Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why (some) physicists think a multiverse exists

Categories
Cosmology
Multiverse
Physics
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
Origenes said:
However, there is no reason for this and all deep fake, since every world is an experience in the mind, like a dream, where bodies work just fine without DNA. And of course DNA does not exist, if we don’t look at it.
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. How do you know our bodies in dreams would not have DNA if we looked close enough? 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. It seems to me you are continuing your criticism of MRT by characterizing it, and assessing it, from a non-MRT perspective. Which I totally understand.William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
WJM @
O: We create bodies with billions of cells, with DNA and proteins for no apparent reason (?) and “without even knowing it”?
WJM: I’m not sure what you mean by “reason.” Do you mean explanation, or motivation? Also, we don’t “create” anything, as I’ve said repeatedly. It all already exists in potential.
The potential contains worlds with bodies which by elaborate means, such as DNA, overcome the obstacles presented by chemistry & physical laws. However, there is no reason for this and all deep fake, since every world is an experience in the mind, like a dream, where bodies work just fine without DNA. And of course DNA does not exist, if we don’t look at it. In fact, at no point the physical laws do anything. What the potential offers us is not determined by physical laws. 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. Right?Origenes
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Doubter @70, It appears we agree that "mind over matter" (and other psi phenomena) does exist, to some degree, even here. I think we would both agree that this capacity is more readily on display, and more commonly powerful in obtaining effects, within our own physical bodies. You single out the dangers of advanced psi capacity as a reason for the "powers-that-be" to severely limit their use; but what about electrical engineering? What about biotechnology? What about nuclear fission? What about the manipulative power of various marketing and propaganda techniques that most people aren't even aware is guiding a lot of their thought processes? I think you are singling out psi ability without good reason as something that should be arbitrarily prevented from our capacity to develop by the "powers that be." 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?" 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?William J Murray
January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
If our mind, thoughts, psychology can affect not only our physical body (we already know that’s true,) but also physical reality around us, would that be a useful capacity?
Of course. Such a suggestion would seem to be something along the lines of psi phenomena like telekinesis and esp phenomena like precognition. Much research by parapsychologists and other scientists (like Dean Radin) has well established that psi and esp phenomena exist. Unfortunately they are at least normally very weak except in certain very gifted individuals. This makes finding practical applications of mind over matter phenomena very difficult. For instance, if telekinesis and precognition were strong abilities in many people the casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City would soon be out of business, but the casinos are doing fine. A few companies have tried to use remote viewing phenomena to make money, but with very limited success. More importantly, such abilities if significantly powerful would be extremely dangerous, due to the prevalent great degree of imperfection in human personalities. The conventional spiritualistic non-MRT interpretation of this seems to me to be most appropriate: such abilities to essentially change physical reality mentally and directly without physical instrumentalities is most likely purposely prevented in the design of our reality by the powers-that-be - it would be too easy to be abused. Such powers are purposely limited to existence in the spiritual realm, the native environment where "thoughts are things", with only a very weak capability allowed in the physical.doubter
January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Doubter said @68:
It’s hard to see how MRT can be anything but an academic exercise in impractical futility, of interest mainly to philosophers and maybe a few quantum physics theorists.
Of course it's hard to see. As you said to open with:
Lifelong experience and habit, enforced by necessity.
And, to be fair, that's how you were raised, and that was the modus operandi of everyone you came in contact with. There was never any need to question it; it's not like, without MRT, you were missing some understanding or capacity necessary to stay alive and thrive. So, you're an electronics engineer? I wonder how many people lived on this planet without electronics? Or any kind of theory of electromagnetism? I bet that would be a hard sell if you took that back in time and tried to explain it. They'd probably think you were crazy. How could that possibly have any real impact in the lives of ancient, tribal cultures? And that's the essential point here. The real question is not if you can lead your life just fine without it - obviously we can. The question is whether or not MRT would have any practical applications that would be useful in some way. If our mind, thoughts, psychology can affect not only our physical body (we already know that's true,) but also physical reality around us, would that be a useful capacity?William J Murray
January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
WJM@65
We’re that sentient consciousness. It seems you’re still thinking in terms of an actual, external-of-mind material universe, and your questions and objections seem to be coming from that perspective.
