Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:17 pm QM is probably observer-dependent, so I don't understand the idea of measuring in respect to "something else".

Information is 'order'. Entropy is 'chaos'.

A system that is in equilibrium e.g Xeno paradox system is a system that does not change. e.g it is NOT entropic e.g we can be always certain of its state. Even when we aren't 'observing' it. And by observing - I mean actual human looking with eyes.

That's philosophy's coveted ontology. Grounding. Symmetry in respect to every dimension.

The good old adage that 'the only constant is change' becomes false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

Calculus no longer needs to be about change in respect to time, but change in respect to a steady state.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:26 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:17 pm QM is probably observer-dependent, so I don't understand the idea of measuring in respect to "something else".

Information is 'order'. Entropy is 'chaos'.

A system that is in equilibrium e.g Xeno paradox system is a system that does not change. e.g it is NOT entropic e.g we can be always certain of its state. Even when we aren't 'observing' it. And by observing - I mean actual human looking with eyes.

That's philosophy's coveted ontology. Grounding. Symmetry in respect to every dimension.

The good old adage that 'the only constant is change' becomes false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

The Quantum Zeno isn't about equilibrium. No one is sure what observation actually means here.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:34 pm The Quantum Zeno isn't about equilibrium. No one is sure what observation actually means here.

I am interpreting it as 'equilibrium'. A system that does not evolve with time!

Calculus no longer needs to be about change in respect to time, but change in respect to a time-invariant state.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:29 am Where did you get the idea that the supporters of a multiverse like the idea of eternal divinity? They seem to abhor divinity, hence their attraction to theories that are devised to exclude divinity.

Care to clarify that statement?

It's mentioned in the article as a counter proposal. The author is willing to talk about it, to entertain the idea.
But a simulated reality is not mentioned at all, although the chance of such a reality is equal to the chance of a multiverse (at least mathematically).
That shows bias against the idea!

I am happy to see that you have an open mind on these issues; however, it is obvious that you and I have a different perspective on intelligent design.

In reviewing the Bostrom video, the problem with his “simulation argument” is that it simply does not solve the mystery of the origin of the reality in which the proposed advanced civilization is creating the simulation.

He kind of brushed it off as not seeming to be very important, but it is extremely important because there is just no getting around the issue of infinite regress wherein the “technologically mature” simulators of our reality must be confronted with the possibility that their reality is also being simulated.

I disagree. The goal of science is to understand our own universe, not a foreign.
We can do our best to try and estimate what it's like, but it is not, nor will be, the goal of science, to go beyond our own.

QuantumT

I disagree. The goal of science is to understand our own universe, not a foreign.
We can do our best to try and estimate what it's like, but it is not, nor will be, the goal of science, to go beyond our own.

Would you agree that the reality of the multiverse or the sixth dimension could be explained theoretically but impossible to prove scientifically? If so wouldn't it be wise to recognize the limitations of science?

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:39 am The Everett MW is a different kind of multiverse, separated by something other than space, where they peel off from this reality into new ones. Don't like it, never have.

Yeah, but isn’t the MWI a prime example of how total nonsense can be inferred from the maths?

In which case (and just out of curiosity), why don’t you like what the maths have to say about multiple worlds from the perspective of Everett’s theory, but seem to have no issue with what the maths have to say about multiple worlds from the perspective of string theory?

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:39 am The 10^500 posited other universes are spatially separated - other big bangs, other zones of reality. It is far from preposterous, as you claim.

Let’s get something straight. I do not think that the existence of 10^500 other universes is preposterous (in truth, to me that number is too small).

However, what I do think is preposterous (as I mentioned earlier) is that just to avoid any hint of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe, some humans are willing to accept theories that are infinitely worse in terms of logic and plausibility.

Yeah, yeah, I know – “...but it’s all there in the maths...”

But like I said, the maths also lend credence to the Everettian codswallop.

The problem (as I see it) is that we are sitting in the midst of a mystery that not only has us scratching our heads as to where the pre-Bang (“seed-like”) kernel of compressed matter came from...

