Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

Watching this thread I observe a few things.

1/ that kylies statement is indicative of one of the big misunderstandings of non scientists.
The statement should read that maths is the language used to describe and model OBSERVATIONS of the universe, which are not the same as the universe. The nett sum of all observations of the universe, or model of them are not the same entity as the universe. Materialists always confuse the two.

2/ you ( rightly) raised the physical demonstration Of the Wigner’s friend paradox, but the materialists are not getting it . The experimental demonstration of what was long presumed from Copenhagen , that Observations are NOT objective Is far reaching and profound since the materialist assumptiom is of an objective universe.

3/ Materialist scientists may not “ like” philosophy, but they are stuck with it. Like error bounds: “ knowing the limits of what you can know “ is a qualifier on all observations and models. All scientists are engaging in philosophy whether they like it or are even aware of it.

4/ Occams razor contains a subjective element As to what is simple .
In models minimising entropy is a “simple concept” and commonly used , but which can yield more complex maths. So is simple an objective concept, or in the eye of the beholder?

Wigners Friend to me makes so much sense even on a macro scale that fundemental reality is somehow subjective. Objective reality can be an agreed upon measure but only when we are in the same observational space. But we know there are multiple realities when we are not. Other creatures experience different observational realities as well. They are not built the same as ourselves so see the world differently. So who is right, whose reality is the one true reality.

That implies that what we observe is but a surface reflection of something deeper and it will depend on how we are built as to how we navigate that surface reflection.

What I found interesting about Wheelers ideas that we live in a Participatory Universe was that knowledge created reality. As we update our knowledge our reality changes in a way. In other words we will always be creating a new reality and doing away with old ones. To some extent the scientists creates that reality by choosing what they want to measure.

But the facinating thing about Wheelers interpretation is that our choices and measures can actually change the past. What we thought was the Universes beginning has changed and will always be changing. So in some ways we are creating the Universe by what we measure and the knowledge we gain from that.

The eminent Henry Stapp said this brings reality back to epistemics rather than the material ontology which points to knowledge being a fundemental component of reality.

 

[stevevw]

It's not really that complicated. If the generator of universes/big bangs always existed there would be no reason needed or concern about regression. It is just a brute fact, something that is. If there was no way for a universe to be generated, then there would be no one to ask the silly question "why is there something rather than nothing?". If there was nothing, then no one would exist to ask the question.

Thats why I think the dictomy thats its a material beginning or nothing else is too simplistic and unreal. Appealing to the idea that some sort of void always existed doesn't explain anything just like materialist complain about the God of the gaps. The basic paradigm of material science is a reality within the causal closure of the physical. So everything will go back to some material cause whether that be forces, fields or particles.

But we are here asking these questions. It may have been a universe with no conscious life, or zombies who couldn't ask those questions. So in some ways the settings for conscious beings to be here was set from the beginning.

It makes more sense that if anything can come from nothing in the material sense is that whatever created that was some non material beginning which can exist always such as information, Mind or consciousness in some form itself considering that everything we are talking about relates to Mind, Math, Information and knowledge.

 

[stevevw]

And with proper training we can overcome these conclusions that are unsupported by evidence. Isn't science a wonderful tool?

Thats the problem, these ancient stories are not something we need to overcome but rather uinderstand as part of human experience which makes consciousness fundemental rather than material science.

Your more or less making an epistemic claim that science is the only tool for understanding reality which in itself is unscientific like. The science method can only measure one aspect of reality and its not the exclusive arbitor of truth when it comes to the overall scheme of things. IN some ways its arrogant in dismissing the experiences of billions of people now and throughout history.

Proper training seems like there is an exclusive lot who have the sacred knowledge of what is real or not and everyone must be indoctrinated to think the same. Indigenous peoples have been around for 10s of thousands of years before science came along and they survived just fine with their Indigenous knowledge. It seems its the material scientists that is changing that now and threatening things not people who believe in these ancient beliefs and truths that civilization was built on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats why I think the dictomy thats its a material beginning or nothing else is too simplistic and unreal. Appealing to the idea that some sort of void always existed doesn't explain anything just like materialist complain about the God of the gaps. The basic paradigm of material science is a reality within the causal closure of the physical. So everything will go back to some material cause whether that be forces, fields or particles.