Lifelong experience and habit, enforced by necessity. Considering the practicalities of physical life how else can we live our lives rather than just exactly as if there really is an exceedingly obstinately objective and physical external world that constantly obtrudes itself into our lives. I'm an electronics engineer. I couldn't have had a successful career if I did not study and work exactly as if there really is an objective external world that behaves extremely exactly as if there is an extreme regularity to natural law. For one instance out of uncountable others that continually occur, how are we supposed to react to the mid-Pacific volcanic eruption a few days ago, rather than to compassionately offer physical aid to the islanders physically affected by the catastrophe? Of course, we could sit back and say, "this is all a elaborate illusion. There is no volcanic eruption - it is merely that consciousness (obviously not my personal one but some other nebulously defined consciousness) has manifested this illusion out of the endless potentials present in the ground of reality. No mind to this, it doesn't really matter, there is no real need to do anything." Of course then there is also the most obviously constant ubiquitous and convincingly objective physical intrusion into our consciousness - the physical objective external (to consciousness) state of our own physical bodies. If we don't pay close attention to this objective physical reality, we will get physically dead much sooner than otherwise. It's hard to see how MRT can be anything but an academic exercise in impractical futility, of interest mainly to philosophers and maybe a few quantum physics theorists.doubter
January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Origenes asks:
Under MRT, is there an explanation for stuff like DNA? If “dreams are essentially the same as what we call our waking reality” what is the reason for those kind of details?
Why wouldn't there be details if it's all basically an algorithmic/geometric expression of information? Is there an end to the detail and complexity to a fractal? What is actually surprising under MRT is that there appears to be an end to the available detail at planck length and time, not that detail exists.
We create bodies with billions of cells, with DNA and proteins for no apparant reason (?) and “without even knowing it”?
I'm not sure what you mean by "reason." Do you mean explanation, or motivation? Also, we don't "create" anything, as I've said repeatedly. It all already exists in potential.
Wait a minute, this is confusing, we are making brains and physical laws (without even knowing it) right?
It would be more accurate to say that we are accessing some of what is available in potential.William J Murray
January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Under MRT, is there an explanation for stuff like DNA? If "dreams are essentially the same as what we call our waking reality" what is the reason for those kind of details?
WJM: Absent what is called “local reality,” which has been entirely disproved repeatedly and conclusively, this is the only available explanation for the intelligent design we find in experiential phenomena: we are doing it ourselves without even knowing it. Such designs are generated by the nature of our sentience as it interacts with potential.
We create bodies with billions of cells, with DNA and proteins for no apparant reason (?) and "without even knowing it"? From the article:
During dreams, however, the brain has fewer limitations since it needn’t obey sensory inputs that themselves are limited by physical laws, and thus the mind can generate experiences unlike the consensus world we’re aware of during the day.
Wait a minute, this is confusing, we are making brains and physical laws (without even knowing it) right?Origenes
January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Doubter said:
I think this is basically untenable unless the theorists can plausibly identify the sentient conscious observers responsible for this in the long ages before human observation of anything, much less the cosmos through telescopes.
I don't think you are quite understanding the theoretical ramifications of certain research, such as the results of the delayed choice, quantum eraser and similar experiments. The experimental research led physicist John Wheeler to say that "he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well." https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/does-the-universe-exist-if-were-not-looking Under MRT, there doesn't need to be any observers "in the past" because "the past" is all potential, as those experiments I mentioned indicate.
Where and what was the sentient intelligent consciousness that actualized in detail the supposed potentials for the physics we now observe?
We're that sentient consciousness. It seems you're still thinking in terms of an actual, external-of-mind material universe, and your questions and objections seem to be coming from that perspective.William J Murray
January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
WJM@63 The Abstract of the paper shows that the paper is strictly for specialists in this esoteric area of quantum physics:
Abstract We show that in the presence of disorder induced by random networks of observers measuring covariant quantities (such as scalar curvature) (3+1)-dimensional quantum gravity exhibits an effective dimensional reduction at large spatio-temporal scales, which is analogous to the Parisi-Sourlas phenomenon observed for quantum field theories in random external fields. After averaging over disorder associated with observer networks, statistical properties of the latter determine both the value of gravitational constant and the effective cosmological constant in the model. Focusing on the dynamics of infrared degrees of freedom we find that the upper critical dimension of the effective theory is lifted from Dcr = 1+1 to Dcr = 3+1 dimensions.
