Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why (some) physicists think a multiverse exists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As stated by Ethan Siegel, it sounds like nonsense:

We have overwhelming evidence for the hot Big Bang, and also that the Big Bang began with a set of conditions that don’t come with a de facto explanation. If we add in an explanation for it — cosmic inflation — then that inflating spacetime that set up and gave rise to the Big Bang makes its own set of novel predictions. Many of those predictions are borne out by observation, but other predictions also arise as consequences of inflation. One of them is the existence of a myriad of Universes, of disconnected regions each with their own hot Big Bang, that comprise what we know as a multiverse when you take them all together. This doesn’t mean that different Universes have different rules or laws or fundamental constants, or that all the possible quantum outcomes you can imagine occur in some other pocket of the multiverse. It doesn’t even mean that the multiverse is real, as this is a prediction we cannot verify, validate, or falsify. But if the theory of inflation is a good one, and the data says it is, a multiverse is all but inevitable. You may not like it, and you really may not like how some physicists abuse the idea, but until a better, viable alternative to inflation comes around, the multiverse is very much here to stay. Now, at least, you understand why.

Ethan Siegel , “This is why physicists suspect the Multiverse very likely exists” at Big Think (December 30, 2021)

But Siegel makes it sound like physics, which is certainly a feat.

Comments
Consciousness is primary All else are details --Ramram
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Doubter @100, Very well said. I'm sincerely impressed. Please note, I have never made an argument against pain and suffering in general. I see pain and suffering, good and evil, etc, in the same light that you (and Sewell) so eloquently explain. Without that process, a human being would be a shallow, vapid vessel indeed, permanently moored on the shore of mediocrity at best. My arguments wrt pain and suffering have always been about the "eternal, hopeless suffering" final, inescapable outcome presented here by some. There is nothing but tortured reasoning and attempts at mind-reading available to support that perspective, as I think I and others have made clear here to reasonable people not under the influence of a coercive ideology. I see now what our possible major disagreements are about. First, we possibly disagree on the ontological nature of how all of this is occurring; second, perhaps we disagree on whether or not undergoing such a profound maturation/transformative process is voluntary; and third, I think we disagree on whether or not God (at the "level" of being God) is a sentient, deliberate being. For me, my perspective solves the "terrible price" problem wrt God forcing us into it, because nobody is forced to become anything more than a vapid mediocrity, never leaving the comfort of what we call "the afterlife" to come here in the first place. Nobody is forced to endure pain and suffering; nobody is forced to learn and grow and develop their character; it is always, ultimately, our choice.William J Murray
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Two good verses from Dylan's song "Silvio", the first of which is relevant to the discussion:
I can tell your fancy I can tell your plain You give something up for ev'rything you gain Since ev'ry pleasure's got an edge of pain Pay for your ticket and don't complain. One of these days and it won't be long Going down the valley and sing my song I will sing it loud and sing it strong Let the echo decide if I was right or wrong.
Viola Lee
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
WJM@99 My point of view on this matter poses a different stance than any of the ones you have suggested. There are true victims, they are the human selves of immortal souls, but all suffering is temporary and the highest plan is wise even if very hard for humans to accept. For me, the problem of evil and suffering has to be taken very seriously and requires determined analysis and development of arguments, the action of the reasoning faculty. I can't either dismiss it from sort of higher perspective of consciousness, or entirely depend on faith. The following is a paraphrasing of the short essay by Granville Sewell (https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/the-biggest-theological-objection-to-design/). I think it is one of the best deistic rationalizations of the reality of evil I have encountered. Of course there are other rationalizations, and of course the materialist view that no valid rationalization is possible, so “suck it up”. A vast amount of suffering is caused by evil actions of human beings. Second, there is a vast amount of “natural evil” caused by the natural world by things like disease, floods and earthquakes. Any proposed deistic or other solution to the ancient theological problem of suffering has to explain both categories. The basic approach in this essay was to combine various arguments that mankind’s suffering is an inevitable accompaniment of our greatest blessings and benefits, the result of a vast number of intricate tradeoffs. Why pain, suffering and evil? Main points that are made: (1) There is the observed regularity of natural law. The basic laws of physics appear to be cleverly designed to create conditions suitable for human life and development. It can be surmised that this intricate fine-tuned design is inherently a series of tradeoffs and balances, allowing and fostering human existence but also inevitably allowing “natural evil” to regularly occur. In other words, the best solution to the overall “system requirements” (which include furnishing manifold opportunities for humans to