What happens when you die

[Leyla Shen]

David wrote:

Agreed, the theory doesn't violate the laws of logic, although it comes very close. For example, how does the universe define what constitutes a "moment",...

The universe defines what constitutes a moment in the same way it defines what constitutes the third-dimension (depth); or anything. A two-dimensional (flat) reality exists as part of a three-dimensional reality in the same way a three-dimensional reality exists as part of a four-dimensional reality. In a 2-D world, causality (and, thus, time) takes a linear course. In a 3-D world, it is both lateral and linear at the same time (constituting a “flat” notion of depth). Einstein’s idea “curved space-time” thus posits gravity as unique to three-dimensional reality and implies empty (“flat”, 2-D reality) space at the same time.

The problem with the “many worlds” theory is nothing more than the implicit idea of an inherently existing self existing simultaneously within different worlds -- whatever truth that’s supposed to impart.

It has nothing to do with science, as far as I’m concerned. Just another theoretical fancy.

.

[Rory]

Well, perhaps it is not so dramatic as Quinn's reply, but nonetheless ridiculous. Say, for example, that I decide to go to bed instead of writing my paper. Quinn decides to eat dinner out instead of cooking, you decide to post more idiocy, Elizabeth decides to ask my opinion on something, and Scott decides to use the word "which" instead of "that" in something he's writing. Now, on the face of it it might look like we've created 5 new universes - one ofr each of our decisions. But in reality, we've created 5^5th new dimentions. In one second! But there's more than 5 of us. In fact, there's more than 6 billion of us. This simply couldn't be sustained.

-Rory

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Rory, remember that unwise did include magic in his theory. There's certainly more than enough magic in a leprechaun's hat to create and power an infinite number of universes, at least until afternoon tea.

[unwise]

Last time I checked this morning I had been banned. Why am I unbanned? I already knew I would be banned. Have you unbanned me because I pre-empted you?

how does the universe define what constitutes a "moment", which it needs as a launching pad for triggering parallel universes? It can't trigger these parallel universes without the establishment of a "moment", and yet whatever definition of a moment it chooses will necessarily be arbitrary in nature. In other words, the very essence of the many-worlds theory relies on the establishment of a conceptual fiction.

My god, what are you talking about? A 'moment' is a quantum jump anywhere at any time. What is 'arbitrary' about that? Everything that takes place in nature takes place by a series of quantum events. A series of quanta. Pockets of quanta.

With each quantum jump there is a new universe. The universes surrounding this one you are in is only different from this one by ONE quantum jump which is different.

People here are rejecting the notion even-though it makes the most sense out of the mathematics and comes without paradox. Your objection is that it is too fantastic - too large - too INFINITE.

Take a look up in the sky and try to get your head around the size of this galaxy. Now imagine BILLIONS of them.

Here, let me give you all a thought experiment. I want to show you how large the Solar System is. You must do this outside. David, Dan and Kevin(?) will have plenty of time to do this:

Take a bowling ball to represent the Sun. Put it on the ground. Step out 26 long paces and put down a peppercorn. That's the earth. Pretty far away, no? Now, go back to the bowling ball and step out 1,019 paces (over a half mile). The bowling ball can no longer be seen with binoculars. Take a pin and poke it into a piece of paper. That is now the correct scale of Pluto compared to the Sun in correct scale.

So you are telling me something is too amazingly large? Let me tell you something. If anyone here ever experienced the Self (which obviously hasn't happened), you would understand perfectly that NOTHING is as large as that.

[Steven Coyle]

The many-worlds theory is the empirical approach to the Buddhist notion of emptiness.

[beebuddy]

The many-worlds theory is the empirical approach to the Buddhist notion of emptiness.

Oh, do tell.

[Steven Coyle]

All things lack inherent existence - the potential for infinity.

[beebuddy]

All things lack inherent existence - the potential for infinity.

So you aren't defending this multiple personalties nonsense?

[kowtaaia]

Don't forget this really big Self, that idiocy or whatever his name is, is pushing.

[Steven Coyle]

So you aren't defending this multiple personalties nonsense?

Another point of view.