...but also how it (the “sprouted” seed) managed to self-arrange its constituents into a state of order that defies our comprehension.

Yet the proponents of certain multiverse theories simply want to compound that mystery by applying it to a near infinity of other “seeds” (most of which are duds according to the theories)...

...none of which, btw, takes into account how the essence of life and consciousness fit into the picture (other than the lame ideas associated with the anthropic principle).

In other words, the maths are thoroughly blinkered when it comes to factoring-in the most important aspect of reality (again, the essence of life) – an aspect that would render all of reality completely meaningless if it were missing.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:39 am You wonder how universes without "stars, planets, and life" can qualify to be called a "universe''. No true Scotsman wears a chastity belt under his kilt. No true universe exists without stars, planets and life?
However, "stars, planets and life" make up approximate 5% of the universe. There most certainly could be universes consisting only of the majority "dark stuff" that's in our universe, with molecular clouds in conditions that don't allow atoms or other emergent phenomena to form. Also note that for about 300,000 years our universe had no celestial bodies or, obviously, life, but it was still a universe.

Just to highlight the problem of your downplaying of life’s role in the context of reality...

...imagine a situation where all of the universes, and all of the stars and planets, and all of the “dark stuff,” and all of the molecular clouds, etc., are all gathered together into one location, and then give me a single visualizable scenario where any of it would have any reason or purpose whatsoever for existing if life and consciousness did not exist to confer meaning on it.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:29 am In reviewing the Bostrom video, the problem with his “simulation argument” is that it simply does not solve the mystery of the origin of the reality in which the proposed advanced civilization is creating the simulation.

He kind of brushed it off as not seeming to be very important, but it is extremely important because there is just no getting around the issue of infinite regress wherein the “technologically mature” simulators of our reality must be confronted with the possibility that their reality is also being simulated.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:07 pm I disagree. The goal of science is to understand our own universe, not a foreign.
We can do our best to try and estimate what it's like, but it is not, nor will be, the goal of science, to go beyond our own.

Yeah, well, the problem is that by insisting on the possibility of our universe being a simulation, you have inadvertently implied the existence of a foreign universe (i.e., the “real” universe) that exists above and outside of our simulated one.

Therefore, it would thus be imperative that our science tries to go beyond our own in order to access the truth of our existence.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:56 am Therefore, it would thus be imperative that our science tries to go beyond our own in order to access the truth of our existence.

Why do you want to know the truth of our existence?

This pursuit is much like a dog chasing a car. What are you going to do with it when you catch it?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:56 am Yeah, well, the problem is that by insisting on the possibility of our universe being a simulation, you have inadvertently implied the existence of a foreign universe (i.e., the “real” universe) that exists above and outside of our simulated one.

No different than the problem of the First Cause.
What caused our universe?
What caused whatever caused our universe?

The problem of infinite regress is everywhere.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:55 amHowever, what I do think is preposterous (as I mentioned earlier) is that just to avoid any hint of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe, some humans are willing to accept theories that are infinitely worse in terms of logic and plausibility.

Yeah, yeah, I know – “...but it’s all there in the maths...”

But like I said, the maths also lend credence to the Everettian codswallop.

The problem (as I see it) is that we are sitting in the midst of a mystery that not only has us scratching our heads as to where the pre-Bang (“seed-like”) kernel of compressed matter came from...

...but also how it (the “sprouted” seed) managed to self-arrange its constituents into a state of order that defies our comprehension.

Yet the proponents of certain multiverse theories simply want to compound that mystery by applying it to a near infinity of other “seeds” (most of which are duds according to the theories)...

...none of which, btw, takes into account how the essence of life and consciousness fit into the picture (other than the lame ideas associated with the anthropic principle).

A possible way to dismiss the "seeds" problem might be that time is also a circular, boundless but finite dimension of our part of the universe. Meaning that our part of the universe will end in a Big Crunch, which is the same event as the Big Bang that it came from.