The summary certainly states a popularized conclusion: " ....the presence of extended networks of observers defines the structure of physical reality and spacetime itself." I think this is basically untenable unless the theorists can plausibly identify the sentient conscious observers responsible for this in the long ages before human observation of anything, much less the cosmos through telescopes. At this point in time we know only of humans that could even remotely possibly have the claimed in the paper capability of actualizing reality. Where is and what comprises the "extended network of observers" referred to in the paper, for the countless areas and aspects of physical reality not being observed by humans? And that which has never ever been observed by humans? Such as the far reaches of space before telescopes and the microscopic world not observed before light and electron microscopes and cyclotrons and colliders? Where and what was the sentient intelligent consciousness that actualized in detail the supposed potentials for the physics we now observe? It supposedly must have been very intelligent in order to choose such an apparently intelligently designed system rather than some sort of chaotic mess. Is the matrix of underlying reality supposed to contain some sort of sentient conscious "observers"? If so, the authors should present evidence for that. The conclusion looks like that these claims are invalid based on overwhelming evidence. Of course this problem may really just be a matter of semantics - by the term "observers" the writers may merely mean absolutely anything that perturbs physical reality so as to interact with it. This interpretation would make much more sense.doubter
January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Robert Lanza, the creator of an MRT he calls "Biocentrism," said the following in a 2021 article:
Now, new research, by theoretical physicist Dmitriy Podolskiy, in collaboration with the author, and Andrei Barvinsky (one of the world’s leading theorists in quantum gravity and quantum cosmology) has revealed something remarkable?that the presence of extended networks of observers defines the structure of physical reality and spacetime itself.
The full article at Psychology Today is very interesting, pointing out that under current scientific knowledge re quantum physics, dreams are essentially the same as what we call our waking reality, generated by the same process. Article by Lanza: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/biocentrism/202108/dreams-are-more-real-anyone-thought Scientific experiment he refers to: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/048William J Murray
January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Origenes said:
So, every experience by an individual is due to a fully informed choice? If it is not up to chance in which world we end up, how do we choose our experiences?
Under MRT, all experience is generated by the relationship of the psychology and potential. None of it is random.
Does one choose one’s psychological structure? Or is it up to chance?
Ultimately it's a matter of choice, via the ineffable quality of free will.William J Murray
January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
WJM @
Under MRT, there’s no such thing as “random,” period.
So, every experience by an individual is due to a fully informed choice? If it is not up to chance in which world we end up, how do we choose our experiences?
Consciousness interacting with potential causes experiences in mind to occur under the guiding qualities of the psychological structure of the individual. (…) All possible psychological structures necessarily exist in potential.
Does one choose one’s psychological structure? Or is it up to chance?Origenes
January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Origenes said:
My claim is that not one of those monkeys will ever produce it. IOWs in my view randomness, infinite or not, cannot produce certain things. Perhaps you don’t agree, perhaps you hold that infinite randomness can produce anything, but this idea is vital to the argument I attempt to launch against your MRT.
Under MRT, there's no such thing as "random," period.
As I understand your MRT, you posit random psychological structures & random possible sentient behavior
There are many different kinds of psychologies, but no psychology is internally random at all. That would be a pattern-less psychology, which is essentially a self-refuting concept. There would be no way to be sentient in that scenario.
The fundamentally sane world must be produced by a random process, right? Similarly, Hamlet must be produced by a monkey banging away on a typewriter. For me, the question is, is randomness up to the task?
I have no idea where you got the idea that I've ever said anything about anything in MRT being "random."William J Murray
January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
WJM @58
O: … if every possible human behavior was represented in the potential — then finding ourselves in a sane world as ours would not fit in such a MRT.
I still don’t think you’re quite understanding the ramifications of my MRT. Even without my recent argument that there cannot be any truly “not sane” people (in terms of absolute chaos as psychology), sane people will always find themselves in what appears to them to be a fundamentally sane world.
Let me first explain what I’m trying to do here. In post #50, I put forward the argument that certain phenomena cannot be explained by randomness, and by extension also not by a multiverse. In short, I argue that even an infinite amount of universes filled with monkeys on typewriters cannot explain “Hamlet.” My claim is that not one of those monkeys will ever produce it. IOWs in my view randomness, infinite or not, cannot produce certain things. Perhaps you don’t agree, perhaps you hold that infinite randomness can produce anything, but this idea is vital to the argument I attempt to launch against your MRT. As I understand your MRT, you posit random psychological structures & random possible sentient behavior [monkeys on typewriters] and for me the question is, can such randomness explain a sane world as ours [Hamlet]. Under your MRT, if an individual happens to have a sane psychology, will there be a sane world available for him to experience?
WJM: … sane people will always find themselves in what appears to them to be a fundamentally sane world.
The fundamentally sane world must be produced by a random process, right? Similarly, Hamlet must be produced by a monkey banging away on a typewriter. For me, the question is, is randomness up to the task? But as I said in #50 “At this point it is not clear to me, what the explanatory role for the multiverse exactly is in his MRT.”Origenes
January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
... if every possible human behavior was represented in the potential — then finding ourselves in a sane world as ours would not fit in such a MRT.
I still don't think you're quite understanding the ramifications of my MRT. Even without my recent argument that there cannot be any truly "not sane" people (in terms of absolute chaos as psychology), sane people will always find themselves in what appears to them to be a fundamentally sane world.
Killing millions of people ...
It seems to me that you're trying to use metaphorical labels in order to make a literal case. From my argument, "insane" or "lunatic" would mean an experience without any patterns at all - not just in other people's behaviors, but in their own thoughts, what they see, feel, hear, etc. Zero patterns. Since potential is inherent in and necessarily part of sentient experience (because information = meaning, and meaning requires patterns and comparisons,) there is no truly lunatic or insane sentient being or "world experience" to be had. Hitler, Mao and Stalin did not exhibit "pattern-less" behaviors. Their behaviors were every bit as patterned as our own. Their psychologies were different from ours in some ways, but also very similar (or the same) to most people's in some very fundamental ways - the victimhood archetype, which I explained in #49.William J Murray
January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
Doubter @55 said:
MRT seemingly pulls the rug out from under all of this monumental structure or edifice of science and technology and claims it is all a house built on quicksand. MRT seemingly invalidates the scientific method and tries to establish that consciousness can arbitrarily decide what is apparently objectively real, making the process of experiment and observation, hypothesis and prediction making, repeated experiment and observation, and then mathematical theory making, all an exercise in futility since there is no objective external reality being physically manipulated and observed.
To be fair, it isn't MRT that is "pulling the rug out from under the feet" of all of that; it is that very science you speak of that did that, specifically experimental research into quantum physics. They spent @100 years trying to salvage the idea of "objective reality," but each succeeding experiment closed all the "loopholes." The evidence overwhelmingly indicates there is no such thing, at least in any common understanding of what that means. Various MRTs have recently been offered by various people, such as Bernardo Kastrup and Robert Lanza, in order to explain that evidence.
At least I hope not; ...
I can understand your perspective, but MRT would and does represent an enormous shift in human consciousness. How could it not, if we begin to understand reality as the product of consciousness? I guess if you think it's a good or bad thing just depends on your perspective. Obviously, if MRT is true it isn't going to make computers, planes and the internet suddenly not work; it just means that we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what all that means, how it is being accessed and generated, why it works, etc. When people thought that the sun was something Apollo pulled through the sky with his chariot, the sundials still worked. MRT does not, can not invalidate any working technology, but if true can revolutionize our understand of how all this works, where it all comes from, etc., and so would only potentially serve to open doors and offer new means and methods for all sorts of things far beyond our current capacities and limitations.William J Murray
January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
BTW, Origenes, thanks so much for this discussion. This is one of the big reasons I participate here; occasionally someone takes me through a perspective that forces me to re-think things, or think more deeply.
Thank you for presenting your idea. It is certainly interesting.
If we return to the block of wood example, the potential of a thing is defined by the thing. Under MRT, what is the universal, everything that provides for the extent of all possible, available potential? It is sentience. 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.
This reduces the potential of possible bahavior considerably, and this is helpful to your theory. You posit potential and consciousness as aspects of one thing, and, as you imply, being fundamentally one thing explains their cooperation. Perhaps you agree with me, that without this trimming down of behavioral options — IOWs if every possible human behavior was represented in the potential — then finding ourselves in a sane world as ours would not fit in such a MRT. Ok. Given that in the potential every possible behavior that would make sense to a sentient being is available, are we to expect a sane world like ours? Are you out of the woods already? Is my ‘insanity-argument’ refuted? Killing millions of people made sense to sentient beings like Moa, Stalin, Hitler & Fauci. Torturing & killing innocent people made sense to Ted Bundy & co. Setting oneself on fire, sacrificing children to god, blowing people up, sabotage and so on made sense to several. Should we not expect much more of this insane stuff given that in the potential every possible behavior that could possibly make sense to a sentient being is available? I do think so. Even within the domain of what makes sense to sentient beings, there are far more ways to have a thoroughly twisted view on things than a sane view.
All possible psychological structures necessarily exist in potential.
In your estimation what would be the bandwidth of sane psychological structures?Origenes
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
WJM@54
What we call the physical universe did not have to “come about.” It’s an experience waiting to happen – any time period, any location, anything at all that exists in the subset of all potential that we would call “this” physical universe is always available, throughout eternity, for any sentient being to experience.
But this is the crux of the problems with MRT - as a matter of practical necessity mankind has developd an extremely successful scientific and technological enterprise which has transformed our life on Earth. This scientific method is founded on the common sense notion that there is an independent external world. Countless times observations have been consistent and repeated and resulted in extremely fruitful hypotheses, theories and mathematical descriptions of an apparently independent physical world which can be repeatedly successfully manipulated to build a high technology. Just a small part of this has been the scientific sub-discipline of cosmology and astrophysics, which has developed very much experimental evidence of there having been a beginning of literally everything. A beginning or Big Bang with many strong implications of intelligent design of our physical reality. This evidence doesn't tranform or go away merely because of changes in the astrophysicists' conscious opinions or predilections or dearly held paradigms. MRT seemingly pulls the rug out from under all of this monumental structure or edifice of science and technology and claims it is all a house built on quicksand. MRT seemingly invalidates the scientific method and tries to establish that consciousness can arbitrarily decide what is apparently objectively real, making the process of experiment and observation, hypothesis and prediction making, repeated experiment and observation, and then mathematical theory making, all an exercise in futility since there is no objective external reality being physically manipulated and observed. Since such a revolution would destroy the foundations of our scientific and technological system that has been so successful as to advance mankind out of medieval culture, MRT doesn't look to ever be successful in changing human consciousness of reality. At least I hope not; I would like to continue to benefit from high technogy in the way I live, and so would the vast majority of other humans in the first world at least. It would seem to be a practical necessity for our civilization to reject MRT as anything but an arcane flight of academic philosophical imagination.doubter
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Doubter said:
Especially, how did it come about without the intervention of some sort of focused sentient conscious Intelligence?
Apparently, you're thinking about what we call "the universe" as being "real" in some sort of terms other than as mental experience. What we call the physical universe did not have to "come about." It's an experience waiting to happen - any time period, any location, anything at all that exists in the subset of all potential that we would call "this" physical universe is always available, throughout eternity, for any sentient being to experience. It doesn't have to be "created" and run for billions of years in order to be able to have your experience or my experience. That's just what it would look like from our perspective.William J Murray
January 14, 2022
January
01
Jan
14
14
2022
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
I meant to add that you have explained that MRT contends that its system of reality has always inherently, or existentially necessarily, existed. But this element is one of the basic philosophical problems encountered by most of the implausible cyclical eternal meta-Universe theories proposed so far, and is one of the reasons for their implausibility, along with many ad-hoc assumptions and other difficulties.doubter
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
WJM@13
"Under MRT, existence is made up entirely of information and consciousness. The information is in the form of potential. Everything that possibly exits, necessarily exists as potential. There’s no need to go further than this; intelligent designed phenomena necessarily exist because they are possible. However, to go further, sentient consciousness has a fundamental, inescapable relationship with intelligible patterns in our experience; in fact, we cannot exist as sentient, intelligent beings without being in a context of intelligible patterns and designs."
This summary statement in itself doesn't address the issue of whether there was an absolute beginning or not. The issue of beginnings has not been extensively explored here yet. MRT says that its system of reality has always existed, but it seems to me that if the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of our Universe and our reality (as is indicated by a large body of research), then the big question remains, how did the MRT system of reality come about from absolutely nothing? Especially, how did it come about without the intervention of some sort of focused sentient conscious Intelligence? Something, or more likely some sort of conscious entity, outside of time and space must have created it. There is a lot of evidence now accumulated for the existence of the Big Bang, and because of its philosophical and theological implications the scientific establishment continues to try to avoid a beginning by coming up with some sort of plausible eternal, cyclical existence theory. But this has been to no avail, and all this effort doesn't look to ever be successful. A couple of recent attempts were those of Roger Penrose and of Steinhardt and Ijjas. These have also been shown simply not to work. Penrose's theory is dubbed “conformal cyclical cosmology” (CCC). As pointed out in this article (https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/another-attempt-by-an-esteemed-cosmologist-to-avoid-a-cosmic-beginning-collapses-on-inspection/),
Given the lack to supporting evidence and the ad hoc assumptions, CCC offers no serious challenge to the evidence that the universe had a beginning.
Concerning Steinhardt and Ijjas's new theory (discussed at https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/paul-steinhardts-cyclical-cosmology-fails-to-challenge-a-cosmic-beginning/),
(They) developed a cyclical model. It assumes that the universe expands eternally through a continuous series of cycles. Each cycle includes an expansion phase, a contraction phase, and then a bounce that transitions the universe from contraction back to expansion. The universe transitions from expansion to contraction through an unknown mechanism such as the tension in a higher-dimensional brane in which our universe is hypothetically embedded. The bounce results from another mechanism such as two branes colliding. The bounce occurs long before the universe contracts back to its original volume after the previous bounce, so the volume of the universe expands dramatically each cycle (see figure). As with Penrose’s model, Steinhardt and Ijjas’s model faces the philosophical problems of requiring an infinite universe, and it must rely on a large number of questionable assumptions. Their effort to construct a model to explain the universe is perfectly reasonable, so I have no criticism of their sincerity or their competence. Yet the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is far more parsimonious and consistent with the evidence. The main reason for the resistance against it from many in the scientific community is its philosophical and theological implications.
doubter
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
It’s illogical for a person
When has logic for several commenters here have to do with anything other than saying they supports it? Actually using it is a completely different matter.jerry
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
What cannot be explained by a multiverse? (1.) Static Physical laws. If there is an infinite amount of universes out there, so that every possible set of physical laws exists, then I don’t see a principle explanatory problem. Arguably the mechanism that churns out universes needs to be fine-tuned itself, but if we put that aside, a multiverse could in principle explain the particular set of static physical laws that we have. (2.) Organisms Some argue that an organism can be regarded as a static thing, similarly to a static set of physical laws. I have argued many times against this view. An organism is constantly changing. Each cell is constantly going from one unlikely equilibrium state to the next. During its life cycle a cell is always in equilibrium, but never the same. And every equilibrium state is surrounded by a sea of non-equilibrium states, that is, an ocean of death. The collection of equilibrium states is an exceedingly small subset of all possible states. There is no physical explanation for this treading on the narrow path consisting of equilibrium states. From a materialistic standpoint each step to the next equilibrium state is like winning the lottery. And making it through the day is like winning the lottery a gazillion times in a row. Can a multiverse explain this? I don’t think it can. Similarly not one of an infinite amount of monkeys on typewriters will produce Hamlet. Randomness can neither explain Hamlet nor life. It just won’t happen. (3.) Human behavior Rational behavior is, like the equilibrium states of life, an exceedingly small subset of all possible human behavior. There is no physical necessity for rational behavior. We make computers, space ships and write books. Can this be explained by randomness and chance — a multiverse? I would say “No”. - - - - p.s. to be clear, I am not implying that WJM's MRT proposes to explain life and/or human behavior by chance/multiverse/materialism. At this point it is not clear to me, what the explanatory role for the multiverse exactly is in his MRT.Origenes
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Origenes said:
I’m mystified about what those “fundamentally similar factors in their psychology” could possibly be.
I've thought a lot about this and have come up with some good examples of what I call "archetypical" psychological patterns that serve to draw fundamentally similar experiences out of potential. across many individuals. One of the most basic ones that I've identified is what I call the "victimhood psychology." One might think of it as a kind of deep, psychological algorithm that generates a pattern of experience out of potential. I'm not just talking about people that walk around always claiming victimhood status from one thing or another. I'm talking about a fundamental pattern that can be found as essential aspects of the "universe" they are experiencing. Such as: in the very "laws of nature" that "victimize" them, or constrain their choices and behaviors in fundamental ways. This pattern broadens out into other things that victimize them; society, more powerful people, random events that impact them. They feel they must "conform" their behavior and thoughts by submitting to this "real world" that is beyond their capacity to do anything about. IOW, the ERT (external-of-mind reality theory) perspective is, ultimately, a "victimhood" algorithm, as opposed to the self-empowering, non-victimhood (or creative) perspective of at least some MRTs.William J Murray
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
BTW, Origenes, thanks so much for this discussion. This is one of the big reasons I participate here; occasionally someone takes me through a perspective that forces me to re-think things, or think more deeply. If we return to the block of wood example, the potential of a thing is defined by the thing. Under MRT, what is the universal, everything that provides for the extent of all possible, available potential? It is sentience. 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. Heheheheh. This is really good. There is no such thing as a "lunatic experience" because, ultimately, that phrase is just as self-contradictory as "square circle" or "nothing" (no thing.) Experience always have meaning, they necessarily have meaning. BTW, I'm using "lunatic" and "meaning" in what would be very strict logical values. "Lunatic" would be better understood as "pure, meaningless noise absent any meaningful context." It's not in terms of people just behaving weirdly, or experiencing something one doesn't understand or doesn't seem to make sense. "Meaning" exists even if we see static on a TV screen or throw paint randomly at a canvas and look at the results. Those are not "lunatic" or "meaningless" experiences or observations.William J Murray
January 13, 2022
January
01
Jan
13
13
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
WJM @
O: I have a question about this potential multiverse. Wouldn’t you agree that the overwhelming majority of potential universes resembles a lunatic asylum on steroids, because, as I have argued before, the amount of possible crazy behavior far outstrips rational behavior?
WJM: First, let’s make sure you’re thinking about “a universe” in terms of what that means from the MRT perspective. Under MRT, “a universe” is a set of experiential norms that that are very similar in the minds of a group of observers due to some fundamentally similar factors in their psychology.
So, an individual chooses to experience a certain potential universe, and others independently choose to experience that same potential universe, which results in a joined experience of one particular potential universe? And their convergence on this particular universe is explained by fundamentally similar factors in their psychology? IOWs the true lunatics are not there? Maybe this can explain a (relatively) sane world. One problem with this is that in my view there is an enormous variety in ‘psychological structures’ out there, so I’m mystified about what those “fundamentally similar factors in their psychology” could possibly be.
To make the case that there are more lunatic universes than rational ones, you’d have to make the case that it’s more like likely that any observer would have a lunatic psychology. I don’t think that case can be made; I think the case can be better made that sentient beings almost(?) universally require order and comprehensibility because fundamental logic, math and geometry are necessary aspects of sentience. The behavior of such beings would much more likely be orderly and comprehensible in some way, not just random acts that are merely possible. [ETA: on further reflection, I’m wondering if a truly lunatic state of mind is even possible, meaning, I don’t know that they are present even in potential. Thanks for getting me to think about this in new and deeper ways!]
Perhaps it can indeed be argued that a sentient being cannot have a truly lunatic state of mind. However, even if this is the case, from where comes the requirement that the inhabitants of the multiverse are sentient beings? Why would there be such a requirement that sets limits to what an inhabitant of a multiverse can possibly be? Also, history shows us that lunatic behavior is indeed possible.
Also, for lunatics, remember that it’s not just behavior that reflects that psychology; it’s also reflected in a lack of experience of physical laws, in inanimate objects, etc. They would experience a mad world. How is language possible in such a world? How is communication possible? How would mutual agreement of where something is and what it looks like occur, if the world you experience is random and chaotic, and you behave and act in random and chaotic ways, having random, chaotic thoughts?
But, of course, that’s my point. I am arguing that, under MRT, a forum where no cogent sentence is written is far more likely to occur than uncommondescent.com.
There may be experiences like that, but I don’t see how there could be a “universe,” as I defined above, like that.
I think I can make the argument that any sane universe is overwhelmingly likely to ‘collapse’ into an insane universe at any moment.
Keep in mind: under MRT, “potential” is limited to what can be experienced by a sentient being.
Why? Why is potential not limited by what is ‘possible’, which is arguably far more than what a sentient being can experience?
IOW, truly random, chaotic, meaningless experience does not, cannot exist in potential because it cannot be experienced.
Why would potential consider the limitations of what makes sense to consciousness? How could it? From where would these instructions come from?
Information is meaning. Meaning is a comprehensible comparison. There’s no such thing as “meaningless information,” therefore there’s no such thing as a meaningless experience (even if the meaning of an experience is nothing more than comparative colors or geometrical relationships.)
Ok, but why would potential restrict itself to (meaningful) information? Again, why would it accommodate sentient beings who want meaningful experiences? What prevents me from writing: FYJKHUJLFFDERERt5utkjttut6rytu6tRUTRutUYTUYJUIUYGyGkjliGKJiy[;okuy;i ?
O: Who or what arranges the psychological structure of the individual? Who or what has the knowledge to construct psychological structures?
WJM: All possible psychological structures necessarily exist in potential. Nobody has to construct or arrange them.
Oops! If all psychological structures necessarily exist in potential, then this opens the door to a very similar problem. I can argue that psychological structures that lead to rational behavior are but a small subset of all possible psychological structures. And I can go on to make the case that psychological structures that lead to insane behavior far outstrip those which lead to rational behavior. So, this would lead to similar questions, like: how can it be the case that we find ourselves in an unlikely world where the majority of people is not utterly insane?Origenes
January 12, 2022
January
01
Jan
12
12
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Origenes @44:
I have a question about this potential multiverse. Wouldn’t you agree that the overwhelming majority of potential universes resembles a lunatic asylum on steroids, because, as I have argued before, the amount of possible crazy behavior far outstrips rational behavior?
First, let's make sure you're thinking about "a universe" in terms of what that means from the MRT perspective. Under MRT, "a universe" is a set of experiential norms that that are very similar in the minds of a group of observers due to some fundamentally similar factors in their psychology. To make the case that there are more lunatic universes than rational ones, you'd have to make the case that it's more like likely that any observer would have a lunatic psychology. I don't think that case can be made; I think the case can be better made that sentient beings almost(?) universally require order and comprehensibility because fundamental logic, math and geometry are necessary aspects of sentience. The behavior of such beings would much more likely be orderly and comprehensible in some way, not just random acts that are merely possible. [ETA: on further reflection, I'm wondering if a truly lunatic state of mind is even possible, meaning, I don't know that they are present even in potential. Thanks for getting me to think about this in new and deeper ways!] Also, for lunatics, remember that it's not just behavior that reflects that psychology; it's also reflected in a lack of experience of physical laws, in inanimate objects, etc. They would experience a mad world. How is language possible in such a world? How is communication possible? How would mutual agreement of where something is and what it looks like occur, if the world you experience is random and chaotic, and you behave and act in random and chaotic ways, having random, chaotic thoughts? There may be experiences like that, but I don't see how there could be a "universe," as I defined above, like that. Now, if you define a "universe" as "the experience of an individual," that's another argument. Keep in mind: under MRT, "potential" is limited to what can be experienced by a sentient being. IOW, truly random, chaotic, meaningless experience does not, cannot exist in potential because it cannot be experienced. Information is meaning. Meaning is a comprehensible comparison. There's no such thing as "meaningless information," therefore there's no such thing as a meaningless experience (even if the meaning of an experience is nothing more than comparative colors or geometrical relationships.) Even to what we may call a lunatic, their experiences have meaning to them, even if it is outside of the norm that most people experience. What makes a universe is similar (at some level) psychologies interpreting at least a big subset of available potential as the same orderly values of meaning, such as the geometry of their "common" experiential universe. I don't know that you could say that there are any totally irrational, or lunatic, "universes."
Who or what arranges the psychological structure of the individual? Who or what has the knowledge to construct psychological structures?
All possible psychological structures necessarily exist in potential. Nobody has to construct or arrange them.William J Murray
January 12, 2022
January
01
Jan
12
12
2022
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
It's illogical for a person to posit a multiverse when that person doesn't know what a universe is. Andrewasauber
January 12, 2022
January
01
Jan
12
12
2022
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
WJM @
WJM: For any one universe to exist, there are infinite other potential universes that exist as informational variations of the one that is known to exist. What hat we call “the universe” is, outside of observation, nothing more than informational potential; all possible universe exist as informational potential. Thus, all possible universe exist in the same way, outside of observation, in the same way any experienced universe exists, outside of observation.
O: When you say that “all possible universe exist”, don’t you imply that all possible behavior exist?
WJM: Potential doesn’t cause anything to happen. Consciousness interacting with potential causes experiences in mind to occur (…)
So, all possible universe exist as potential. And only after interaction with consciousness, potential becomes actual, that is as the resulting experiences in mind. I have a question about this potential multiverse. Wouldn’t you agree that the overwhelming majority of potential universes resembles a lunatic asylum on steroids, because, as I have argued before, the amount of possible crazy behavior far outstrips rational behavior? And if you agree, then how can consciousness possibly deal with this potential reality which is extremely skewed towards insanity? The overwhelming supply of insanity by the potential multiverse. How does it find the rational needle in the haystack of insanity?
WJM: (…) under the guiding qualities of the psychological structure of the individual.
Two questions about this: (1.) We do not control the behavior of others. In almost every potential universe others are involved in thoroughly insane behavior, because such behavior is far more likely to occur. So, how can the individual ‘choose’ for a world that does not resemble an insane asylum? Arguably an individual can choose to experience a potential universe in which he himself acts rational, but, given that he cannot control others, how can he not find himself in a universe where others act like completely out of control lunatics? (2.) Who or what arranges the psychological structure of the individual? Who or what has the knowledge to construct psychological structures?Origenes
January 12, 2022
January
01
Jan
12
12
2022
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply