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 @42:
So, does it not follow that, as I said, “Without exception, in every universe things happen because they are possible, not because they make sense”?
Potential doesn't cause anything to happen. Consciousness interacting with potential causes experiences in mind to occur under the guiding qualities of the psychological structure of the individual. If an individual has the kind of psychology that would draw for them the world you describe from potential for their experience, then that is what they will experience.William J Murray
January 12, 2022
January
01
Jan
12
12
2022
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
WJM @
O: Under MRT how could that possibly work? Without exception, in every universe things happen because they are possible, not because they make sense.
Who said that? What MRT are you talking about?
I thought you did. Do correct me if I am wrong.
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.
When you say that “all possible universe exist”, don’t you imply that all possible behavior exist?
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.
And aren’t you saying here that phenomena necessarily exist because they are possible? And not because they make sense? So, does it not follow that, as I said, “Without exception, in every universe things happen because they are possible, not because they make sense”?Origenes
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Origenes said:
Under MRT how could that possibly work? Without exception, in every universe things happen because they are possible, not because they make sense.
Who said that? What MRT are you talking about?William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
WJM @
If your identity isn’t a match for experiencing a world of crazy, irrational behaviors, that’s not what you’re going to experience.
Under MRT how could that possibly work? Without exception, in every universe things happen because they are possible, not because they make sense. IOWs every universe is a lunatic asylum on steroids. There is no escape. Because it is possible, people are attempting to copulate with the pavement, screaming at trees, diving off buildings and the overwhelming majority of cars ignores roads and stop signs. You cannot control the behavior of others, so, under MRT, how could anyone avoid the overwhelming abundance of total madness everywhere?Origenes
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Origenes:
If everything that is possible happens, why does our behavior still make any sense?
WJM said in 37:
Although there are universal rules to sentient experience, within that ruleset is an infinite variety of identity/context relationships and patterns that produce sequences of unique, individual, comprehensible experiences (comprehensibility being one necessary feature of sentient experience.) You might think of this as a “bandwidth” of potential experiences, just as a block of wood or a canvas contains in it a bandwidth of potential.
IOW, you experience what is contextually necessary for/available to the ongoing nature of your identity. If your identity isn't a match for experiencing a world of crazy, irrational behaviors, that's not what you're going to experience.William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
WJM @37
O: Making a painting is just a tiny subset of the many possibilities of actions. It is far out weighted by a multitude of possible totally irrational actions. You can take the blank canvas of the easel and nail it to the floor in an endless variety of ways. Or take it outside and try to hit people on the head with it.
These crazy things are possible so, under MRT, they must exist.Those aren’t irrational things, logically speaking. They are just other things you can do with the canvas.
Right.
A logically irrational thing “to do” with the canvas would be to try teach it to speak because there is no potential in the canvas for it to learn to speak, or to speak at all (using the strict, common idea of those things as I intend them here.) It cannot be done because there is no such potential in the canvas for that outcome.
Agreed. Nailing the canvas to to the floor, or bringing it outside to hit people on the head are possible and not forbidden by ‘logical self-contradiction.’ I did not propose actions that were impossible due to logical self-contradiction.
A “happening,” under MRT, is an individual experience. Individuals don’t experience “every possible thing happening” because, first, it’s a logical impossibility.
Why do you say that? I did not claim that individuals experience “every possible thing happening.”
You can’t experience both A and not-A (in the same manner, place and time.) Such as, you cannot simultaneously experience knowing what vanilla tastes like and not knowing what vanilla tastes like. There are logically necessary conditions and rules to individual sentient experience.
Ok. Do these rules prevent an individual from nailing a canvas to the floor or take it up the roof and force it through the chimney? I take it that they do not.
Although there are universal rules to sentient experience, within that ruleset is an infinite variety of identity/context relationships and patterns that produce sequences of unique, individual, comprehensible experiences (comprehensibility being one necessary feature of sentient experience.)
Yes. And my argument that the vast vast majority of possible actions is what we would normally regard as totally irrational behavior, such as taking the canvas up the roof and forcing it through the chimney.
You might think of this as a “bandwidth” of potential experiences, just as a block of wood or a canvas contains in it a bandwidth of potential.