experience and achieve) inherently includes natural effects that cause suffering to human beings. This points out that there may be logical and fundamental limitations to God’s creativity. Maybe even He can’t 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously. Maybe He doesn’t have complete control over nature, because that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life. (2) There is the apparent need for human free will as one of the most important “design requirements”. This inevitably leads to vast amounts of suffering caused by evil acts of humans to each other. Unfortunately, there is no way to get around that one, except to make humans “zombies” or robots, which would defeat the whole purpose of human existence. (3) Some suffering is necessary to enable us to experience life in its fullest and to achieve the most. Often it is through suffering that we experience the deepest love of family and friends. “The man who has never experienced any setbacks or disappointments invariably is a shallow person, while one who has suffered is usually better able to empathize with others. Some of the closest and most beautiful relationships occur between people who have suffered similar sorrows.” Some of the great works of literature, art and music were the products of suffering. “One whose life has led him to expect continued comfort and ease is not likely to make the sacrifices necessary to produce anything of great and lasting value.” It should be noted that the casual claim that all an omnipotent God needs to do is step in whenever accident, disease or evil doings ensue, and cancel out, prevent these happenings. Thus no innocent suffering. One of the most basic problems with this is that it would make the world and its underlying laws of operation purely happenstance and the result of a perhaps capricious God. There would be no regularity of natural law, and therefore there could be no mastery of the physical world by mankind through science. In fact there could be no science and the scientific method as we know them. And of course, there would be little learning from adversity and difficulty, and therefore little depth of character. Sewell concludes: “Why does God remain backstage, hidden from view, working behind the scenes while we act out our parts in the human drama? ….now perhaps we finally have an answer. If he were to walk out onto the stage, and take on a more direct and visible role, I suppose he could clean up our act, and rid the world of pain and evil — and doubt. But our human drama would be turned into a divine puppet show, and it would cost us some of our greatest blessings: the regularity of natural law which makes our achievements meaningful; the free will which makes us more interesting than robots; the love which we can receive from and give to others; and even the opportunity to grow and develop through suffering. I must confess that I still often wonder if the blessings are worth the terrible price, but God has chosen to create a world where both good and evil can flourish, rather than one where neither can exist. He has chosen to create a world of greatness and infamy, of love and hatred, and of joy and pain, rather than one of mindless robots or unfeeling puppets.” Of course, the brute fact is that the bottom line is there is a huge, egregious amount of truly innocent and apparently meaningless suffering, that our instinct tells us is wrong. Is it all worth it? Yes, there may be a rationalization; overall it all may be a vast tradeoff, but some people might conclude it isn’t a good one from the strictly human perspective. The cost is a terrible thing. I reject the strict Christian perspective centered on Jesus's sacrifice. In particular the belief that all humans that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior are condemned to eternal agony in Hell. Regardless of whether they have loved God all their lives, or that they simply have not been exposed to Christian teachings. Surely an immeasureably unjust system. But there is another additional but non-Christian rationalization of the existence of vast amounts of pain, suffering and evil in the world, that would supplement Granville Sewell’s. This is the perspective of the spiritualist movement. Perhaps full acceptance does finally require faith. But this is a faith that it all is really justifiable from the perspective of the soul, and that we are in some incomprehensible way literally our soul. This is the acceptance of the Eastern conception of reincarnation and that Earth life is some sort of “school” in which souls accomplish the learning that can only be accomplished through suffering. Of course, that is not the only purpose of life on Earth, but it is the primary one. There is also the experience of various forms of deep joy that can only take place in a place of physical limitations, great physical beauty, and opportunity for great creativity. Unlike the afterlife existence essentially in which “thoughts are things”, and the Light of God is always available. This rationalization has the advantage of having a large body of empirical evidence to partially back it up. This would primarily be the very many veridical independently verified NDE experiences, and also the similarly investigated and verified reincarnation memories of small children. Also to be considered excellent empirical evidence is the large body of verified mediumistic communications.doubter
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Doubter said:
This response clearly confirms my assessment of the view your version of MRT takes of human evil and cruelty. That it is experienced by humans only because they (the “victims”) have such a consciousness as to actually invite abuse and murder. So the raped woman brought it on herself by her thoughts and actions – she invited the raping, and so on with all the other victims of evil deeds. Such a doctrine is incredibly repugnant.