The idea of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe just leads to infinite regression, because now you need to also explain the existence of a creator intelligence, probably situated in an even much bigger and much more complex universe than ours. And so on.

So we are left with the Anthropic principle applied to an infinite multiverse, where the probability of us being here is 100%. (That's where things get really interesting, there is obviously more to this, is there something about humans, or maybe some/one human, that is "special"?)

Anyway at this point it's more like a question of faith; I go with the multiverse-Anthropic principle approach because to me it's the simplest, most likely explanation, a sort of extrapolation from the one universe we already see. It's a guess that may be totally wrong.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:03 am

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:55 amHowever, what I do think is preposterous (as I mentioned earlier) is that just to avoid any hint of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe, some humans are willing to accept theories that are infinitely worse in terms of logic and plausibility.

Yeah, yeah, I know – “...but it’s all there in the maths...”

But like I said, the maths also lend credence to the Everettian codswallop.

The problem (as I see it) is that we are sitting in the midst of a mystery that not only has us scratching our heads as to where the pre-Bang (“seed-like”) kernel of compressed matter came from...

...but also how it (the “sprouted” seed) managed to self-arrange its constituents into a state of order that defies our comprehension.

Yet the proponents of certain multiverse theories simply want to compound that mystery by applying it to a near infinity of other “seeds” (most of which are duds according to the theories)...

...none of which, btw, takes into account how the essence of life and consciousness fit into the picture (other than the lame ideas associated with the anthropic principle).

A possible way to dismiss the "seeds" problem might be that time is also a circular, boundless but finite dimension of our part of the universe. Meaning that our part of the universe will end in a Big Crunch, which is the same event as the Big Bang that it came from.

The idea of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe just leads to infinite regression, because now you need to also explain the existence of a creator intelligence, probably situated in an even much bigger and much more complex universe than ours. And so on.

So we are left with the Anthropic principle applied to an infinite multiverse, where the probability of us being here is 100%. (That's where things get really interesting, there is obviously more to this, is there something about humans, or maybe some/one human, that is "special"?)

Anyway at this point it's more like a question of faith; I go with the multiverse-Anthropic principle approach because to me it's the simplest, most likely explanation, a sort of extrapolation from the one universe we already see. It's a guess that may be totally wrong.

The circular time hypothesis has one unexplained phenomenon.

If the universe is a closed system (obeys thermodynamics laws) Where does all the energy dissipate to as we head towards maximum entropy?

And one philosophical question: what is energy and where does it come from?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:19 am The circular time hypothesis has one unexplained phenomenon.

If the universe is a closed system (obeys thermodynamics laws) Where does all the energy dissipate to as we head towards maximum entropy?

And one philosophical question: what is energy and where does it come from?

That's probably just an illusion, entropy is probably constant in the entirety of universe. Especially that nowadays we have all these crazy high entropy black hole ideas.

According to most recent models, the expansion rate of the observable universe already changed at least three times, so it will probably change again.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:25 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:19 am The circular time hypothesis has one unexplained phenomenon.

If the universe is a closed system (obeys thermodynamics laws) Where does all the energy dissipate to as we head towards maximum entropy?

And one philosophical question: what is energy and where does it come from?

That's probably just an illusion, entropy is probably constant in the entirety of universe. Especially that nowadays we have all these crazy high entropy black hole ideas.

According to most recent models, the expansion rate of the observable universe already changed at least three times, so it will probably change again.

Such a study might be a first step in clearing things up, the black hole in the center of our galaxy seems to contradict "much hair" ideas.

https://insidetheperimeter.ca/could-bla ... have-hair/

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:56 am Therefore, it would thus be imperative that our science tries to go beyond our own in order to access the truth of our existence.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:31 am Why do you want to know the truth of our existence?

Is that a trick question?

Actually, I was just pointing out to QT the consequences of his line of reasoning.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:31 am This pursuit is much like a dog chasing a car. What are you going to do with it when you catch it?