This isn't a "god of the gaps" type argument. It's about what is at the end of any infinite regression. You can claim the necessary, always existent thing was an intelligent being, or that it was a mindless "field". One is certainly simpler than the other, but I can't disprove either.

But we are here asking these questions. It may have been a universe with no conscious life, or zombies who couldn't ask those questions. So in some ways the settings for conscious beings to be here was set from the beginning.

No conscious being also result in no questions about "why", but we do live in a universe with conscious beings asking "why" and the question is rather pointless. Nothingness doesn't result in beings to ask the question.

It makes more sense that if anything can come from nothing in the material sense is that whatever created that was some non material beginning which can exist always such as information, Mind or consciousness in some form itself considering that everything we are talking about relates to Mind, Math, Information and knowledge.

I'm definitely not claiming that something came from nothing. Quite the opposite. I am supposing that something always existed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats the problem, these ancient stories are not something we need to overcome but rather uinderstand as part of human experience which makes consciousness fundemental rather than material science.

Taking the claims of such "ancient stories" in the face of evidence of reality to the contrary *is* something that needs to be overcome.

Your more or less making an epistemic claim that science is the only tool for understanding reality which in itself is unscientific like. The science method can only measure one aspect of reality and its not the exclusive arbitor of truth when it comes to the overall scheme of things. IN some ways its arrogant in dismissing the experiences of billions of people now and throughout history.

No really, I am not. You keep over reading things.

Proper training seems like there is an exclusive lot who have the sacred knowledge of what is real or not and everyone must be indoctrinated to think the same. Indigenous peoples have been around for 10s of thousands of years before science came along and they survived just fine with their Indigenous knowledge. It seems its the material scientists that is changing that now and threatening things not people who believe in these ancient beliefs and truths that civilization was built on.

You too can learn these things and why they are known to be accurate representations of reality. It's not some sort of exclusive club. We teach these things in primary and secondary schools all the time.

 

[partinobodycular]

I was thinking more along the lines of Mind behind the creation of material reality. All the evidence point to some mind behind things whether that be the Mandelbrot set, a universe made of Math, quantum interpretation that place the obersver central, consciousness, Panphysicism, Information and knowledge being fundemental or the fine tuned universe for intelligent conscious beings.

Having been a solipsist for more than fifty years I'm sympathetic to the notion of a mind as a fundamental element of reality. However, in order for it to be the First Cause it can't have free will, at least not libertarian free will. Because in order for it to choose between two options... say 'A' or 'B', there must be something about those two options that causes it to choose one over the other. And whatever that factor is, it then becomes the actual First Cause... i.e. the thing which prompted the mind to act in a particular manner.

Hence, no matter what that First Cause is, even if it's a mind, it must be completely deterministic. Oddly enough that doesn't run contrary to the Christian concept of God. Because the Christian concept of free will, as it pertains to God, is simply that there's nothing outside of God that causes Him to choose one thing over another. God simply does things because it's in His nature to do them. I.E. His nature is fixed and immutable and not subject to things outside of Himself.

However, this makes for an interesting conundrum, because whether the First Cause is a 'Quantum Field' or some other such phenomenon, or whether it's a 'mind', it would be impossible to tell the difference. They would both be fixed, immutable, and deterministic. Because if they weren't, then they wouldn't actually be the First Cause. As such both of them simply do, that which is in their nature to do.

So in either case you're left wondering why the First Cause gave rise to conscious beings, and in both cases the answer is the same... because it was in their nature to do so. Whether you choose to attach some deeper spiritual meaning to that outcome, or whether you choose to think of it as just a fortuitous act of nature, that's up to you. But what you can't do... and what all theists can't do... is presume to hold some higher moral standing, simply under the assumption that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Given the fallibility of the human intellect, faith may be a necessary virtue, but humility should be a close second.

At least that's how this old solipsist sees it.

 

[stevevw]

This isn't a "god of the gaps" type argument. It's about what is at the end of any infinite regression. You can claim the necessary, always existent thing was an intelligent being, or that it was a mindless "field". One is certainly simpler than the other, but I can't disprove either.

Thats why it makes more sense to appeal to something non material as always being there because it can exist without any material cause. That is why many are turning to ideas like Mind or information as its fundemental to material reality.

