GENIUS FORUMS

unwise wrote: If you think deeply on multiple universes, it explains many paranormal phenomena such as ghosts, UFOs, aliens, prophecy, deja vu, strange creatures and many many such things.

You did forget to mention brain pathology resulting from substance abuse, mental illness and congenital defects as other potential sources of etiology or causation.

I find string theory to be an interesting proposition but not seen evidence to suggest it has majority acceptance by the scientific community (physics). I am aware there is a desire to find a "unifying theory" but I suspect that's where it stands, a desire. I am not a physicist nor expert on either gravitation or quantum mechanics but I am a man of science and thus have concerns regarding the statement of "theory". This word can have different meanings e.g. an opinion (little else) or an explanation based on generally accepted facts AND more importantly, peer reviewed. At the risk of continuing the "I'm right/your wrong" debate, I am open to arguments regarding the concept of multi-dimensions. However, to be honest and forthright, I am much more apt to accept it as a possiblity rather than a probability and even less likely to accept it as a scientific fact. I would be genuinely interested in a link to an article from a credible (peer-reviewed) organization.

Here is a very thorough discussion from Stanford:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

Unwise wrote:

DQ: As for the cat in the box, when no one is observing it, it has no existence at all. It is neither alive nor dead. There is literally no cat there to be either be alive or dead. It is only when a cat appears in the field of consciousness of an observer that it presents an appearance of some kind, either alive or dead.

U: So I think we can agree that there is nothing without an observation. We can agree that the cat does not exist until you look in the box.

This is not what you were saying earlier. You were saying that the cat does indeed exist in some sense, that it is both alive and dead - which is the complete opposite of what you are now agreeing to.

What, then, determines whether the cat will be alive or dead in your view? The causes of the cat's aliveness or deadness is within you - in your observation.

The causes of a thing are countless and can only be said to exist within you if by "you" we mean the totality of all there is.

It is irrational to to confine the causes of something to one particular thing - in this case, the observer. That's just the ego trying to put things into simple boxes and remain in control. The truth is, the causes of the cat's state, whatever it may be, are boundless and stretch back forever.

What caused the effect of the dead cat?

The Infinite.

Similarly, why does one scientist see a photon as a particle while another scientist sees a wave? What caused the photon to be a wave to one observer but not the other?

Different research goals, and therefore different approaches and different apparatus. It's probably the case that the photon is neither a wave nor a particle, but rather an object that is able to manifest as either of those forms in different circumstances - a bit like how "energy" is able to manifest as either kinetic or potential energy, or as heat, motion, sound, pain, destruction, construction, etc.

-

David Quinn wrote:It's a false weirdness, though, isn't it. The weirdness is generated out of own incomplete understanding of the quantum realm. It isn't actually a part of the realm itself.

The apparent quantum weirdness, I would say, is because we have intuitive notions about how things should be, and QM shows that when you get to very small scales, one or more of those ideas are not correct.

The core of the problem, I think, is we are used to waves and particles being two separate things. We can think of a wave as being composed of particles, or a particle composed of waves, but we don't really have an intuitive notion of a wavicle. There just isn't any good macroscopic analogy.

In that sense, the Copenhagen interpretation makes sense - we know the math works, so let's just use that and not worry to much about constructing a verbal metaphor - which we know will be more or less misleading.

Timothy Ferris wrote:...quantum phenomena are not obliged to make sense in classical terms.

This is not what you were saying earlier. You were saying that the cat does indeed exist in some sense, that it is both alive and dead - which is the complete opposite of what you are now agreeing to.

My dear David, it seems that I contradict myself all over the place. Not just here. And that is because you never get the full picture from me. Let's take this example I've been talking about and which has engaged your interest so much....

First of al, the 'world' does proceed from the observer. Actually, from the ego and what I would call 'deep ego' which is more like the subconscious or 'collective subconscious.' This is in fact where everything is coming from. This is the source of the world you see. The reason for everything is here.

This 'world' has structure to work with. Cause and effect, time, dimension, aspects that register on our senses, logic that appeals to our brain. It is a mind manifestation - a reflection of the different levels of the mind.