I would hope that the car’s owner (a young and beautiful human female) would take me home and feed me large soup bones (and pizza) after rubbing my belly.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:56 am Yeah, well, the problem is that by insisting on the possibility of our universe being a simulation, you have inadvertently implied the existence of a foreign universe (i.e., the “real” universe) that exists above and outside of our simulated one.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:31 am No different than the problem of the First Cause.
What caused our universe?
What caused whatever caused our universe?

The problem of infinite regress is everywhere.

Agreed.

Be it the infinite regress witnessed in a material cause, or the infinite regress witnessed in a spiritual cause, there just doesn’t seem to be any way of avoiding it...

...which in itself (the origin of “somethingness” as opposed to “nothingness”) is probably the greatest mystery of all.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:55 am However, what I do think is preposterous (as I mentioned earlier) is that just to avoid any hint of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe, some humans are willing to accept theories that are infinitely worse in terms of logic and plausibility.

Yeah, yeah, I know – “...but it’s all there in the maths...”

But like I said, the maths also lend credence to the Everettian codswallop.

The problem (as I see it) is that we are sitting in the midst of a mystery that not only has us scratching our heads as to where the pre-Bang (“seed-like”) kernel of compressed matter came from...

...but also how it (the “sprouted” seed) managed to self-arrange its constituents into a state of order that defies our comprehension.

Yet the proponents of certain multiverse theories simply want to compound that mystery by applying it to a near infinity of other “seeds” (most of which are duds according to the theories)...

...none of which, btw, takes into account how the essence of life and consciousness fit into the picture (other than the lame ideas associated with the anthropic principle).

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:03 am A possible way to dismiss the "seeds" problem might be that time is also a circular, boundless but finite dimension of our part of the universe. Meaning that our part of the universe will end in a Big Crunch, which is the same event as the Big Bang that it came from.

I’m not sure what you mean by our “part” of the universe?

I mean, our universe is either a singular phenomenon wherein all of its features and constituents are seamlessly united (superpositionally entangled) at its quantum level, thus implying that it has no independent “parts”...

...(or)...

...it is just one of an infinite number of universes (plural).

So I’m not sure of how you are visualizing how our “part” of a singular universe could end in a Big Crunch?

Furthermore, the “seeds” problem...

(as in the alleged existence of an infinite number of them)

...is derived from the idea of a multiverse (separate universes) so I am having trouble understanding how time being circular could solve it.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:03 am The idea of intelligence being involved in the creation of our universe just leads to infinite regression, because now you need to also explain the existence of a creator intelligence, probably situated in an even much bigger and much more complex universe than ours. And so on.

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).

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:03 am So we are left with the Anthropic principle applied to an infinite multiverse, where the probability of us being here is 100%. (That's where things get really interesting, there is obviously more to this, is there something about humans, or maybe some/one human, that is "special"?)

You make some good points, Atla, however, as I was pointing out in the post you are responding to, you are just compounding the mystery of the “origin” of the infinite number of seeds – an origin mystery that, again, is also subject to the problem of infinite regress.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:03 am Anyway at this point it's more like a question of faith; I go with the multiverse-Anthropic principle approach because to me it's the simplest...

Okay, but to me, there is absolutely nothing simple in requiring an infinite number of dud universes in order to justify the existence of a few viable ones...

...all seemingly to be for the silly purpose of avoiding the more logical alternative of something intelligent being responsible for the order of this one.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:33 pm I’m not sure what you mean by our “part” of the universe?

I mean, our universe is either a singular phenomenon wherein all of its features and constituents are seamlessly united (superpositionally entangled) at its quantum level, thus implying that it has no independent “parts”...

Yeah it doesn't have actual parts. By our part, I roughly meant the observable universe, or maybe a greater local region that the observable universe is in.

...is derived from the idea of a multiverse (separate universes) so I am having trouble understanding how time being circular could solve it.

I don't think that universes are actually separate in the multiverse, but that doesn't really matter here. I mean that time may be a circular dimension of our universe. So there is no beginning no end, no "first cause" problem.

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.