So, again, if the vast majority of possible [not logically self-contradictory] behavior is totally “crazy”, why don’t we find ourselves in a totally insane world, one big lunatic asylum where everyone is acting like an out-of-control idiot? If MRT is true, and things happen because they are possible, we should expect to live in one of those universes where things happen because they are possible, not because they make sense. Crazy house. So, here is my question again:
O: Given that rational behavior is just a tiny subset of all possible behavior, how do you explain that more often than not our actions make sense? Why don’t we see people banging their heads against buildings all the time, to name one possibility? If everything that is possible happens, why does our behavior still make any sense?
Origenes
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Origenes said:
Making a painting is just a tiny subset of the many possibilities of actions. It is far out weighted by a multitude of possible totally irrational actions. You can take the blank canvas of the easel and nail it to the floor in an endless variety of ways. Or take it outside and try to hit people on the head with it. These crazy things are possible so, under MRT, they must exist.
Those aren't irrational things, logically speaking. They are just other things you can do with the canvas. A logically irrational thing "to do" with the canvas would be to try teach it to speak because there is no potential in the canvas for it to learn to speak, or to speak at all (using the strict, common idea of those things as I intend them here.) It cannot be done because there is no such potential in the canvas for that outcome.
If MRT is true, then why don’t we see that those kind of things more often?
I don't think you quite understood the nature of potential and the limitation of actual logical self-contradiction. I hope the above illustration helps.
If everything that is possible happens, why does our behavior still make any sense?
A "happening," under MRT, is an individual experience. Individuals don't experience "every possible thing happening" because, first, it's a logical impossibility. You can't experience both A and not-A (in the same manner, place and time.) Such as, you cannot simultaneously experience knowing what vanilla tastes like and not knowing what vanilla tastes like. There are logically necessary conditions and rules to individual sentient experience. Although there are universal rules to sentient experience, within that ruleset is an infinite variety of identity/context relationships and patterns that produce sequences of unique, individual, comprehensible experiences (comprehensibility being one necessary feature of sentient experience.) You might think of this as a "bandwidth" of potential experiences, just as a block of wood or a canvas contains in it a bandwidth of potential. Is that enough? Should I go further?William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Doubter said:
At last an explanation of what in MRT the term “potential” really means. It seems that MRT is proposing the same source of actual design in Nature – some sort of mind(s) of a very high order – as inherently proposed by ID (even though ID science does not try to identify the specific designer(s)).
Well, the "M" in MRT does stand for mind, after all. MRTs are a form of idealism, which postulates universal mind of some sort.
It seems to boil down to the MRT contention that these “potentials” in the Aristotlian sense must be a ground of being, of reality, that always existed, and were never actually created by an uncreated supremely powerful mind.
That's my particular MRT, but the logic is inescapable. A supremely intelligent and powerful mind can still only "think of" that which it has the potential to think of. Potential is a logical requirement for anything - even a thought - to become actual, even in mind.
I guess the problem of why there is something not absolutely nothing has never been conclusively and uncontroversially solved.
"No thing" (nothing) is a self-contradictory word in this sense. A "thing" is something; so "nothing" is stating that X is not-X. You might as well be talking about a square circle. "Nothing" in this sense is a literal impossibility, a logical self-contradiction. "No thing exists" is a nonsensical sequence of words. So some thing must exist and, as Parmenides argued, if one thing exists, all possible things exist (at least as potential,) as a simultaneous logical cascade "from" (rather, coexistent with) that one "thing." More pragmatically, we know something exists, so it's a moot point. Obviously, ground of being is necessarily potential. Potential is abstract information; we call the residence of abstract information mind. Any individual observer, regardless of level of what we refer to as "intelligence," is a process of actualizing some potentials into experience. I would say that sentience of any kind requires the actualizing certain fundamental patterns that, of course, are already available in the potential. These patterned experiences and sentience are two sides of the same coin. IOW the potential for sentience is naturally embedded in or with the patterns necessary for sentient experience. Identity and context inescapably go together.William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
WJM @21
In the room I’m in right now there are several blank canvasses and art supplies (brushes, acrylic paint, etc.) If I put a blank canvas on my easel, how many different paintings might I generate? Let’s say that the potential is infinite. Is the potential infinite because some intelligent being deliberately created all that potential? No, the potential necessarily exists as a natural, inescapable aspect of the situation.