[beebuddy]

So you aren't defending this multiple personalties nonsense?

Another point of view.

What? Sure it's a point of view, are you saying it has something to do with what Buddha said or not?

[Steven Coyle]

It was a creative interpretation of the multiple worlds theory.

The Buddha's Truth has no real connection to the empirical theory.

[beebuddy]

Remind me what the 'empirical theory' is...

[David Quinn]

Unwise wrote:

Last time I checked this morning I had been banned. Why am I unbanned? I already knew I would be banned. Have you unbanned me because I pre-empted you?

No one's tried to ban you. Given that you are able to read my mind, you should already know this.

It was probably just a glitch caused by an event in a parallel world, so there's no need to worry. And in fact if you do get banned in the future, it will probably be due to an event happening in a parallel world as well. These things happen.

DQ: ... how does the universe define what constitutes a "moment", which it needs as a launching pad for triggering parallel universes? It can't trigger these parallel universes without the establishment of a "moment", and yet whatever definition of a moment it chooses will necessarily be arbitrary in nature. In other words, the very essence of the many-worlds theory relies on the establishment of a conceptual fiction.

U: My god, what are you talking about? A 'moment' is a quantum jump anywhere at any time. What is 'arbitrary' about that? Everything that takes place in nature takes place by a series of quantum events. A series of quanta. Pockets of quanta.

A quanta merely refers to a packet of energy, not to an event occurring in time. Defining what constitutes a "quantum jump" is just as arbitrary as defining what a "moment" is.

Where exactly does a "quantum jump" begin and end? It is purely arbitrary.

With each quantum jump there is a new universe. The universes surrounding this one you are in is only different from this one by ONE quantum jump which is different.

People here are rejecting the notion even-though it makes the most sense out of the mathematics and comes without paradox. Your objection is that it is too fantastic - too large - too INFINITE.

No, my objection is that there is no evidence for it. It is a conception generated purely from randomly-selected assumptions. What's worse, it's just the sort of conception which appeals to escapists, making it on a par with UFOs, dragons and magic.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Well, now--that's rather a charming, large dragon...

[laaaughs!] and it disappeared all by itself, too!

.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I imagine that one of two things happen when we die. Either we return to the same nothing that we emerged from. Or we become merely a feeling-of-being united with the whole of existence. Either way we cease to exist as thinking, self-aware, conscious beings; so really both my theories probably amount to essentially the same thing.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I'd like to dedicate this next song to my spiritual comrade Unwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu8VkYxLacI

[kowtaaia]

I imagine that one of two things happen when we die. Either we return to the same nothing that we emerged from. Or we become merely a feeling-of-being united with the whole of existence. Either way we cease to exist as thinking, self-aware, conscious beings; so really both my theories probably amount to essentially the same thing.

The sense of self, the sensation of being a something; is an illusion, anyways.

.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It can't trigger these parallel universes without the establishment of a "moment", and yet whatever definition of a moment it chooses will necessarily be arbitrary in nature.

Wasn't the idea of the whole Quantum theory to have, well, quanta or quantization of energy, or exchanges of energy by numbers, types and calculations? A 'moment' would be like the events captured in a particle accelerator, old particles being destroyed, new types are formed. A continuous shower of 'moments' of creation? Or are we just measuring the minds need to quantify?

I had thought that the various many-world theories rest on the premise that whenever we make a choice we split off into parallel universes. If that is the case, then surely it wouldn't be very long before one of our choices transported us into an unstable universe. I doubt that we would last two minutes.

So we wouldn't last - we wouldn't even realize our disappearing, but somewhere else we might live on in a stable universe.

The correct view on a limited multiverse would be the following: a split would create multiple universes and each of them having for example a copy of David Quinn wondering about how long it would last. But instead of each universe going on, all under the impression they are the only one ( implying billions of Quinns continuing to doubt other universes wouldn't last two minutes) there's a possibility that the only universe stable enough to continue even a pico-second is the one right now, perhaps by definition. Each moment of our lives billions of alternative universes might be imploding into the formation of the here and now we experience.

Or there might be even a reasonable number of stable universes around, and for each one surviving, several trillions die each quantum moment, or merge with other ones, like a cosmic Conrad's game of Life.

It's all good stuff for books and movies, to expand the mind a little, but I agree that it's hardly relevant compared to the major philosophical challenges of life, the ones most are running away from, and then hide in these maze-like theories taken out of all scientific context.

[DHodges]

To be consistent, we can't very well confine the theory to a restricted set of phenomena, such as cats living or dying, or to humans making choices. It would necessarily have to apply to utterly everything. Every single event that happens in the world, no matter how large or small, would have to be causing an infinite number of parallel worlds to peel off in every single instant in time and at every single location in our universe (and in all the other countless peeled-off universes as well).

That is indeed the multiple worlds model. There are an infinite number of universes. Everything that is possible, happens. It has a nice sort of symmetry to it.

I see this as being related to Feynman's idea that when a particle travels from point A to B, it does not follow a single path but travels along all possible paths.

This is the problem with creating theories which attempt to supercede causality. They immediately collapse under the weight of their own absurdity and become incoherent.

This is the quantum weirdness we mentioned earlier. Other interpretations reject local realism, which is also pretty hard to get your head around.

Which interpretation you like generally depends on which kind of bizarreness bothers you the least. We know the universe is a strange place, but we don't know exactly in what way it is strange.

I don't think Many Worlds denies causality, by the way.

[kowtaaia]

'Possible to the imagination' does not mean 'actually possible'.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

The sense of self, the sensation of being a something; is an illusion, anyways.

I normally define "something" as the presence of a particular phenomenon. For instance, I'm looking at "something" right now. A can of Mountain Dew in fact. I suppose I could then define my "self" as the totality of these phenomena, but that isn't exactly right, given that the conscious can't turn back and look at itself. So it's probably more appropriate to say that my "self" (for these purposes) is a category that I understand to contain all of the sensations I feel when they are specifically understood as sensations. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if I were to say that I'm something, I'd merely be pointing to the fact that the phenomena I experience are phenomena. This is true by definition. On what grounds are you calling the "sensation of being a something" an "illusion"?

[kowtaaia]

Don't you feel as if you exist, as if you are a something? :)

That's what ego is, the 'experiencer', the continued subjective state or psychological phenomenon.

Grounds? It can be absent while the body is living. It happens intermittently and ever so very, very briefly, throughout the day, for everyone, but it's always unknown. The cessation can be for a prolonged period if the mind is extremely attentive to its own movement. Of course, you only know that it happened. Only illusion fades away in awareness.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

That's what ego is, the 'experiencer', the continued subjective state or psychological phenomenon.

I like to think of the ego as the object that the conscious understands as itself. As I've said, the conscious can't turn back and look at itself, so it necessarily must make an object of itself. Thus the ego, or our conception of ourself, wouldn't actually be the "experiencer", only that which we understand as such. The "experiencer" would really have to be the combined totality of our experiences, and thus cannot be a distinct experience in-and-of-itself.

It can be absent while the body is living.

The predictions I make as to how things work while awake don't carry over to when I'm sleeping. Yet I still turn to those predictions while awake, rather then dismiss them as an illusion. We could, of course, define the term "illusion" broadly enough to call everything an illusion, but then the term would be useless.

[kowtaaia]

I like to think of the ego as the object that the conscious understands as itself.

As long as you realize that what you like to think doesn't necessarily correlate with the truth of the matter. The ego IS the subjective state.

As I've said, the conscious can't turn back and look at itself, so it necessarily must make an object of itself.

Your statement contradicts itself.

Thus the ego, or our conception of ourself, wouldn't actually be the "experiencer", only that which we understand as such. The "experiencer" would really have to be the combined totality of our experiences, and thus cannot be a distinct experience in-and-of-itself.

Of course, the experiencer is all accumulated experience. That is what the ego is, the mind "of" brain. The reality is the psychological phenomenon.

The predictions I make as to how things work while awake don't carry over to when I'm sleeping. Yet I still turn to those predictions while awake, rather then dismiss them as an illusion. We could, of course, define the term "illusion" broadly enough to call everything an illusion, but then the term would be useless.

You're missing the point. You are the ego.