The idea that some void already existed doesn't even fit the casual closure of the physical because even a void requires something. Its not really nothing and requires QM.

No conscious being also result in no questions about "why", but we do live in a universe with conscious beings asking "why" and the question is rather pointless. Nothingness doesn't result in beings to ask the question.

It does if its made of Mind or some form of consciousness. Just like Math can be said to create a universe from nothing through equations. Math is a concept, it has no space and time and it takes a mind to make maths.

I'm definitely not claiming that something came from nothing. Quite the opposite. I am supposing that something always existed.

But that just contradicts the causual closure of the physical which requires something physical to create a material void in the first place. If we are going to posit that something was always there it makes much more sense to say its non material like Mind that brought about the physical.

It seems like the horse before the cart to say the physical created the Mind because its the Mind that creates the concepts of the physical. As mentioned earlier how we know reality as opposed to what is reality comes first. However we choose to concieve reality is determined by Mind and Consciousness.

As Wheeler proposed Mind can completely change what reality is even in the past by the questions we ask and what we choose to measure. Everything starts and ends with Mind.

 

[stevevw]

Having been a solipsist for more than fifty years I'm sympathetic to the notion of a mind as a fundamental element of reality. However, in order for it to be the First Cause it can't have free will, at least not libertarian free will. Because in order for it to choose between two options... say 'A' or 'B', there must be something about those two options that causes it to choose one over the other. And whatever that factor is, it then becomes the actual First Cause... i.e. the thing which prompted the mind to act in a particular manner.

Hence, no matter what that First Cause is, even if it's a mind, it must be completely deterministic. Oddly enough that doesn't run contrary to the Christian concept of God. Because the Christian concept of free will, as it pertains to God, is simply that there's nothing outside of God that causes Him to choose one thing over another. God simply does things because it's in His nature to do them. I.E. His nature is fixed and immutable and not subject to things outside of Himself.

First I think we cannot fully comprehend why God would do something. That is our way of thinking. Its like how can God know everything and yet allow things to pan out as they do. Or how can God be all powerful and yet unable to act in certain situations that we would expect someone to act. So whatever God or the Mind is and how the objective world came about we cannot fully know.

But I agree that its something to do with the nature of God and Mind that flows forth as the same nature of reality. Perhaps it was a natural outspring of who God is. If God is always there then what does that even mean. Did God or Mind just one day decide to create everything. Maybe we are the ultimate reason and all else (objective reality) is the reflection of that being necessary for us to come about.

The Bible does talk about a void in the beginning but that the spirit of God was within this void and not a material thing. It also mentions God spoke creation into existence and that this was the 'Word' and nothing that is seen cannot come about without the Word.

However, this makes for an interesting conundrum, because whether the First Cause is a 'Quantum Field' or some other such phenomenon, or whether it's a 'mind', it would be impossible to tell the difference. They would both be fixed, immutable, and deterministic. Because if they weren't, then they wouldn't actually be the First Cause. As such both of them simply do, that which is in their nature to do.

Actually I think the determinism of material science went out the window with QM. If fundemental reality is Mind then it is mind coming up with the abstracts of objective reality. MInd is not really fixed in that it is the fundemental for knowledge and the concepts we make which will always change depending on conscious observations.

So in either case you're left wondering why the First Cause gave rise to conscious beings, and in both cases the answer is the same... because it was in their nature to do so.

I don't think its in the nature of a material basis to produce conscious beings as consciousness is not physical and there could have been any number of outcomes that did not produce conscious beings. But when Mind and consciousness is fundemental it makes sense that the void will create conscious beings. It makes sense that its nature was always going to produce conscious beings with a Mind to ask the questions of its own reality.

Whether you choose to attach some deeper spiritual meaning to that outcome, or whether you choose to think of it as just a fortuitous act of nature, that's up to you. But what you can't do... and what all theists can't do... is presume to hold some higher moral standing, simply under the assumption that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Given the fallibility of the human intellect, faith may be a necessary virtue, but humility should be a close second.

At least that's how this old solipsist sees it

But thats the thing its now just not theists who are thinking along these lines. In some ways science and QM has led us down this track or at least that interpretation of QM. It don't think humans have always looked to the sky as superstition but in trying to comprehend what see experience being part of the universe and something beyond that and I don't think its a coincident that more and more science is thinking that way.