Making a painting is just a tiny subset of the many possibilities of actions. It is far out weighted by a multitude of possible totally irrational actions. You can take the blank canvas of the easel and nail it to the floor in an endless variety of ways. Or take it outside and try to hit people on the head with it. These crazy things are possible so, under MRT, they must exist. If MRT is true, then why don’t we see that those kind of things more often? Given that rational behavior is just a tiny subset of all possible behavior, how do you explain that more often than not our actions make sense? Why don’t we see people banging their heads against buildings all the time, to name one possibility? If everything that is possible happens, why does our behavior still make any sense?Origenes
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
WJM@30
You are in fact describing where the potential lies in your comment: the potential for God or man to create a thing lies in their mind/imagination. If the potential was not there, they would not have been able to come up with their invention/creation. If the potential did not exist external of their mind to bring it into physical existence – IOW, if the nature of “a” or “the” physical world could not provide for the existence that thing (meaning, did not have the potential,) – that thing could not be actualized external of the mind.
At last an explanation of what in MRT the term "potential" really means. It seems that MRT is proposing the same source of actual design in Nature - some sort of mind(s) of a very high order - as inherently proposed by ID (even though ID science does not try to identify the specific designer(s)). So I would interpret this to mean that though it is after all understood by MRT that some supremely high intelligence(s) must have designed and created the finely tuned laws of nature and the intricate designs of life, the conundrum is that the "potentials" in the Aristotlian sense for these designs must have always existed. In the same sense that the block of wood inherently, existentially, contains the "potential" for being shaped into some utilitarian object. But it is understood that the block of wood does not contain the actual information required to shape it into a table for instance. It seems to boil down to the MRT contention that these "potentials" in the Aristotlian sense must be a ground of being, of reality, that always existed, and were never actually created by an uncreated supremely powerful mind. In philosophy I guess the problem of why there is something not absolutely nothing has never been conclusively and uncontroversially solved. As the human mind shies away from the concept that even something so unformed as an infinite array of possible "potentials" can come about without some sort of intelligence. So we are at an end in this train of thought. The human mind simply can't encompass and understand infinity.doubter
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Ram said:
Humans are usually limited by a sequence of action. However, humans can sometimes directly access the potentials without it being part of a stream of action context. We call this “genius” when that happens.
Yes, and we also call those things epiphanies, intuition, inspiration, etc. Tesla would often have visions of his inventions, or formulas, just appear whole to him before he invented it. There was an artist, Alfredo Alcala, who could use ink and just trace a whole, very intricate drawing that already existed in his mind though a process he described as mentally projecting the image on the paper or canvas and tracing it. He could start anywhere on the blank medium and just "trace" the drawing from there. There are savants that have the capacity to do or know answers to things without any learning process required, and people that have acquired particular savant abilities after injuries to their head.William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Doubter: Then presumably, these and all other possible creative human inventions and engineering designs and works of art and music must also have eternally existed as potentials, possible manifestations in the physical only requiring sentient consciousness to evoke or actualize them. No designers or artists required, no human effort required. Yes. All of it does exists as potential. You can call it "Platonic" if you like. Usually this Platonic information is accessd in a context of a "stream of action." Think of a magnetic tape head reading a tape. No designers or artists required, no human effort required. Humans are usually limited by a sequence of action. However, humans can sometimes directly access the potentials without it being part of a stream of action context. We call this "genius" when that happens. --Ramram
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Doubter, From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote
Activity is to potentiality, Aristotle tells us, as “what is awake is in relation to what is asleep, and what is seeing is in relation to what has its eyes closed but has sight, and what has been shaped out of the matter is in relation to the matter” (1048b1–3). This last illustration is particularly illuminating. Consider, for example, a piece of wood, which can be carved or shaped into a table or into a bowl. In Aristotle’s terminology, the wood has (at least) two different potentialities, since it is potentially a table and also potentially a bowl. The matter (in this case, wood) is linked with potentialty; the substance (in this case, the table or the bowl) is linked with actuality. The as yet uncarved wood is only potentially a table, and so it might seem that once it is carved the wood is actually a table. Perhaps this is what Aristotle means, but it is possible that he does not wish to consider the wood to be a table. His idea might be that not only can a piece of raw wood in the carpenter’s workshop be considered a potential table (since it can be transformed into one), but the wood composing the completed table is also, in a sense, a potential table. The idea here is that it is not the wood qua wood that is actually a table, but the wood qua table.