I completely understand that reaction. If you're not too offended to continue, let's look at the available ontological perspectives by how they generally frame the question of evil and victimization. First, there's materialism, but we know that isn't true and that we have free will. But, if it were true, then we're all the victims of our material programming and circumstances. We would be the fully bound victims of every thing that happens and thought that occurs to us. Second, there are dualistic, traditional theisms. Under such ontologies, we are all victims of some God's design. Let's say there is a room full of sadistic murderers and rapists, and I force you without consent into that room knowing full well what is going to happen to you, and it is not a matter of probability to me but of certainty. Worse, I knew those murderers and rapists would become such before I forced them into the same room. Under that perspective, they are all, once again, even the murderers and rapists, victims. We're all victims of a more powerful being's design and choices. Under those two categories, we're all entirely, 100% victims. Even evil people making evil choices are victims, and there is no escape from our status of victims, regardless of our post-death status. In the third ontological category of MRTs, the only person that can actually victimize you, or put you into the position of being a victim, is you, because we are all ultimately free to do so if we wish. You feel like that third ontological perspective is "incredibly repugnant." I understand that is a completely normal emotional reaction, at least at first blush, to what I said. That's why I said it bluntly and directly without any hedging: I anticipated your reaction. I mean, how repugnant is victim-blaming, especially when it comes to innocent children? Yikes! What you and others fail to understand is that victim-blaming is exactly what is occurring under the first two ontological categories as well. Since I don't think you're arguing for materialism, let's focus on the dualistic, theistic perspective where you might argue that it is the evil men that are responsible for the victimizing; okay, fair enough. However, forcing someone into a situation where you know the outcome is that they are going to be brutally harmed is every bit as evil as those that brutally harm the person in question. Yet, apparently, through some form of cognitive blindness via ideological commitment (and I could be wrong here, because I don't know your particular belief system,) you give the God that is ultimately the author of this inescapable prison of victimization, and forces people into that world knowing full well what the result will be, ... you give that God a pass from your repugnant condemnation when it is every bit as deserving of that reaction. (Or, you may have another theistic perspective you believe avoids the God-as-victimizer-in-chief situation. If so, please describe that to me.) Now, let's reconsider the third option from a less emotional and reactive perspective. If we are eternal beings totally free and empowered to direct our experience down any path, towards any goal we desire, into any situation we desire, and we cannot interfere in anyone else's freedom to do so, but can only contribute and play a role for them (inasmuch as it is consilient with our own goals and direction,) how is that, in any way, a "repugnant" system? I don't find that system "repugnant" at all. I find it wonderful and awesome.
This is a perverse doctrine that will certainly be very angrily rejected by the vast majority of humans. So it doesn’t look that MRT will ever be accepted. It presupposes such an utterly radical transformation of human consciousness that it just isn’t even remotely possible. A starry eyed impractical Utopian speculation ungrounded in any sort of reality.
We were both "presupposing" that particular hypothetical situation for this part of our discussion in order to examine potential consequences. I didn't claim it was practical or even possible that such a mass transformation could take place.William J Murray
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
WJM @
That’s a bunch of stuff I didn’t say.
And I didn't say that you said them.Origenes
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
WJM@93 This response clearly confirms my assessment of the view your version of MRT takes of human evil and cruelty. That it is experienced by humans only because they (the "victims") have such a consciousness as to actually invite abuse and murder. So the raped woman brought it on herself by her thoughts and actions - she invited the raping, and so on with all the other victims of evil deeds. Such a doctrine is incredibly repugnant. This is a perverse doctrine that will certainly be very angrily rejected by the vast majority of humans. So it doesn't look that MRT will ever be accepted. It presupposes such an utterly radical transformation of human consciousness that it just isn't even remotely possible. A starry eyed impractical Utopian speculation ungrounded in any sort of reality.doubter
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Origenes said:
By definition, an aspect of a larger unity is not in control of itself. Given that the larger unity is in harmony with itself, the aspect has to behave in accord with that larger harmony. Similarly, each aspect of the human body has to be ‘functional’ to the body as a whole — e.g. the left leg cannot do its own thing, cannot be free.
That's a bunch of stuff I didn't say. Try regulating your challenges and questions to things I actually say. I'm not about to try to sort my way through whatever words like "unity" and "harmony" mean to you when I never used them.William J Murray
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
WJM @
… all individuals reside in universal mind. An individual is a particular aspect of universal mind. (….) Everything in the dream are aspects of universal mind, or God if you prefer. It is in this context of apparent self & other that individual awareness can occur. An individual is defined as a particular self & other perspective, which can be called one’s psychology.