.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think its in the nature of a material basis to produce conscious beings as consciousness is not physical and there could have been any number of outcomes that did not produce conscious beings.

I'd just like to point out a couple of things. First, on what basis do you presume that quantum fields are actually 'material' things? Is it simply because they can be modeled mathematically? Or because they give rise to material things that we can measure? Or because you can visualize them as material things? But really, on what basis can quantum fields be categorized as material things any more than minds can be categorized as material things?

Quantum Fields DON’T exist!

What do I mean by “Exists”?​

It’s easy to interpret the statement “quantum fields don’t exist” in a number of ways. When I say quantum fields don’t exist, I mean that they are not physical material objects. A quantum field is not like a chair, baseball, or cloud. You cannot point to a place in space and say “here is a quantum field”. Examples of physical objects would be electrons, protons, etc., as we can point to things in space and identify them as tracks of particles or conglomerates of particles. I’m not saying that quantum fields are fake, or that they are wrong, just that they are not physical objects.

The second thing that I'd like to point out is, why do you assume that either a mind, or a quantum field, or whatever the First Cause is, created only one version of reality? Your whole argument is based upon that assumption, for which you have no reason to believe it's true. Judging by what we understand about quantum fields so far, they exist in a superposition of every possible state. Hence they at least have the potential to give rise to every possible reality. On that basis, compared to those fields, your God would seem to be pretty impotent, if all He did was create one comparatively insignificant version of reality.

I'm not saying that those quantum fields can't be conscious. They very well could be. What I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Whether the First Cause is a field or a mind it has to behave deterministically, so the outcome will be the same regardless of whether it's conscious or not.

Just to clarify, I make these arguments based upon two fundamental rules... "The Principle of Sufficient Reason"... for everything that happens there must be a reason or a cause for why it happens. And "The Law of Non-contradiction"... something cannot be both true and not true at the same time, and in the same manner.

And no, quantum superposition doesn't violate the Law of non-contradiction. It simply represents a different state of being.

 

[Mountainmike]

Taking the claims of such "ancient stories" in the face of evidence of reality to the contrary *is* something that needs to be overcome.

Only if materialists are ever willing to study the evidence.

They are demonstrably not. Seemingly their faith wont let them!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Only if materialists are ever willing to study the evidence.

They are demonstrably not. Seemingly their faith wont let them!

Faith is an island in the setting sun.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats why it makes more sense to appeal to something non material as always being there because it can exist without any material cause. That is why many are turning to ideas like Mind or information as its fundemental to material reality.

There is no evidence that the non-material can make anything material from scratch. The always existing base material is no more or less conceptually problematic than the always existing non-material (unless the non-material requires the material, for example "ideas" requiring a thinker).

The idea that some void already existed doesn't even fit the casual closure of the physical because even a void requires something. Its not really nothing and requires QM.

I'm not talking of something that began to exist, rather something that always existed. No "causal closure" is needed in such a case.

It does if its made of Mind or some form of consciousness. Just like Math can be said to create a universe from nothing through equations. Math is a concept, it has no space and time and it takes a mind to make maths.

Nothing means nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no mind, nothing.

Math without mathematicians is unknown.

But that just contradicts the causual closure of the physical which requires something physical to create a material void in the first place. If we are going to posit that something was always there it makes much more sense to say its non material like Mind that brought about the physical.

Based on *what* rule? (And I wouldn't call it a "void", that implies emptiness, rather than some eternal material state.)

The "nothing comes from nothing" notion is really (and I'll rewrite the idiots Kalam argument here)

P: Any material object that comes into existence from other material had a material cause.

*THAT* is the thing we have abundant evidence of. The conclusion we can reach inductively.

If you have no beginning to time (cosmically) then the logical inference from this must be that something material has always existed. (I will avoid here the question of uncaused quantum mechanical events, but even in that case, some sort of thing existed.) You can posit that the always existent is some sort of non-material being with the capability to create material, but that is multiplying unknowns.

It seems like the horse before the cart to say the physical created the Mind because its the Mind that creates the concepts of the physical. As mentioned earlier how we know reality as opposed to what is reality comes first. However we choose to concieve reality is determined by Mind and Consciousness.

I said nothing about "mind" and this "Mind that creates the concepts of the physical" is irrelevant. It's also without demonstration.

The atoms exist without our minds and our concepts of the physical are just descriptions of what exist. We do no create the nuclear strong force or the semi-conductor band gap. We conceptualize these to understand the behavior of nuclei and semi-conductors, but they exist without us doing so.

As Wheeler proposed Mind can completely change what reality is even in the past by the questions we ask and what we choose to measure. Everything starts and ends with Mind.

Not for the mindless. Name one astronomical object with a mind.

 

[Mountainmike]

Faith is an island in the setting sun.

Far too deep for me.
Faith is “ trust or confidence” .

We all have a world view , or lens through which we see the universe. So confident are materialists , including here, against any phenomenon of theistic connection they refuse to even look at related evidence,


It even Impacts testing. An Australian university stated it clearly “ we can’t test the Sample because we are a university founded on Darwin. If you are right, we would have to shut several departments down” The argument that as scientists: “ aren’t you supposed to follow the truth wherever it leads?” or “ if you are so certain , you will have no problem revealing a fraud? ” is lost on them . All Clearly terrified about what they might find. And after the fact - a dean of one university made fraudulent statements to undermine and misrepresent evidence , whilst gaggimg his own medical pathologists , to cover up the fact that they and his university confirmed one so called miracle!

The idea that all academia is objective is laughable. Even on its home ground.

I sat through plenty enough conferences in standard acadeMia ( and I’ll wager you have too)
to know that “ can I have the first question please “ was all to often used by establishment professors to launch an unscientific childish rant, against anyone who undermined a pet theory they had dined out on for years.
Big kids these long serving professors , who then did all they could to wreck the careers of anyone daring to challenge them. Papers would be adversely referenced . Job opportunities for those daring to challenge blocked using the jungle telegraph of who you know in competing Universities. Some of these professors are far too powerful. They sit on or have influence on grants committees , and key journals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Far too deep for me.

As the song continues. Proof. Proof is the bottom line for everyone.

Faith is “ trust or confidence” .

Generally, but I find [and the inner voice in my head wanted to continue this sentence 'your lack of faith disturbing' once I started typing it.] "faith" to be a confusing term when discussed in a place with so much religious context (such as CF). Therefore, I have resolved to never use the word "faith" for anything but the religious kind lest it foster confusion. (As you can clearly see from this site, many posters respond to any use of that word, even in non-religious contexts, as if it is only religious in nature. This leads to vile claims like "science is a religion". I also try not to use "believe" for similar reasons.)

We all have a world view , or lens through which we see the universe. So confident are materialists ,

You (and others) keep calling me that, but I don't really care about money.

including here, against any phenomenon of theistic connection they refuse to even look at related evidence,

Science is inherently naturalistic so we must look at potential natural explanations *first*.

It even Impacts testing. An Australian university stated it clearly “ we can’t test the Sample because we are a university founded on Darwin. If you are right, we would have to shut several departments down”

[citation needed]

The argument that as scientists: “ aren’t you supposed to follow the truth wherever it leads?” or “ if you are so certain , you will have no problem revealing a fraud? ” is lost on them .

Hardly. I have no problem uncovering frauds or referring to them as such. This is quite common, if not universal.

All Clearly terrified about what they might find. And after the fact - a dean of one university made fraudulent statements to undermine and misrepresent evidence , whilst gaggimg his own medical pathologists , to cover up the fact that they and his university confirmed one so called miracle!

another assertion presented without reference.

The idea that all academia is objective is laughable. Even on its home ground.

I sat through plenty enough conferences in standard acadeMia ( and I’ll wager you have too)
to know that “ can I have the first question please “ was all to often used by establishment professors to launch an unscientific childish rant, against anyone who undermined a pet theory they had dined out on for years.

I've been attending conferences and colloquia for 25 years and only have see two things that come even close to this. The first involved an application of applied physics to something outside the normal scope of physics and a professor who seem indignant that the presented work wasn't "really physics". (I was a little embarrassed for the department that day.) The second case involves someone who presented work inspired by his own specialty, but that didn't properly consider the full nature of the new problem he was trying to solve. We pushed back hard on his presentation and argued against his questions later in the conference. To this day, I don't think I've ever cited his work, though he recently cited mine. This is the problem with trying to apply your work outside your expertise -- sometimes you just don't know what you're talking about.