IOW, the block of wood does not have the potential to be shaped into a fully functioning battleship or spacecraft, but it does have the potential to be shaped into a table or bowl.William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
Doubter, Unless any actual thing had the potential to come into existence ("existence" meaning, we are able to experience that thing,) it cannot come into existence because there is no potential for its existence. That's a trivial inescapable logical fact. It doesn't matter how that potential becomes actual as something we experience, whether by some God actualizing it or via our actualizing it through our efforts or by any other process. Without the potential for a thing existing somewhere, that thing cannot become actual and experienced. This isn't some esoteric aspect of MRT; this is a basic fact of logic that would apply to any ontological theory. You are in fact describing where the potential lies in your comment: the potential for God or man to create a thing lies in their mind/imagination. If the potential was not there, they would not have been able to come up with their invention/creation. If the potential did not exist external of their mind to bring it into physical existence - IOW, if the nature of "a" or "the" physical world could not provide for the existence that thing (meaning, did not have the potential,) - that thing could not be actualized external of the mind.William J Murray
January 11, 2022
January
01
Jan
11
11
2022
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
It seeems to me that this MRT concept contains within it some untenable implications. The inner designs of our Universe and reality are supposed to have always existed as possible "potentials", including the present laws of physics that are conveniently "fine tuned" for the existence of life as we know it, no creation or other origin story required. Now, complex human engineering creations like the Boeing 747 aircraft and artistic creations like a Mondrian painting are also designs. Then presumably, these and all other possible creative human inventions and engineering designs and works of art and music must also have eternally existed as potentials, possible manifestations in the physical only requiring sentient consciousness to evoke or actualize them. No designers or artists required, no human effort required. Anyway, if this is the case, and this is a clear implication of the theory, why don't Boeing 747 aircraft designs and Mondrian masterpieces appear spontaneously when needed or imagined, rather than requiring the years of grueling painstaking incremental step by step creative efforts of human designers and artists, that has been the actual fact of the world? After all, MRT claims that designs in the Universe have always existed as possible potentials, but interestingly, as has been repeatedly pointed out, in all human experiences of actually observing the origin of intricate complex highly organized purposeful systems of systems, they have invariably been the product of the designing efforts of focused sentient (human) consciousness. It also occurs to me that the designs of life that ID science has progressively found to be inexplicable as supposed products of Darwinistic processes, have the same problem. For example, the bacterial flagellum is in basic principle just as much an intricate integrated irreducibly complex design as is the body of laws of physics which rule our physical Universe, and its origin is just as much in contention. This essential engineering perspective is explored in depth and detail in a recent paper by engineer Waldean A. Schulz, in Bio-Complexity at https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2021.3 , discussed at https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/third-paper-presenting-an-engineering-analysis-of-the-flagellum-makes-the-case-for-intelligent-design/ . This perspective can only be appreciated by considering the details of the flagellum's complex design. As it is said, the devil is in the details. The following is to just give a taste of what is really involved here (from the article):
"This is just the first of a list of six specifications that flagellar proteins must meet — the others being (2) flexibility, (3) temporary binding relationships, (4) non-attractiveness to particular components, (5) size tolerances, and (6) temporal accuracy of final bonding relationships (i.e., binding at the right time). To elaborate on specification (4), Schulz explains that this has important mechanical implications: [C]ertain pairs of subassemblies must have no attraction as shown by the “must never bind” lines in Figure 1. For example, the proximal rod must freely rotate inside the P ring. That property strictly limits the amino acid configuration in the proteins involved. It further implies that the rod must be nearly circular, and so must the “donut hole” of the P ring (in cross-section) through which the rod fits with very small tolerance. While the proximal rod must rotate with little friction, the P ring and proximal rod nevertheless must be so close to each other that there is no “leakage” through the space between them. Similar observations hold for the L ring and distal rod and for the stator and rotor subassemblies. That is, the inner diameters of the “donut hole” of the rings must very closely match the outer diameters of the rod subassemblies. The circularity requirements and the tight tolerances are yet two more geometrical properties needing to be met by the constituent proteins and the way they self-coalesce. These six specifications “must all be present, so the already extremely rare protein configurations of the first property are even more rigorously restricted by the other required properties.” This implies a form of irreducible and/or specified complexity where a core number of parts must not only be present but must meet the proper specifications (material, mechanical, biochemical, etc.) in order to yield a functional flagellum."
To be consistent MRT presumably is claiming that the bacterial flagellum (and all the other designs of life) have always existed in all their integrated complexity and elegance of design, as possible detailed potentials. So it seems that after all, MRT explains all possible designs that exist in the Universe as having always existed as potentials, no origin story, no creative intelligences, required. All the human creative struggles to design and create over the history of mankind have been futile and unnecessary. And all the intricate designs of life that have all the characteristics of sophisticated engineering design have also always existed as potentials. I would leave it to the reader to judge the plausibility of this. Of course you may say I don't understand even the implications of your esoteric theory (seems kind of convenient), but I think I can basically understand at least the standard meanings of the words despite this material being much in an obscure and specialized jargon. I guess maybe there just can't be much of any communication, so conversation is futile.doubter
January 10, 2022
January
01
Jan
10
10
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Now, the argument here might be that it requires deliberate intelligence to set up such a “virtual world” system; but that logic fails under MRT because such programs already exist, and have always existed
: ))Lieutenant Commander Data
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Doubter asks @26:
I would be interested in any indication that anyone else here understands you.
Whether or not anyone here understands my or other MRTs significant ... how? If you're unfamiliar with MRTs, which are forms of idealistic ontology, you might visit Quantum Gravity Research, The Essentia Foundation, or read Bio-Centrism or The Idea of the World, which are MRTs being developed by various scientists and scientific groups and draw from several different lines of scientific research. Here's a video put out by the research team at QGR. It may help you to start to understand some of the language and concepts involved in many MRTs, including mine. It's actually quite entertaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa4JkgKDaR0William J Murray
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
WJM I would be interested in any indication that anyone else here understands you.doubter
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Doubter said:
My reaction is ...
Apparently, you didn't understand anything I said, which doesn't surprise me. It can be really difficult to get one's "head" out of the non-MRT perspective to even begin to understand what is being said wrt MRT. It's like having to learn a different language from an entirely different culture.William J Murray
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
WJM Thanks for the lengthy explication of your position of Mental Reality Theory. My reaction is that it goes beyond belief or at least my belief that the incredibly intricate and complex and purposeful and finely integrated machine-like system within systems within systems constituting our Universe can simply come into existence from the interaction of sentient consciousness with some sort of infinite array of possible "potential" realities that exist somehow as the ground of being, with the existence of sentient consciousness itself and of these "potentials" being brute facts of existence without any explanation and not requiring explanation. This MRT system appears to presuppose the existence of sentient consciousness, an ineffable but brute fact of existence with no need of explanation. No explanation of why and how there is something not absolutely nothing. Another comment is that your position on NDEs is not in accordance with the actual experience of deep NDEers, who report, not existence in alternate physical or quasi-physical universes or realities (your interpretation), but a spiritual realm of love and light roughly in accordance with many spontaneous "peak in Darien" experiences, along with other spiritual elements such as a life review and contact with deceased loved ones. These "peak in Darien" experiences were extensively documented by Richard Maurice Bucke in his book Cosmic Consciousness, apparently spontaneous glimpses of a higher spiritual reality with features including (using his own as an example) a subjective experience of light ("inner light"), moral elevation, intellectual illumination, a sense of immortality, loss of a fear of death, and loss of a (religiously inculcated) sense of sin. None of these features are in accordance with the MRT interpretation that NDEs (and peak in Darien experiences) are really experiences of other physical or quasi-physical realities or universes. These experiences are much more in accordance with traditional concepts of a higher spiritual reality.doubter
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