Now, listen carefully because this is where you often go wrong....the deeper aspects of the ego which approach the Cosmic Self have different features. It is a borderline that approaches the Self which cannot be described in any terms the brain or ego is familiar with. This creates 'a-causal' manifestations in the material world - magic, strangeness, paranormal activity....and...quantum effects that are 'illogical.'

You actually deny this aspect of reality which is sort of funny, really.

So, back to the cat. What I believe is BOTH things. That cat is nonexistent while in the box AND the cat goes into two universes upon observation. Both things.

David, it is all imagination. But that imagination does have some structure. Some of the structure is not logical, baffling, mystical, unreal....and, to you.....troubling.

Give up on the Spock routine. it will just make you angry as science progresses.

unwise wrote:My dear David, it seems that I contradict myself all over the place. Not just here. And that is because you never get the full picture from me. Let's take this example I've been talking about and which has engaged your interest so much....

It's painfully obvious that you contradict yourself because you are referencing physics that you do not understand. Your view of the universe is incoherent.

So, back to the cat. What I believe is BOTH things. That cat is nonexistent while in the box AND the cat goes into two universes upon observation. Both things.

A fine example.

unwise wrote:David, it is all imagination.

What conclusions can we draw from this statement? Here are just a couple of good ones:

unwise is in touch with reality, as he knows that everything he has been talking about is just imagination...he may be living in an imaginary world, but at least he knows it

unwise may be practicing that "lying" stuff that David Q. recommends (either before, or now to cover that he has been talking out of his hat - or both)

Liz,

He's just a kid with a book on his lap.

Unwise is 50+ years old... he doesn't have any age-related excuses.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Unwise is 50+ years old... he doesn't have any age-related excuses.

If you say so, but that makes the picture much more bleak for this unwise fellow that has mastered talking out of his ass.

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Unwise is 50+ years old... he doesn't have any age-related excuses.

If you say so, but that makes the picture much more bleak for this unwise fellow that has mastered talking out of his ass.

I agree - but I'm not here to be either an optimist or a pessimist, but a realist.

You all provide me with a deep joy. You'll never know. But I am not practicing 'lying.' I'll leave that to David. I am actually trying to show you the world as it is.

It is like I quit smoking a long time ago and go into bars to convince everyone that you can actually enjoy life without it. I still enjoy a whiff of the smoke, though. hehe

i think David is on the brink of banning me. I really haven't tried to trick anyone. And, my posts are about philosophy - isn't everything? Why is this? Why does he want to ban me so much?

unwise wrote:It is like I quit smoking a long time ago and go into bars to convince everyone that you can actually enjoy life without it. I still enjoy a whiff of the smoke, though. hehe

You come across more like a Breatharian - convinced you can live without eating, and wondering why no one takes you seriously.

Why does he want to ban me so much?

If he wanted to ban you, you'd be banned. But I think he doesn't like you...and that's probably because you're a hopeless egomaniac.

unwise wrote:It is like I quit smoking a long time ago and go into bars to convince everyone that you can actually enjoy life without it. I still enjoy a whiff of the smoke, though. hehe

What's amazing is that you know this well enough to make an accurate analogy, yet have no awareness of how others actually percieve this behavior.

unwise wrote:i think David is on the brink of banning me. I really haven't tried to trick anyone. And, my posts are about philosophy - isn't everything? Why is this? Why does he want to ban me so much?

David didn't say he wants to ban you, he just suggested you slit your throat (and he was not serious on that - he was just trying to make a point).

Don't project. He's probably considered banning both of us and several others, too - that does not mean he's going to do it unless someone pushes him over the edge.

Here's a serious suggestion, and just please take it knowing that I am nobody to you, and less than nobody - rather a pain to some people here. Anyway, my suggestion is that you take a one to two week vacation from the board, and every time you feel like coming to the board during that time, instead meditate on why you thought you might get banned. Not only do I bet that would be insightful to you , but it will give David enough time to cool off.

just a suggestion...

I know David wants to ban me because I can read his mind.

yet have no awareness of how others actually perceive this behavior

Do you really think I have no awareness of how others actually perceive my behavior? Really? You must be kidding.

I know exactly how you will react just like Dr. Pavlov knew how his dog would react when he rang a bell.