Big kids these long serving professors , who then did all they could to wreck the careers of anyone daring to challenge them. Papers would be adversely referenced . Job opportunities for those daring to challenge blocked using the jungle telegraph of who you know in competing Universities. Some of these professors are far too powerful. They sit on or have influence on grants committees , and key journals.

I know of one person who got a "sneaky bad recommendation" (why I don't know), but he got the job anyway. Perhaps some day I'll tell you about the two follow-on papers I probably killed while refereeing the first one.

 

[stevevw]

I'd just like to point out a couple of things. First, on what basis do you presume that quantum fields are actually 'material' things? Is it simply because they can be modeled mathematically? Or because they give rise to material things that we can measure? Or because you can visualize them as material things? But really, on what basis can quantum fields be categorized as material things any more than minds can be categorized as material things?

Quantum Fields DON’T exist!

I think because they have potential to create a particles. The void is bubbling with potential which results in a particle. Without that field there are no particles. According to the link fields are just a mathmatical model of particle potentiality so though it may be nothing physical it seems to relate more to Mind and information being fundemental which supports Mind or consciousness neing fundemental.

The second thing that I'd like to point out is, why do you assume that either a mind, or a quantum field, or whatever the First Cause is, created only one version of reality? Your whole argument is based upon that assumption, for which you have no reason to believe it's true.

But either way we have to make an assumption. Its also an assumption that there could be more than one reality. The materialist view would assume more than one reality because its based on chance. Some use the Multiverse to explain our fine tuned universe for conscious life. We just happen to live in the universe that produced intelligent life but there may be other universes with different realities that didn't.

Or that nature could have produced zombies without consciousness like robots able to do everything conscious humans can do to survive except not be conscious. But I think we take the simplest assumption which is all we know is that we are here in our universe and thats the only one we can know exists. By positing a Multiverse or or zombies we add complication and then have a lot more explaining to do.

Judging by what we understand about quantum fields so far, they exist in a superposition of every possible state. Hence they at least have the potential to give rise to every possible reality. On that basis, compared to those fields, your God would seem to be pretty impotent, if all He did was create one comparatively insignificant version of reality.

Not really. I don't know the exact way God created something from nothing. But going back to Wheeler and others who support the idea that consciousness creates reality it may be that the universe itself exists as a potentiality but it is consciousness that gives it its state. We just don't know, a universe without consciousness may be a universe of potentiality, of energy and waves that never really exists as objective reality.

I'm not saying that those quantum fields can't be conscious. They very well could be. What I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Whether the First Cause is a field or a mind it has to behave deterministically, so the outcome will be the same regardless of whether it's conscious or not.

But I though you just said that a quantum field is basically a model of potentiality. So there is no determinism but potential which could happen in any number of ways. Nothing is fixed until it is measured and observed.

Yet as with Wigner Friend there can be more than one objective reality because it all depends on how it is measured, from what point. This makes sense as though observers can create the objective world its not fixed either as different observers can see different realities depending on their own place in space and time.

This would mean that objective reality is a reflection of something deeper like mind or consciousness and that reflection can be changed according to which observer. So the sun is setting and rising at the same time, one person sees a white dress another sees a blue one, animal senses are different to humans, if there were aliens they may see a completely differently objective reality to humans.

So who has the true reality. Its all relative because its a surface reflection of something more fundemental. But the key is conscious experience which allows each to experience there own reality within the framework of a greater more fundemental reality.

Just to clarify, I make these arguments based upon two fundamental rules... "The Principle of Sufficient Reason"... for everything that happens there must be a reason or a cause for why it happens. And "The Law of Non-contradiction"... something cannot be both true and not true at the same time, and in the same manner.

And no, quantum superposition doesn't violate the Law of non-contradiction. It simply represents a different state of being.

What do you mean by a different state of being.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But either way we have to make an assumption. Its also an assumption that there could be more than one reality.

I have no idea with "more than one reality" means.

The materialist view would assume more than one reality because its based on chance.

How so?

Some use the Multiverse to explain our fine tuned universe for conscious life.

The Multiverse does eliminate or reduce any problems of "fine tuning", but the Universe isn't that finely tuned anyway.

We just happen to live in the universe that produced intelligent life but there may be other universes with different realities that didn't.

You're getting there. If intelligent life is impossible, then no one will ask the dumbest "profound" question of them all. (Why is there something rather than nothing?)

Or that nature could have produced zombies without consciousness like robots able to do everything conscious humans can do to survive except not be conscious. But I think we take the simplest assumption which is all we know is that we are here in our universe and thats the only one we can know exists.

We know about the physics of our Universe. The physics of other possible universes are largely just speculation.

By positing a Multiverse or or zombies we add complication and then have a lot more explaining to do.

Not really. The Multiverse notion comes out as a consequence of models for the formation of the Universe. It's not even an attempt to undo "fine tuning" even though it does a spectacular job at "fixing" that "problem".

 

[stevevw]

I have no idea with "more than one reality" means.

If the multiverse can bring about alternative universes with different physical parametres then they are different realities to what we experience. If evolution produced a zombie without consciousness then that would be a different reality ro what we experience.

How so?

Did the Big Bang hold the parametres for conscious intelligent life in its intitial coming into being. Were there deterministic processes then ensured what we have today or could it have turned out completely different or even not at all.

The Multiverse does eliminate or reduce any problems of "fine tuning", but the Universe isn't that finely tuned anyway.

Well many disagree including many mainstream atheist scientists. The point was we have two ideas. One that says the universe is fined tuned for what we have today. But materialists cannot accept this idea because naturalism is based on determinism. Though there are some flexibility at the micro level it has to be determinist at the macro because it needs to trace the prior causes which have to be explained in a mechanistic way.

You're getting there. If intelligent life is impossible, then no one will ask the dumbest "profound" question of them all. (Why is there something rather than nothing?)

And yet we still want to answer that question regardless of who we are. Its probably one of the major questions many scientists are tripping themselves over with with experiments like the LHC. The dicovery of the Higgs Boson was touted as the God particle for God sake lol. We can't help it which points to it being not a 'dumb' question.

Its only dumb from a detached rationalist mind from the actuial reality of our experience. Which seems to be the basic problem that conscious experience is nothing but a add on of the physical, thus a delusion and can be dismissed as being dumb.

We know about the physics of our Universe. The physics of other possible universes are largely just speculation.

But they are spectualted based on the same theorectical physics we use to understand out universe. +

Not really. The Multiverse notion comes out as a consequence of models for the formation of the Universe. It's not even an attempt to undo "fine tuning" even though it does a spectacular job at "fixing" that "problem".

I though the Multiverse was the product of ideas like String theory with its 11 dimensions and all that. Or what about the Hologram principle.

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.

Either way they seem to be ideas that support reality being a surface relection, able to change, with more dimensions that the 3 dimensions of the Standard theory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I though the Multiverse was the product of ideas like String theory with its 11 dimensions and all that. Or what about the Hologram principle.

The multiverse (at least the one we normally speak of) comes from "eternal inflation". Essentially everything is inflating and "small" bubbles stop and become ordinary universes:


"In 1983, it was shown that inflation could be eternal, leading to a multiverse in which space is broken up into bubbles or patches whose properties differ from patch to patch spanning all physical possibilities."

Inflation itself originated from trying to solve the problem of the apparent non-existence of magnetic monopoles, though it proved very useful in sorting out a few aspects of cosmology.

 

[QvQ]

Math is the "language" used to describe physical systems. Some of it was even developed specifically to do physics. It is not so surprising that the Universe seems to work on math.

I agree. Math is a description. It is a language. Art or whatever. Math is after the fact, a reflection, not the fact itsel

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well many disagree including many mainstream atheist scientists.

Could we please stop using this phrasing?

First "mainstream science" is just "science".

Second, please stop the conflation of "atheist" and "scientist".

There are several people in science who post semi-regularly on this section of CF that are declared Christians. (They probably out number us actual scientists who are atheists here as well.)

I know lots of scientists, for most I have no idea what there religion is or is not. That's normal since science is a secular activity and religion is irrelevant to it. Of the scientists whom I know something about their religious opinions, about a third are active believers, perhaps another third are nominal believers (from what I can see), and a third are non-believers. [In that middle group are those who've made some sort of statement reflecting a religious belief or practice, but for whom I can't tell how active they are. For all I know, most of them go to sunday mass each week.]