(continued from #22) Under my MRT, God is understand as ground-of-being, ground of existence potential. There's a fundamental difference between "ground of being" and an actualized being, and a fundamental difference between a "ground of existence" and an actualized existential state. Under MRT, there is no difference between "potential" and "actualized" other than how it is selected and arranged as experience (actualized) and not-experience (as potential or that which is not even in potential, such as a square circle) in the local mind of a particular individual. A sentient being must always experience a context that appears to be designed to support their experience for one very simple, logical reason: identity and context are necessarily two sides of the same coin. You cannot have any identifiable thing X that does have a concurrent, co-existent context of "not-X" that allows for sentient identification, even self-identification, and supplies what is necessary for X to exist at all. A sentient being requires an orderly, comprehensible context that "matches," or provides for, it's sentience. IOW, sentience has to be able to make sense out of its existential state. Any identifiable feature of its existence necessarily requires that it be identifiable and intelligible in some manner. Random chaos cannot provide for sentient experience. There are certain things that are required for sentient experience; mathematics, logic, geometry, linear time, order, comparable qualities, memory, and some degree of predictability or cause-and-effect. To make a long argument shorter: sentient, intelligent beings exist in what appears to be an intelligently designed "world" is because that is the only kind of "world," out of all potential worlds, where they can exist. When they examine their experiences more closely, that's the only kind of information they can experience out of available potential; that which corresponds with the very nature of that which is doing the examining, or investigating, or searching. BTW, the reason this is broken up into several posts is because what actually happened is that when I was trying to reply to you before, my laptop froze up twice while I was writing, so I set it aside to do other things. I'll stop for now and wait for responses, if anyone feels like responding or asking questions.William J Murray
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
(Continued from #21) As #21 demonstrates, what we call "intelligent design" is something that always exists/existed in potential, whether or not God, or anyone else, actualizes that potential. What "actualization" means depends on your ontological perspective; under dualism, it means that God instantiated potential into a material, objective world that exists independent of the observation of any particular individual observer. This is not what repeated quantum physics experimentation over the past 100+ years has revealed. What it has revealed is that the "world" outside of our experience still exists as potential, and any particular potential is not actualized anywhere other than in the conscious experience of the individual. Also, it has been shown that one individual observation/experience does not remove, select, or "collapse" the potential for all other individuals. Quantum experiments have shown conclusively that even the past is not collapsed into a particular set of states. How do we define a "universe" under MRT, so that we can have a clear understanding of what a "multiverse" is under MRT? It could be argued that every individual is experiencing their own universe because they are uniquely collapsing potentials into actuals in their "observation" or experience. But, let's be more charitable here: it would probably be better to describe a "universe" as a set of basic experiential norms that virtually everyone around us agrees with, including the so-called "natural laws," the geography of the visible universe, the same time-linear organization, etc. Under MRT, we can refer to this as a common set of experiences that are actualized in a similar fashion from a common set of potentials, much like a "virtual reality" program utilizes a common data set, and a common interface, to present an organized, interactive virtual world experience for users around the world. To push this analogy a bit further to make the point about what a "multiverse" would be: there can be any number of virtual world programs that provide completely different virtual world experiences. Now, the argument here might be that it requires deliberate intelligence to set up such a "virtual world" system; but that logic fails under MRT because all such programs already exist, and have always existed, in potential. The only "intelligence" question is this: what is required for anyone, any sentient being, regardless of how "intelligent" they are, to "actualize" any particular "virtual world program" into their experience from the already-existent potential? IOW: how do you access a different universe? More to come.William J Murray
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Doubter @20 said:
I guess I must conclude that you have no answer to my challenge.
Or, you could conclude that I occasionally have other things to attend to in my life and responding to people here isn't at the top of my priority list. The problem with the questions you ask is that you're asking them from a conceptual framework that is inapplicable to MRTs. Such as, a universal time-linear dualistic (or materialist) ontology.
I have pointed out that absolutely any multiple universe generating mechanism (including MRT) itself constitutes a complex and elaborate organized system that demands some sort of intelligent creator, i. e., that as far as design is concerned, there is no free lunch.
I can see why you would think that, but let's look at this from an example and see what we come up with. In the room I'm in right now there are several blank canvasses and art supplies (brushes, acrylic paint, etc.) If I put a blank canvas on my easel, how many different paintings might I generate? Let's say that the potential is infinite. Is the potential infinite because some intelligent being deliberately created all that potential? No, the potential necessarily exists as a natural, inescapable aspect of the situation. Now, let's move the time back to the supposed "big bang" origin of the universe; we agree that the potential for all those different paintings I might make necessarily existed then as well. Now, let's move back in time to before God created the Big Bang; the potential for God to have created that particular world had to exist even then. The potential for God to have created any world had to exist as its own property because God cannot create the potential for God to create something; God cannot create the potential for God to think of something; that potential had to exist as an eternal, necessary, innate aspect of God or else God couldn't have thought of it or create it. That is the inescapable logic of potential regardless of whether you posit that a deliberate, intelligent God created the universe or not. Obviously, the potential for every possible universe exists regardless of any ontological perspective. That's one of those trivially true statements. In the dualistic perspective, the reason God is said to be an intelligent designer is because of ... what? God did not have to invent or create the designs that were already present in the potential because God (as being proposed here) only had to "actualize" one particular set of informational potential; IOW, all God had to do was look at, or sort through potential universes until He, equipped with foreknowledge of the entire history of how any particular "universe" potential would play out or be if actualized, made a decision about which one to actualize. IOW, God did not have to be intelligent; all God had to do was pick, out of the potential, which universe he wanted to actualize. All the nano-machinery, all the interdependent systems, all the goldilocks constants, all the intelligent design of all of that was, and had to be, inherent in the potential that God, having access to knowledge of the entire time-run of any potential universe, could see in complete detail. This why the concept of God as some necessarily super-intelligent designer fails: God didn't have to design anything. All God had to do was pick the universe he wanted out of the potential that already existed. Now the question is: is it more appropriate to say that God "created" the universe, or that God actualized a universe He found in all the potential universes He looked into? More to follow.William J Murray
January 8, 2022
January
01
Jan
8
08
2022
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
WJM You have explained your view as being that there is no intelligent designer behind our Universe and reality - that it is all simply one possible potential out of an infinitude of other such potentials inherent in consciousness. From my point of view this could be termed the "titanic something out of nothing theory". You have not responded to my challenge to this in 16 in which I stated, "I’m curious. This elaborate intellectual edifice (of Mental Reality Theory (MRT)) presupposes a very complex and intricate and organized underlying reality, exactly calculated to result in humans and their (illusionary) experience of an objective physical world. Where did this amazing system come from?". It is the strong implication of this inevitable question that there must still ultimately be at the bottom of everything some sort of focused conscious intelligent designer (or multiple such intelligences). Vast amounts of functional complex specified information does not come from anything but intelligence. I guess I must conclude that you have no answer to my challenge. This would mean that you apparently can't conclusively argue against the strong implications I have pointed out that absolutely any multiple universe generating mechanism (including MRT) itself constitutes a complex and elaborate organized system that demands some sort of intelligent creator, i. e., that as far as design is concerned, there is no free lunch.doubter
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
"There’s always doing it for yourself, which I have done." WJM, No thanks. I don't want or need to observe "other universes" imaginary or otherwise. Paraphrase of one of my fave prayers: Take, Lord, receive all my liberty. My memory, understanding, my entire will Give me only your Love, and your Grace, that's enough for me Your love and your grace are enough for me Andrewasauber
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Asauber asks:
There’s a lot of that going around, so why should I be bound to anyone’s speculations “obeserving” other universes, whatever side they are on?
There's always doing it for yourself, which I have done. Nothing like first-hand experience to challenge one's perspective.William J Murray
January 7, 2022
January
01
Jan
7
07
2022
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
"And that those interpretations were insufficient to explain the evidence?" WJM, There's a lot of that going around, so why should I be bound to anyone's speculations "obeserving" other universes, whatever side they are on? Andrewasauber
January 6, 2022
January
01
Jan
6
06
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
WJM
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.
I think I will stand on my last posts on this matter. Your proposal is that apparently intelligently designed systems (in particular the Universe) exist because they are possible. Meaning a seeming infinitude of other universes or realities also exist, the most excessive possible violation of the well-known scientific principle of parsimony or Ockham's Razor. I'm curious. This elaborate intellectual edifice presupposes a very complex and intricate and organized underlying reality, exactly calculated to result in humans and their (illusionary) experience of an objective physical world. Where did this amazing system come from? Again, absolutely nothing can come from absolutely nothing. Do you contend that it is a brute fact of existence not requiring and not having any explanation? That somehow seems exceedingly untenable, especially when in absolutely all our experience of observation, inevitably all complicated organized purposeful systems have an origin in the focused conscious intelligence of beings, namely humans in the case of our observations.doubter
January 6, 2022
January
01
Jan
6
06
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Asauber @12: You do realize that the interpretations your quote-mined text was directly referring to were the physical and psychological interpretations often cited as being the explanations for NDEs and OBEs, right? And that those interpretations were insufficient to explain the evidence?
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent transcendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear transcendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.
As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach (e.g., see van Lommel, 2004, 2011; Facco, 2010; Greyson, 2010b; Agrillo, 2011). Simple advocated physical causes, such as anoxia/ischemia, explain very well the common experience of fainting, but are far from explaining the nature of NDEs or why NDEs occur in only a minority of cases, as already emphasized by van Lommel et al. (2001). Furthermore, complete brain anoxia with absent electrical activity in cardiac arrest is incompatible with any form of consciousness, according to present scientific knowledge, making the finding of an explanation for NDEs a challenging task for the ruling physicalist and reductionist view of biomedicine (Kelly et al., 2007; Greyson, 2010b; van Lommel, 2010).
Finally, the data available in the literature are not easily compatible with the interpretation of “meeting deceased people” as a mere consequence of the psychological hypothesis of expectation, considering that in most cases the perception of undefined entities (not belonging to the iconography of the patients' religion) and figures other than known deceased persons has been reported (see, for instance, Holden et al., 2009; van Lommel, 2010). Moreover, it is unclear how people in sudden critical conditions (such as cardiac arrest) might be aware of being near-death and have time enough to develop complex scenarios according to their wishes. Also the occurrence of NDEs in children, even as young as three year old (Morse et al., 1985, 1986), does not support an expectation hypothesis, given their lack of a clear vision of death and of elaborate philosophical-religious views of life.
William J Murray
January 6, 2022
January
01
Jan
6
06
2022
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Asauber@9
I’m not sure why these unconventional (unscientific) testimonies shouldn’t be classified as dreams, or illusions, or just imaginings.
There are many elements and characteristics of NDEs that make it preposterous to suggest that they are illusionary or dreams or hallucinations. A good example of the research data on NDEs is the book The Self Does Not Die by Rivas, Driven and Smit, which documents numerous well-investigated veridical NDEs, divided into several categories, such as extrasensory veridical perception of the immediate environment, extrasensory veridical perception of events beyond the reach of the physical senses, awareness and extrasensory veridical perception during cardiac arrest and other conditions during which the brain is dysfunctional, telepathy, after-death communication with strangers, and after-death communication with familiar people. There are also a number of other additional categories of paranormal veridical phenomena accompanying some NDEs. Overall, more than 100 investigated veridical paranormal NDE cases are documented. In these cases, orthodox physicalist explanations could not possibly account for the remembered veridical perceptions many of which are visual later reported by the patients in their accounts of the experiences. There are also many other characteristics of NDEs that strongly militate against the illusionary hypothesis, in particular the fact that in many cases of deep NDEs there is a profound and lifelong personality transformation towards a higher degree of spirituality, something not noted to be the result of hallucinations. The power of numbers also operates here, in that even if some few of the cases actually have ordinary medical of other explanations, this can’t possibly account for all of the cases. Even one truly anomalous paranormal veridical case constitutes strong prima facie empirical evidence for separation of consciousness from the physical body during the reported NDE. There are cumulatively countless numbers of cases. Also, looking at the big picture, parapsychology and psychical investigation over the last 130 years have accumulated a very large body of other types of empirical verified evidence for separation of the mind from the physical body (or in some cases veridical perceptions while conscious in the body that imply independence of consciousness from the physical brain). Furthermore, a number of very strong philosophical arguments in the discipline of philosophy of mind have been developed that very logically establish the untenability of physicalism in general and specifically in philosophy of mind. Again, the power of numbers operates. Even if ultimately some of this empirical data and some of these philosophical arguments are somehow invalid, all it takes is one valid one to establish the case against physicalism, or more specifically for that matter against any fundamentalist religious rejection of NDEs based on Scripture or whatnot.doubter
January 6, 2022
January
01
Jan
6
06
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply