From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

[Eodnhoj7]

Definite knowledge requires observation, observation requires quantification, quantification cannot be proven empirically, thus empiricism is grounded in a phenomenon which is not empirical.

Your above is due to ignorance [deliberate or blind].

Definite knowledge [empirical - scientific] is verified and justified within a framework and system of reality or knowledge [FSR/FSK], i.e. the scientific framework, system and methods.
Empirically driven FSR/FSK verification and justifications rely observation, analysis [quantitative and qualitative] upon a induction process of inference.

Quantification is grounded on mathematical axioms and a priori numbers.
There is no
need to prove quantification empirically in the above case.

The system of empiricism is thus grounded in phenomena which are not empirically proven, it is grounded in assumed axioms. As such the concept of God can be taken a priori as well.

You have yet to prove the existential crisis is the founding of religion empirically. Religion, such as the fear of sinning, can cause the existential crisis. Not paying the bills can result in the existential crisis. Anything can cause the existential crisis, with the existential crisis causing anything such as the mid life changes of an individual.

Reducing problems to a religion, in itself is a religious dogma.

There are obviously problems that are related to religions.
Where the constitution [doctrines] are problematic, then we can reduce religious driven problems [verified and justified] to a religion.

If the constitution of a religion that command believers to kill non-believers, isn't that problem reducible to that specific religion?

To build upon a morality which is scientifically proven is to build upon a morality which is subject to change given scientific facts are relative and open to change given a long enough progression. There is no scientific basis that demands killing is wrong in all cases, it is taken as assumed that killing is wrong. You are building a morality upon a priori concepts, concepts which exist prior to then senses, thus are not empirically justifiable.

[seeds]

...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

I am pretty certain you deeply misunderstand MWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Well, I’m pretty certain that it is you who doesn’t understand the implications of the MWI.

As I have pointed out elsewhere in this forum, Bryce Dewitt is the theoretical physicist who coined the term "many-worlds" and was an early and avid champion of Everett's Theory.

In an article for the magazine, Physics Today, Dewitt stated the following:

“...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”

With the above in mind, along with the fact that I am making such a big stink about how ridiculous the MWI is, you need to take up your complaint with those who actually believe such nonsense is possible.
_______

...it's easy to feign outrage at an otherwise very useful idea.

I’m not “feigning” anything, for the outrage is genuine.

Furthermore, other than for the purpose of entertainment, there is absolutely nothing useful about an idea that causes physicists to take seriously something that belongs in VA’s “La La Land.”

And lastly, I’m not going to get drawn into one of your side-tracking strawman arguments that has nothing to do with the point I was making to VA about how all humans (not just theists) are capable of formulating and promoting absurd and implausible creation stories.
_______

[Atla]

Yeah, well, the problem is that many physicists who are standing on the solid ground of what is empirically-known, have also jumped across No-Man’s Land and into their own unique versions of La La Land.

For example, I suggest that the mother of all “scientific” absurdities is Hugh Everett’s “Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” where it is theorized that due to the interactions taking place between the particles of light as you gaze at your computer screen,...

...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

And that’s all stemming from just one person staring at their computer monitor for a few seconds, never mind the near infinity of other quantum events that occur each and every second throughout the rest of the universe.

And the point is that the so-called “solid ground” of that which is “empirically-known” is spawning bizarre concepts of reality that are infinitely more ridiculous and implausible than what theists have imagined.
_______

Of course if you took a look at the more proper versions of the Everettian, your seeds theory would be in trouble, wouldn't it? The Everettian posits the reality of the universal wavefunction, but there is no need for this insane creating and splitting of universes, few physicists actually believe in that (neither does Carroll who you mentioned). Instead, all the possible states and histories exist all along, in a huge jumble mess of coherence, decoherence, eigenstates, superpositions etc. This picture still doesn't fully solve the biggest problem, but seems to be roughly what is happening when we interpret QM literally.

[seeds]

The Everettian posits the reality of the universal wavefunction, but there is no need for this insane creating and splitting of universes, few physicists actually believe in that (neither does Carroll who you mentioned).

Listen to the first 2 minutes of what Sean Carroll says in one of his MWI lectures on YouTube. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY?t=1
_______

[Atla]

The Everettian posits the reality of the universal wavefunction, but there is no need for this insane creating and splitting of universes, few physicists actually believe in that (neither does Carroll who you mentioned).

Listen to the first 2 minutes of what Sean Carroll says in one of his MWI lectures on YouTube. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY?t=1
_______

Watch the whole vid or just 31:35-31:45, no creation, there is a universal 'branching' superposition all along.

Of course this primitive version of the MWI that Carroll advocates still has fatal flaws, and doesn't fully solve the very problem it was created to solve, he doesn't seem to realize this. But the MWI seems to be roughly the right way to go, I think Carroll does an amazing job advocating this kind of thinking.

[Skepdick]

I’m not “feigning” anything, for the outrage is genuine.

I am sure. Is just... the sort of things that outrage you is rather embarrassing...

Furthermore, other than for the purpose of entertainment, there is absolutely nothing useful about an idea that causes physicists to take seriously something that belongs in VA’s “La La Land.”

Monte Carlo simulations are literally used by physicists and non-physicists daily.

To deny utility is to pretend none of those uses exist.

And lastly, I’m not going to get drawn into one of your side-tracking strawman arguments that has nothing to do with the point I was making to VA about how all humans (not just theists) are capable of formulating and promoting absurd and implausible creation stories.

Too bad you can't prove the claimed absurdity, eh?

The story of creation is not about gods. It's about humans. It's not about the creation of the world. It's about the creation of ALL knowledge about the world. It's but a silly confusion between upward and downward causality.

Everything in physics is about interaction. Upward&downward causality interacting.

[seeds]

The Everettian posits the reality of the universal wavefunction, but there is no need for this insane creating and splitting of universes, few physicists actually believe in that (neither does Carroll who you mentioned).

Listen to the first 2 minutes of what Sean Carroll says in one of his MWI lectures on YouTube. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY?t=1

Watch the whole vid or just 31:35-31:45, no creation, there is a universal 'branching' superposition all along.

I did watch the whole video. Why do you think I recommended it to you?

And contrary to your initial assertion, Carroll doubles down on his belief that we (and the entire universe) are constantly splitting off (branching off) into real and innumerable copies.

Furthermore, the only thing he made clear in the little section you cited is that he doesn’t have a clue as to the implications of the nonsense he is promoting (or simply ignores the implications in the hope that no one will notice).

Of course this primitive version of the MWI that Carroll advocates still has fatal flaws, and doesn't fully solve the very problem it was created to solve, he doesn't seem to realize this.

Primitive or not, the point is that there are mainstream physicists out there who believe and promote the “many worlds” (the many copies of us) feature of the theory.

But the MWI seems to be roughly the right way to go, I think Carroll does an amazing job advocating this kind of thinking.

The fact that Carroll’s interpretation of the MWI treats the human mind and consciousness as if it were no more significant than a single photon or electron, along with thinking that we and the vast complexity and order of this universe exist in infinite copies in infinite parallel worlds,...

...is pure and utter (materialistic) nonsense.

It is a level of nonsense that dwarfs the lunacy implicit in some of the most phantasmagorical depictions of reality proposed by theists.

And that was my whole reason for pointing it out to VA in the first place, for it highlights the fact that those who are standing on the solid ground of what is empirically-known - (as was stated in his OP) - can come up with theories that are even more ridiculous than the religious ones.
_______

[Atla]

The Everettian posits the reality of the universal wavefunction, but there is no need for this insane creating and splitting of universes, few physicists actually believe in that (neither does Carroll who you mentioned).

Listen to the first 2 minutes of what Sean Carroll says in one of his MWI lectures on YouTube. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/p7XIdFbCQyY?t=1

Watch the whole vid or just 31:35-31:45, no creation, there is a universal 'branching' superposition all along.

I did watch the whole video. Why do you think I recommended it to you?

And contrary to your initial assertion, Carroll doubles down on his belief that we (and the entire universe) are constantly splitting off (branching off) into real and innumerable copies.

Furthermore, the only thing he made clear in the little section you cited is that he doesn’t have a clue as to the implications of the nonsense he is promoting (or simply ignores the implications in the hope that no one will notice).

Of course this primitive version of the MWI that Carroll advocates still has fatal flaws, and doesn't fully solve the very problem it was created to solve, he doesn't seem to realize this.

Primitive or not, the point is that there are mainstream physicists out there who believe and promote the “many worlds” (the many copies of us) feature of the theory.

But the MWI seems to be roughly the right way to go, I think Carroll does an amazing job advocating this kind of thinking.

The fact that Carroll’s interpretation of the MWI treats the human mind and consciousness as if it were no more significant than a single photon or electron, along with thinking that we and the vast complexity and order of this universe exist in infinite copies in infinite parallel worlds,...

...is pure and utter (materialistic) nonsense.

It is a level of nonsense that dwarfs the lunacy implicit in some of the most phantasmagorical depictions of reality proposed by theists.

And that was my whole reason for pointing it out to VA in the first place, for it highlights the fact that those who are standing on the solid ground of what is empirically-known - (as was stated in his OP) - can come up with theories that are even more ridiculous than the religious ones.
_______

No, he did not say that new universes are created. And you don't seem to undestand how 'universe' is used in the MWI, it's understood as a branch of the universal wavefunction, which was there all along. Watch the video again.

Of course there are probably infinite copies of us, few things are more obvious. That's by far the most likely picture of the world, it's people like you who can't cope with this and always have to come up with all kinds of infinitely unlikely explanations in order to cater to your need to feel special and to sneak in your God into the picture.

[seeds]

No, he did not say that new universes are created. And you don't seem to undestand how 'universe' is used in the MWI, it's understood as a branch of the universal wavefunction,...

Come on now, Atla, the universal wavefunction and how it fits in with the MWI is not that difficult to visualize, so stop assuming that I don’t seem to understand it.

...which was there all along. Watch the video again.

What was there all along?

Are you talking about the other world that contains the Sean Carroll who jumped to the left?
_______

[Atla]

...which was there all along. Watch the video again.

What was there all along?

Are you talking about the other world that contains the Sean Carroll who jumped to the left?
_______

Yes, it's not like new worlds get created at quantum events

[seeds]

...which was there all along. Watch the video again.

What was there all along?

Are you talking about the other world that contains the Sean Carroll who jumped to the left?
_______

Yes, it's not like new worlds get created at quantum events

So then, if the completely real and autonomous (left-jumping) Sean Carroll in the other world turned evil and was somehow able to destroy the moon in his world (just for kicks), would that have any effect on the moon in the world of the right-jumping Sean Carroll?
_______

[Atla]

What was there all along?

Are you talking about the other world that contains the Sean Carroll who jumped to the left?
_______

Yes, it's not like new worlds get created at quantum events

So then, if the completely real and autonomous (left-jumping) Sean Carroll in the other world turned evil and was somehow able to destroy the moon in his world (just for kicks), would that have any effect on the moon in the world of the right-jumping Sean Carroll?
_______

I think not according to Carroll's version of the MWI, where the branches of the universal wavefunction split permanently as we go forward in time, which is a symmetry breaking, and also the split is supposed to happen across the entire universal wavefunction, so it also includes the Moon.

In a more rational version of the MWI, things may be a lot more complicated than this of course, just because Carroll has 'split' here in Earth, doesn't mean that the Moon has also split with him, or maybe a part of the Moon has split with him and a part of it hasn't (and Carroll may also be a jumble of splits and non-splits). And even after the Moon has split, the split may not be permanent, the two branches may become coherent again eventually at some point in the future. So yeah the 'other' Carroll destroying his Moon may have some shared effect on this Carroll's Moon.

In a more rational version of the MWI, the above is only perspectivical though, the universal wavefunction contains all possible combinations of all possible entanglements and non-entanglements all at once, so it's not literally brainching, it only seems like a branching behaviour from our perspective.

No wonder no one understands QM, the above may be one of the simplest attempts to get a grasp of it, and it still doesn't solve the measurement problem either.

[seeds]

So then, if the completely real and autonomous (left-jumping) Sean Carroll in the other world turned evil and was somehow able to destroy the moon in his world (just for kicks), would that have any effect on the moon in the world of the right-jumping Sean Carroll?

I think not according to Carroll's version of the MWI, where the branches of the universal wavefunction split permanently as we go forward in time, which is a symmetry breaking, and also the split is supposed to happen across the entire universal wavefunction, so it also includes the Moon.

In a more rational version of the MWI,...

I’m only concerned with Carroll’s version of the MWI, because not only is it a version that he (as a bonafide physicist) is promoting, but it also seems to be the most popular version out there.

Okay then, if according to Carroll’s version, the split also includes the moon, then reason dictates that it must also include the earth, and the sun, and the Milky Way galaxy, along with the billions upon billions of other galaxies that make up the sum total of what we commonly call our “universe” (or “world” in MWI parlance).

First of all, let’s get something straight. When humans hear the word “universe” they do not picture a “universal wavefunction.”

No, they generally imagine the totality of everything that is outwardly displayed within this expanding bubble of reality we are held within...



We’re talking about a bubble of reality that allegedly began when it was no larger than an atom, but is now estimated to be approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

So we need to cut through the confusion that arises from thinking that the term “universal wavefunction” has the same connotation as the word “universe.”

Furthermore, we also need to acknowledge the fact that for all practical purposes, the term “many worlds” (at least in the way Carroll is describing the MWI) means “many universes”...



...and that’s regardless of the fact that these “many worlds”/“many universes” may share the same underlying wavefunction.

Now with the above in mind it is glaringly apparent that, again, regardless of the possibility that these “many worlds”/”many universes” may all have their grounding in a singular and shared wavefunction,...

...Carroll’s version of the MWI nevertheless implies that there literally exists a near infinity of autonomous dimensions (“bubbles”) of reality that are every bit as real as the one we are held within – with each of them containing an alternate version of each of us.

Now with all of that being said, I am having an extremely difficult time trying to decide whether it is more preposterous to think that “new versions” of us (along with the entire universe itself) branch off of our universe when triggered by a quantum event (trillions of which just occurred in the time it took you to read this sentence),...

...or...

...whether it is even more preposterous to think that every possible version of us and our universe already exists, and that when a so-called branching occurs, it is simply some sort of unvisualizable (yet coordinated) interplay that takes place between the already existing infinity of separate (fully real) worlds.

Yet, one of those two possibilities is precisely what Carroll’s version of the MWI implies.

And all of this nonsense is being proposed for what reason?

To try and solve the so-called “measurement problem” that arises in a theory (quantum theory) that - in and of itself – simply does not contain all of the information necessary to allow us to make a full and accurate assessment of reality.

I mean, when physicists themselves reluctantly admit that they really don’t know what they’re dealing with...

(as is encapsulated in the phrase: “shut up and calculate”)

...then something is missing from the theory.
_______

[Atla]

I’m only concerned with Carroll’s version of the MWI, because not only is it a version that he (as a bonafide physicist) is promoting, but it also seems to be the most popular version out there.

Okay then, if according to Carroll’s version, the split also includes the moon, then reason dictates that it must also include the earth, and the sun, and the Milky Way galaxy, along with the billions upon billions of other galaxies that make up the sum total of what we commonly call our “universe” (or “world” in MWI parlance).

First of all, let’s get something straight. When humans hear the word “universe” they do not picture a “universal wavefunction.”

No, they generally imagine the totality of everything that is outwardly displayed within this expanding bubble of reality we are held within...

Imo that was a few decades ago, today the imagined totality is most commonly called the multiverse. And a universal wavefunction says little to laypeople.

We’re talking about a bubble of reality that allegedly began when it was no larger than an atom, but is now estimated to be approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

Kinda, but that's just the observable universe, a part of 'our' universe. (and the idea of a beginning is obviously ridiculous)

Furthermore, we also need to acknowledge the fact that for all practical purposes, the term “many worlds” (at least in the way Carroll is describing the MWI) means “many universes”...

Umm not really, the universal wavefunction (the many-worlds) and the standard multiverse idea, are arguably two very different things. The universal wavefunction (the many-worlds) is a superposition of all possible configurations of 'our' universe.

That's why we may need at least roughly 6 dimensions for unified philosophies. 3 space 1 time 1 MWI and 1 multiverse. I haven't met others on philosophy forums though who think in 6 dimensions, I've been doing that for a decade.

...then something is missing from the theory.

Of course something is missing, that's the whole point. So this is where 23478523478786 people have tried to insert their own favourite theories. As I said the MWI-type interpretation seems to be the best framework so far imo, even from the many dozens of various 'more mainstream' interpretations, because it simply takes QM literally. As I said, the core part of the measurement problem remains unsolved though, Carroll mistakenly believes that decoherence solved it.

It's the least preposterous view to me, again and again and again and again in history, it turned out that the world is much bigger than we thought, the trend just seems to keep continuing. But in the end any multiverse and MWI idea is metaphysics, not genuine science.