is A the same as А?

Yes and No, but this goes back to the "foundation" of logic, the principle of identity.

A is still A but because A manifests in different aspects of the sentence it actualizes different qualities. A is both one causal constant while being a localized particle which exists as composed of and composing further particles; hence acts as a means of change and is acausal.

[TimeSeeker]

And that is why I place emphasis on logic over strict empirical only arguments. The scientists fail to take into account that evidence still requires an interpretation. Most scientists become scientists because of poor reasoning abilities.

They are just a modern version of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

Yeah... people don’t grasp that the testability/falsifiability criterion is about the limits of epistemology e.g a limit of consciousness itself. Not the limits of science.

If the scientist can’t tell a difference - there is no difference!

Empiricism is juxtaposition is all.

Is A the same as А?

Yes and No, but this goes back to the "foundation" of logic, the principle of identity.

A is still A but because A manifests in different aspects of the sentence it actualizes different qualities. A is both one causal constant while being a localized particle which exists as composed of and composing further particles; hence acts as a means of change and is acausal.

It goes even deeper than logic. It goes all the way down to meaning.

What does it mean for “two things” to be “the same”.

Identity between two things is a contradiction in itself!

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah... people don’t grasp that the testability/falsifiability criterion is about the limits of epistemology e.g a limit of consciousness itself. Not the limits of science.

If the scientist can’t tell a difference - there is no difference!

Empiricism is juxtaposition is all.

Is A the same as А?

Yes and No, but this goes back to the "foundation" of logic, the principle of identity.

A is still A but because A manifests in different aspects of the sentence it actualizes different qualities. A is both one causal constant while being a localized particle which exists as composed of and composing further particles; hence acts as a means of change and is acausal.

It goes even deeper than logic. It goes all the way down to meaning.

What does it mean for “two things” to be “the same”

Half truth, as logic is a means to meaning hence "meaningful" if kept in this balance.

Two things can be the same if they are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother.

[TimeSeeker]

It goes even deeper than logic. It goes all the way down to meaning.

What does it mean for “two things” to be “the same”

Half truth, as logic is a means to meaning hence "meaningful" if kept in this balance.

Two things can be the same if they are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother.

Identity can only be established when something is omitted.

Spacetime coordinates.

Two THINGS mandates spacetime separation!
Otherwise it is ONE thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

It goes even deeper than logic. It goes all the way down to meaning.

What does it mean for “two things” to be “the same”

Half truth, as logic is a means to meaning hence "meaningful" if kept in this balance.

Two things can be the same if they are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother.

Identity can only be established when something is omitted.

Spacetime coordinates.

Two THINGS mandates spacetime separation!
Otherwise it is ONE thing.

But this omission requires a form of relation between "units" (approximation of unity).

Two simplify our argument "2" or dualism as opposition resulting in multiplicity is the foundation for time as time is multiplicity reflecting the atomist approach to phenomena.

One is still the foundation for definition in any degree of relativity between "units" as the unit folding through a unit is 1 folding through 1.

[TimeSeeker]

Identity can only be established when something is omitted.

Spacetime coordinates.

Two THINGS mandates spacetime separation!
Otherwise it is ONE thing.

But this omission requires a form of relation between "units" (approximation of unity).

Two simplify our argument "2" or dualism as opposition resulting in multiplicity is the foundation for time as time is multiplicity reflecting the atomist approach to phenomena.

One is still the foundation for definition in any degree of relativity between "units" as the unit folding through a unit is 1 folding through 1.

Far easier than that. Any representation of a thing that omits ANY information about the thing is an abstraction of the thing.

In the paradigm of Physical information this holds true:

In a somewhat general sense, the information of a given entity can be interpreted as its identity. As such, its information can be perceived to be the representation of the specification of its existence and thus, to be serving as the full description of each of the properties (real or potentialized) that are responsible for the entity’s existence. This description, of course, is one that, in a sense, is completely divorced from both any and all forms of language.

Information is what Kant would call ‘a thing in itself’.

[seeds]

But as was discussed with TimeSeeker in the prior post, the problem of infinite regress is present no matter which origin theory one prefers (be it material or spiritual).

I don't see how there is an infinite regress in an infinite multiverse.

A multiverse is allegedly composed of what seems to be an infinity of universes.

However (and obviously), universes are composed of some kind of fundamental substance.

Therefore, the question is - what is the origin of said substance?...

...which then leads to the question of what is the origin of the origin of the substance? – hence regression.

Now if we somehow conclude that the substance is ultimately derived from absolute “nothingness,” then we are confronted with the impossible problem of how “somethingness” - as in this...



...could emerge from “absolute nothingness”?

And don’t try to sneak in some kind of exotic quantum processes here, because “absolute nothingness” means what it means (i.e., no quantum realm, no energy, no mysterious forces hiding in a vacuum, etc., etc.).

On the other hand, if there is indeed “something” that can be thought of as being the precursor to the genesis of a multiverse,...

...then when, how, and from what did the something originate? - (for, again, it cannot originate from absolute nothingness) - which then leads us back into the regression issue.

The point is that not only does an infinite multiverse NOT solve the problem of infinite regress, it makes the problem even worse in that there is infinitely more substance with no discernible origin.

As I suggested earlier, the reason and source for the existence of the fabric of reality seems to be the greatest mystery of all.
_______

[Eodnhoj7]

But as was discussed with TimeSeeker in the prior post, the problem of infinite regress is present no matter which origin theory one prefers (be it material or spiritual).

I don't see how there is an infinite regress in an infinite multiverse.

A multiverse is allegedly composed of what seems to be an infinity of universes.

However (and obviously), universes are composed of some kind of fundamental substance.

Therefore, the question is - what is the origin of said substance?...

...which then leads to the question of what is the origin of the origin of the substance? – hence regression.

Now if we somehow conclude that the substance is ultimately derived from absolute “nothingness,” then we are confronted with the impossible problem of how “somethingness” - as in this...



...could emerge from “absolute nothingness”?

And don’t try to sneak in some kind of exotic quantum processes here, because “absolute nothingness” means what it means (i.e., no quantum realm, no energy, no mysterious forces hiding in a vacuum, etc., etc.).

On the other hand, if there is indeed “something” that can be thought of as being the precursor to the genesis of a multiverse,...

...then when, how, and from what did the something originate? - (for, again, it cannot originate from absolute nothingness) - which then leads us back into the regression issue.

The point is that not only does an infinite multiverse NOT solve the problem of infinite regress, it makes the problem even worse in that there is infinitely more substance with no discernable origin.

As I suggested earlier, the reason and source for the existence of the fabric of reality seems to be the greatest mystery of all.
_______

I heard about a near death experience of a man that mirrors exactly what that picture shows.

[Eodnhoj7]

Identity can only be established when something is omitted.

Spacetime coordinates.

Two THINGS mandates spacetime separation!
Otherwise it is ONE thing.

But this omission requires a form of relation between "units" (approximation of unity).

Two simplify our argument "2" or dualism as opposition resulting in multiplicity is the foundation for time as time is multiplicity reflecting the atomist approach to phenomena.

One is still the foundation for definition in any degree of relativity between "units" as the unit folding through a unit is 1 folding through 1.

Far easier than that. Any representation of a thing that omits ANY information about the thing is an abstraction of the thing.

In the paradigm of Physical information this holds true:

still stuck with a polarity/duality between "representation" and "thing in itself"

This represented takes on another nature as a replication of the thing in itself, where any omission of the "thing in itself" through the respresentation is strictly the separation of the representation and thing in itself.

For example if we observe the representation as prior to the thing in itself, let's say a drawing of a building which led to the building, the thing in itself is merely an approximation of the representation.

Now let's reverse the example and say the thing in itself comes prior to the representation, a building being drawn, the representation is merely an approximation of the thing in itself.

In turn each representation becomes a thing in itself and the thing in itself becomes a representation when apply further examples.

What we observe is a constant mirroring as replication where the constant symmetry which unites them is the repitition of certain qualities and quantities.

This dualism/2 acts as the first inversion of one into many which gives premise to the nature of approximation as a form of randomness conducive not to "No structure" but rather an absence of structure considering each replication maintains a form of connection to what it is replicated from.

However this replicated phenomenon, or rather mirroring of the object to introduce presocratic Pythagorean terms, follows the same form and function of that which it replicates from in the respect it observes a change, which this continuous change making the phenomenon a constant.

2 is a change from 1, however 1 exists as infinite change through all number as 1 exists through and as all number, which the infinite replication of 1 making it a constant.

There is much to be said about simply meditating on a simple point, line, circle and the numbers 1,2 and 3.

In a somewhat general sense, the information of a given entity can be interpreted as its identity. As such, its information can be perceived to be the representation of the specification of its existence and thus, to be serving as the full description of each of the properties (real or potentialized) that are responsible for the entity’s existence. This description, of course, is one that, in a sense, is completely divorced from both any and all forms of language.

Information is what Kant would call ‘a thing in itself’.

It cannot be completely divorced from language (whether qualitative language such as English, or quantitative language such as math) as language is merely a representation or symbolism with this nature of representation/symbolism existing as an through all phenomenon considering all phenomena exist through a mirror effect as replication.

This mirror effect as reptitive, similar to what pierce says about symbols, averroes with emanations, presocratic atomists with atoms, berkely with ideas, liebniz with monads, Kant with noumena, etc, observes a certain axiom acting as a common bond in the respect it is repeated as a qualitative premise of unity and quantity of 1 where this axiom observed in itself is a localize unit.

The question of information is a question of definition, the question of definition is limit with all complex limits leading to variety.

[Atla]

A multiverse is allegedly composed of what seems to be an infinity of universes.

However (and obviously), universes are composed of some kind of fundamental substance.

Therefore, the question is - what is the origin of said substance?...

...which then leads to the question of what is the origin of the origin of the substance? – hence regression.

Now if we somehow conclude that the substance is ultimately derived from absolute “nothingness,” then we are confronted with the impossible problem of how “somethingness” - as in this...

(image)

...could emerge from “absolute nothingness”?

And don’t try to sneak in some kind of exotic quantum processes here, because “absolute nothingness” means what it means (i.e., no quantum realm, no energy, no mysterious forces hiding in a vacuum, etc., etc.).

On the other hand, if there is indeed “something” that can be thought of as being the precursor to the genesis of a multiverse,...

...then when, how, and from what did the something originate? - (for, again, it cannot originate from absolute nothingness) - which then leads us back into the regression issue.

The point is that not only does an infinite multiverse NOT solve the problem of infinite regress, it makes the problem even worse in that there is infinitely more substance with no discernable origin.

As I suggested earlier, the reason and source for the existence of the fabric of reality seems to be the greatest mystery of all.
_______

The idea of "substance" is a 2000+ year old nonsense of Western philosophy. Reality has no substance (reality is no substance).

[TimeSeeker]

still stuck with a polarity/duality between "representation" and "thing in itself"

Not really. The map is not the territory. Never will be.

This represented takes on another nature as a replication of the thing in itself, where any omission of the "thing in itself" through the respresentation is strictly the separation of the representation and thing in itself.

It's an abstract model of the thing itself.

For example if we observe the representation as prior to the thing in itself, let's say a drawing of a building which led to the building, the thing in itself is merely an approximation of the representation.

Yes. ALL models are approximations.

Now let's reverse the example and say the thing in itself comes prior to the representation, a building being drawn, the representation is merely an approximation of the thing in itself.

In turn each representation becomes a thing in itself and the thing in itself becomes a representation when apply further examples.

You are describing the creative process, and in particular the process of realization. Turning something conceptual into something actual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)

What you need to recognize is that original diagram (plan) is itself a high level abstraction. When we design a building we never ever get down to the abstractions of atoms and molecules.

It cannot be completely divorced from language (whether qualitative language such as English, or quantitative language such as math) as language is merely a representation or symbolism with this nature of representation/symbolism existing as an through all phenomenon considering all phenomena exist through a mirror effect as replication.

It can be divorced from language, but not from conception. Do you think in words or images? My mind is spatial. And so I can imagine without having to think of the word for something. Language is only necessary for communication - not thought.