Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:58 pm 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.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:46 am

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm ...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

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:30 am 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:

Bryce Dewitt wrote: “...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.
_______

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:41 am ...it's easy to feign outrage at an otherwise very useful idea.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm 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.
_______

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:17 pm 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).

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:58 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:17 pm 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
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:02 pm I’m not “feigning” anything, for the outrage is genuine.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:02 pm 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.”

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:02 pm 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.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:58 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:05 am Watch the whole vid or just 31:35-31:45, no creation, there is a universal 'branching' superposition all along.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:05 am 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:05 am But the MWI seems to be roughly the right way to go, I think Carroll does an amazing job advocating this kind of thinking.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:25 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:58 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:05 am 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).

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:05 am 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:05 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:45 pm 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,...

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:45 pm ...which was there all along. Watch the video again.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:45 pm ...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 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:06 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:45 pm ...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 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:19 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:06 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:35 pm
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?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:51 pm 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,...

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:41 pm 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.

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”...

...then something is missing from the theory.