By definition, an aspect of a larger unity is not in control of itself. Given that the larger unity is in harmony with itself, the aspect has to behave in accord with that larger harmony. Similarly, each aspect of the human body has to be ‘functional’ to the body as a whole — e.g. the left leg cannot do its own thing, cannot be free. The principal problem for MRT: how can the individual be truly free and simultaneously be an aspect of a larger unity, which demands its functionality [its ‘aspectness’] to that larger unity? How is it that with two captains on one ship, both are in full control and both are free?Origenes
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
We are either ultimately victims of beings and forces beyond our power to do anything about, or we are free, eternal beings that are in charge of our own experiential pathways. There's no third way to look at it. MRT is really the ONLY perspective that provides for the latter.William J Murray
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Doubter said:
And you are saying that under MRT rape “victims” just invited their rapes by their inner psychology, maybe dressing the wrong way and inviting their rapists to do their horrid and cruel deeds.
It has nothing to do with the way anyone dresses, but you are essentially correct. Nobody experiences anything that is not, ultimately, cause by some aspect of their psychology.
And in this doctrine if there are no true victims there also are no true evil doers.
Of course there are. Being evil is an existent psychology. Victimhood is an existent psychology. Those are real things in the same way anything is real under MRT: you experience those things.
God help us if MRT is accepted as the underlying truth – defense lawyers would always have a sure-fire defense of the their clients – their clients’ deeds were just the underlying way of the world and they cannot be blamed.
If MRT is true, and is accepted as true, there would be no need for a criminal justice system because every individual would accept the responsibility for their own experiences and be empowered to make whatever changes they need to make to their own psychology to leave the "world" of victimization and victimhood behind. The essential nature of "the criminal justice system" is representative of a mass, deep psychology of victimhood. Most religions here are victimhood based psychologies. When you think about it, this is really a world steeped in many forms of psychological victimhood with countless manifestations of all sorts, even down to the very physical laws that seem to imprison us and subject us to all kinds of pain and suffering. Even our own bodies victimize us with impairment, disease, pain, disability, aging, etc.William J Murray
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Origenes asks:
Under MRT, what is an individual? I take it that the individual is not one thing on its own, but instead is an aspect of a larger mind. Am I correct?
Yes, all individuals reside in universal mind. An individual is a particular aspect of universal mind. An analogy (or perhaps some sort of example) would be what occurs in dreaming, but with what might be a fairly substantive difference. The universal mind (analogous to the person sleeping and having a dream) is not in what we would call a self-ware state; it is the avatar in the dream that is aware. The potential difference is that other people in the dream are also aware. Everything in the dream are aspects of universal mind, or God if you prefer. It is in this context of apparent self & other that individual awareness can occur. An individual is defined as a particular self & other perspective, which can be called one's psychology. A psychology can be seen as the product of an algorithmic language that accesses particular sets of experiential potential. To access fundamentally different experiences, the "algorithm" must be changed in some substantive manner, represented by a change in one's psychology. This can be done deliberately.William J Murray
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
WJM@76
"….conscious, sentient beings experience only that which is caused or allowed by their own psychology. Also, they find themselves in the apparent external context that is suited to their psychology. No “evil person” can visit upon anyone anything other than that which is contextually congruent with their psychology."
It also occurs to me that you are saying that under MRT there are no true "victims", they are always somehow inviting their terrible experiences through their inner psychology. This sounds to be a rather evil and horrid doctrine - according to MRT the so-called "victims" of the Holocaust brought about their own torture, suffering and mass deaths because they invited it from their Jew-hating opressors. And the "victims" of serial killers like Ted Bundy really invited their murders by having just the right psychology. And you are saying that under MRT rape "victims" just invited their rapes by their inner psychology, maybe dressing the wrong way and inviting their rapists to do their horrid and cruel deeds. And in this doctrine if there are no true victims there also are no true evil doers. So the underlying basis of the criminal justice system is misfounded, and criminals need not be caught, convicted and punished for their crimes. God help us if MRT is accepted as the underlying truth - defense lawyers would always have a sure-fire defense of the their clients - their clients' deeds were just the underlying way of the world and they cannot be blamed. Needless to say, this MRT doctrine (once its implications are properly understood) will be held to be abhorrent by the vast majority.doubter
January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
WJM @ Under MRT, what is an individual? I take it that the individual is not one thing on its own, but instead is an aspect of a larger mind. Am I correct?
Since information is meaning, and meaning requires sentient consciousness, potential (which is information) is defined as that which has meaning to sentient consciousness. You cannot separate the two. They are intractable aspects of each other.