You think Jesus did not know how all the 'geniuses' of his day and the 'pious philosophers and theologians' would respond to him? Think he got fooled when he was arrested?

unwise wrote: Do you really think I have no awareness of how others actually perceive my behavior? Really? You must be kidding.

I know exactly how you will react just like Dr. Pavlov knew how his dog would react when he rang a bell.

You think Jesus did not know how all the 'geniuses' of his day and the 'pious philosophers and theologians' would respond to him? Think he got fooled when he was arrested?

I rest my case.

beebuddy wrote:I rest my case.

May your case rest in peace.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

beebuddy wrote:I rest my case.

May your case rest in peace.

I have a feeling it will be spewing more crapola any minute now.

unwise,

Now, listen carefully because this is where you often go wrong....the deeper aspects of the ego which approach the Cosmic Self have different features. It is a borderline that approaches the Self which cannot be described in any terms the brain or ego is familiar with. This creates 'a-causal' manifestations in the material world - magic, strangeness, paranormal activity....and...quantum effects that are 'illogical.'

You actually deny this aspect of reality which is sort of funny, really.

I suggest that this is where you focus your argument. It's not only David who's having a hard time understanding this; I don't understand it either.

You say it cannot be described in familiar terms. For the sake of discussion, you are going to have to try as hard as you can, or else you will be unintelligible. What is the Cosmic Self? That is to say, where is it located, and what are some identifying features?

What about magic, strangeness, paranormal activity, and illogical quantum effects? Is there any underlying theme or trend among them? You say they manifest themselves acausally... how? I can't imagine something having an acausal manifestation. It goes against my conception of a manifestation.

As to simultaneously believing that something is both true and not-true AND neither true or not-true (in the case of the cat), I'm reminded of Buddha-speak. Is that intentional? Could you elaborate?

unwise,

...and what is it that identifies with the personality? :)
Is it the Cosmic Self that you mention?

The many-worlds interpretation quickly becomes comically absurd when you examine it closely:

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).

For example, if we were to open the box and observe the cat yawning, then not only would there be a dead cat in another world, but also a cat performing a quieter yawn, a higher-pitched yawn, a more gravelly yawn, a purring meow, an abrupt screech, a leap up into the air, etc. Other cats would be eating bananas, singing arias, receiving their degrees at Harvard University, transforming into spaceships, mutating into almighty Gods, etc - countless variations would be occurring in each moment, each in its own parallel world. These countless variations would not only be occurring with the yawn itself, but also with every micro-instant of the yawn - from the very beginning of its commencement and every instant thereafter, and beyond.

A momentary instance of a cat yawn would give rise to every possibility under the sun in innumerable parallel worlds. The cat yawn would be a rainbow in another world, a fart emanating of someone's bum, a rational thought occurring inside a rock, a flower coming out of someone's ear, a black hole disco-dancing in the ocean, a galaxy vibrating in someone's tea cup. Indeed, somewhere, in some other parallel world (far, far away), there is even a fellow called "unwise" who is enlightened, rational, clear-sighted and consistent. And not just one of him, but billions and trillions of them, all of them preaching flawlessly the enlightenment of the buddhas. Every possible shape and form, every possible phenomena, would be generated countless times in each nano-instant of time.

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.

-

David Quinn wrote:The many-worlds interpretation quickly becomes comically absurd when you examine it closely

That something sounds absurd to us is not a valid argument against the theory of course.

In this endless space of possibilities perhaps certain laws cause certain distributions or 'attractors', little islands of viable possibilities, with all possibilities that do have some unstable self-conflicting internals dying off quickly (an idea worked out in the movie "Donnie Darko").

This is why some versions of the many-worlds interpretation suggest only one world is stable and 'survives' and that's the one we're attempting to experience. And there are even more alternative versions hypothesizing how MW might work, perhaps just as many as all those suggested alternative universes together.

Diebert wrote:

DQ: The many-worlds interpretation quickly becomes comically absurd when you examine it closely

DvR: That something sounds absurd to us is not a valid argument against the theory of course.

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", 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.

This is why some versions of the many-worlds interpretation suggest only one world is stable and 'survives' and that's the one we're attempting to experience.

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.

-