And what is its relationship to the potential? How is it that the potential and the individual are one thing?Origenes
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
WJM@76
....conscious, sentient beings experience only that which is caused or allowed by their own psychology. Also, they find themselves in the apparent external context that is suited to their psychology. No “evil person” can visit upon anyone anything other than that which is contextually congruent with their psychology.
This sounds like magic to me. Under MRT, why should a paranoid psychopath with delusions of persecution not modify his reality so as to cause death or great pain to some person (who is in his experienced reality) that he imagines is persecuting him? This person in his reality is admirably suited to the paranoid psychopath's psychology in that he does something we would consider innocuous but is interpreted by the psychopath as a threat. It looks to me that you are proposing some sort of external intelligently controlled MRT system that is designed to ensure that no deliberate harm can occur. Magic and intelligent design. The only alternative explanation under MRT would seem to be that this person the psychopath interprets as a threat has no real existence but as an immaterial actualization of his own psychology. But then, in general this leads to total solipsism in that in general none of us encounter any external real entities other than manifestations of our own consciousness. That would be irrational and nonsensical, a descent into absurdity.doubter
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Your theory of reality has failed It is also a logical irrelevancy
Have you stopped breathing, eating and drinking in Texas? Just got back from the local Walmart where I stocked up on food and beverages. Amazing this external world has food and beverages for purchase though a lot shelves were nearly bare. So my logical irrelevancy is keeping my family alive. Maybe Murray doesn’t really exist and I am hallucinating that someone is typing messages some place. But in the meantime I’m well fed.jerry
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Jerry said:
But what one believes may have no justification or basis in reality. In other words the belief has no evidence supporting it, thus no truth in it
Before you get to whether or not evidence has support "in reality," you must first have a sound premise of what "reality" is and how it works. IOW, your evidence must first support your theory of reality - what it is, how it works. The theory of an external, material, objective reality has been scientifically disproved. It is also a logical irrelevancy. Third, nobody can ever, even in principle, verify directly such a thing exists. Your theory of reality has failed. More and more scientists in many fields are turning to MRTs of one sort or anther because it is the only kind of theory of reality left on the table. But, of course, you are free to believe as you wish.William J Murray
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
We’re all free to believe as we wish.
True!!! But what one believes may have no justification or basis in reality. In other words the belief has no evidence supporting it, thus no truth in itjerry
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Origenes @ 82 We're all free to believe as we wish.William J Murray
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Origenes: Randomness is due to lack of law. That sounds religious or something. That is not a definition of randomness. Randomness strictly speaking is unpredictibility. The more unpredictible, the more random. And there are excellent statistical tests available to grade the level of unpredictibility. Quantum reduction of superposition is the best source of unpredictibility that we know of. Nobody knows how this works. --Ramram
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
If nobody feared death, none of these conversations would exist. Let me clue you in: don't fear death --Ramram
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
WJM @
O: I hold that physical laws exist and cause things to happen.
WJM: Then you do not understand what a physical law is. That’s the same as saying randomness causes something to happen.
Randomness is due to lack of law.
Neither randomness or physical laws cause anything to happen;
Physical laws cause things to happen.
they are descriptions/models of behavior of phenomena in our experience. It’s a common mistake, though.
Perhaps you think that E = mc2 is a law. However equations are descriptions of the laws and, unlike the laws themselves, do not cause anything to happen.
We have no idea what causes the pattern of behavior we see around objects with mass, but we call that pattern “gravity.”
I say that a law causes the pattern gravity.
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon.
Indeed, the phenomenon “law.”
It doesn’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.
The law, which is irreducible to physical processes, causes it.
Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
Origenes
January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
From LiveScience: https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.
IOW, "gravity" isn't a cause. It's a highly predictive model. We have no idea what causes the pattern of behavior we see around objects with mass, but we call that pattern "gravity."William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
One of the fruits of this discussion is that I just realized that it is only if MRT is true can people not be experiencing a facsimile of the real world. Only MRT provides the capacity to actually, directly experience the real world.William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Origenes said:
By that logic the Apollo 11 moon landing could not be fake because no actual moon landing existed.
You're still arguing from non-MRT perspective. A fake is not the real thing. Under MRT, mental experience is is the real thing. Your mind is not "faking" something else. However, under non-MRT, all you can ever possibly experience is a fake: a mental representation of an external material world you an never directly experience. The "real thing" in MRT is the experience, not something outside of the experience that your mind is simulating (and so is a fake.)
If I understand MRT correctly, DNA does not exist —is not actualized as experience— if we do not look. And what does not exist, does not do anything.
Incorrect. All possible thing exist in potential whether any particular individual is experiencing that information or not.
I hold that physical laws exist and cause things to happen.
Then you do not understand what a physical law is. That's the same as saying randomness causes something to happen. Neither randomness or physical laws cause anything to happen; they are descriptions/models of behavior of phenomena in our experience. It's a common mistake, though.William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
I hold that physical laws exist and cause things to happen.
So does Murray. Murray lives in Texas, between Dallas and San Antonio. He works for a living, drives a car, breaths, eats, drinks, has children, writes books, pays taxes etc in his world. He also uses a computer and spouts nonsense every day on this site. People respond to him as if he is serious which is the most incredible thing that happens on UD.jerry
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
WJM @
Deep fake? Not sure what you mean by that. MRT isn’t “faking” a detailed physical experience; that would presume that there is some kind of authentic, existent material world it is “faking.” That characterization appears to be from the assumption that such a world “actually” exists.
By that logic the Apollo 11 moon landing could not be fake because no actual moon landing existed.
How do you know our bodies in dreams would not have DNA if we looked close enough?
If they have DNA it would serve no function.
What do you mean, “DNA doesn’t exist” if we don’t look? DNA obviously exists, and has always existed, in potential – just not the way it exists under the non-MRT perspective, as a material commodity external of mind.
If I understand MRT correctly, DNA does not exist —is not actualized as experience— if we do not look. And what does not exist, does not do anything.
Under non-MRT, what we call “physical laws” don’t do anything because they are descriptions of behavior, not causes. They are models, not “things” that cause anything to occur.
I hold that physical laws exist and cause things to happen.Origenes
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Doubter said:
Yes, but the corresponding potential disastrous consequences ...
You are once again evaluating the ramifications of MRT from a non-MRT perspective. As I said, conscious, sentient beings experience only that which is caused or allowed by their own psychology. Also, they find themselves in the apparent external context that is suited to their psychology. No "evil person" can visit upon anyone anything other than that which is contextually congruent with their psychology. Furthermore, nothing can stop that which is in one's psychology from manifesting in their experience. Victims are going to be victims one way or another, regardless of which person meets the psychological requirements for doing the victimizing.
When deeply considering such a possibility it becomes apparent that development of human beings in general is not at the stage where such abilities could be anything but disastrous.
Only if you mistakenly evaluate it under an non-MRT perspective.William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
WJM@71
The potential benefit of research into MRT is enormous, to say the least. Did you know that millions of people actually use MRT methodology in their daily lives under various labels, such as “the law of attraction” and “reality transurfing?”
Yes, but the corresponding potential disastrous consequences of more powerful developments of these capabilities are also enormous. Just consider the possibility of great numbers of people acquiring the ability through telekinesis to exert forces of only a few ounces on any point in spacetime they choose. Unfortunately there inevitably would be many deranged or evil individuals who would use this paranormal power (utilizing the MRT paradigm) to kill or cripple numberless other people, by just exerting a little force on the appropriate spots in the heart for instance, so as to cause a heart attack. Or in one of the carotid arteries or a small brain blood vessel so as to cause a stroke. It is just too dangerous at this point of human development.
Here’s a question: what if it is your own deep-psychology beliefs/perspective that is actually organizing what you experience as your physical reality and how you experience it? Would that be useful knowledge? Would you consider that empowering knowledge, or would you recoil from it? Would that be something worth testing?
When deeply considering such a possibility it becomes apparent that development of human beings in general is not at the stage where such abilities could be anything but disastrous. Most people are not lifelong meditators with complete control over their thoughts (I certainly am not), so there is no guarantee that I (or any other relatively normal person) would not fuelled by momentary irritation or anger, compulsively think of doing something bad to another person. And this is just considering psychologically normal individuals, not psychopaths for instance.doubter
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Origenes said:
In fact, at no point the physical laws do anything.
Under non-MRT, what we call "physical laws" don't do anything because they are descriptions of behavior, not causes. They are models, not "things" that cause anything to occur.
What the potential offers us is not determined by physical laws.
Nothing is determined by physical laws. You're mistaking a model for a cause.
At any point we can decide to experience another set of physical laws or, perhaps, no physical laws at all. When we have continuous experiences with respect to physical laws it is not because of those physical laws; instead it is by our choice.
Ultimately, yes. Physical laws are models of experience. They do not cause the experience to occur under MRT (or even under non-MRTs.) Ultimately, what causes every aspect of one's experience is their own psychology, which is largely a subconscious feature.William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply