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

[stevevw]

How like the english to just write "royal" and assume it means them.

I guess they have had a long history of all things Royal that represents something good and a certain standard. There was the Royal Navy and Air Force which was and is well respected and known for nearly 500 years, well the Navy anyway. So its just a continuation of a prestigious association as a mark of the highest honor and standard.

Nevertheless the Royal part is just how the British do it but the Acadamy or Association using the name is still a recognised body which controls, registers, and regulates the professionals they represent. So they are not just individual professionals but the teachers and regulators of the professionals. Therefore they have even higher expectation to be credible.

 

[stevevw]

This is different then your quote from the "royal" institute of somesuch:

Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.

I'm going to assume that the "knowing" is from the down-under academy of you.

[BTW, this post was much better than so many of your previous ones. It goes so much better when the whole post fits on the screen of a laptop. Thanks.]

lol thanks. Its just as we know when it comes to consciousness its a bit hard to explain. Well its not really when you remove the assumption of physicalism. But its hard to explain to the physicalist.

I didn't actually post a link with the first quote as I thought the credibility of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was enough. But the second quote came from the same article and you will find these in the first 3 paragraphs.

Nevertheless it doesn't matter I post a few links on the meaning. Broadly they all say it does involve feelings and beliefs but its also more than these sensory experiences. Its about something beyond this, some universal truth or greater insight and meaning to life beyond the physical world. People have all sorts of meanings they attribute and religion is not necessarly spirituality though its closely associated.

 

[stevevw]

Now we get to the really weird claims...

What is this notion of "mind over matter" being proposed here. It is not clear. Are we merely talking about the decisions made in the mind that translate to the outside world? (For example, I decide to cut down a tree.) Are we talking about some sort of direct mental projection? What are you talking about?

Don't you remember the craze in the 80's about some self help book called 'the poower of positive thinking'. It was the rage I think because it was a time when we were dicovering the psyche which was disputing behavioural theory (that human behaviour and choices were the result of nerves, genetics and brain chemicals.

So there was a big movement towards the power of the mind and how it could overcome physical problems or physical barriers and push people beyond their physical bodies. I think it was also about nurture and nature and this debate is still going on as to what role does the mind play in influencing reality, the outcomes. About how perspective can be different and how it can make a differences as to what happens.

AI isn't close to consciousness, at all. There are some interesting machine learning models, but no general intelligence. The connections in the brain are way more complex than any electronic computer.

So do you think one day it will be possible to make a machine capable of consciousness.

 

[Tuur]

Don't you remember the craze in the 80's about some self help book called 'the poower of positive thinking'.

By Norman Vincent Peale. The book dates from the 1950s. It more focuses on internal attitudes than mind over matter. Still not recommended.

 

[stevevw]

Your response did not address the unfalsifiable nature of multiverses which was the point I was making.
In the many worlds interpretation of QM since we exist in these alterative universes, the parameters are the same otherwise we could not exist.
This is distinctively different from multiverses created from eternal inflation as the parameters are not expected to be same.

No but whatever idea that will replace the Multiverse is also not going to be easily verified because some sort of counter intuitive idea is required according to the observations and predictions of current models. Unless the current models are completey scrapped.

But because ideas like the Multiverse fits so well and answers some difficult issues some want to uphold these ideas simply because they fit and are so elegant. They want to lower the criteria for verification.

I also thought the idea of QM and the Multiverse was that there would be various random universes and not ones the exact same as ours.

Which BB are you referring to here, the BB that occurred at cosmological time t = 0 or the hot BB at t = 10⁻³⁰s?
The BB at t=0 which comes before inflation is not an anomaly, it is an unknown as we do not have a quantum gravity theory which explains the universe preceding the Planck time of 10⁻⁴³ s.
Inflation theory is not unfalsifiable, it makes a prediction that primordial gravitational waves should leave a particular mode of photon polarization on the CMB.
This B-mode polarization was falsely reported in 2014 when was it discovered metallic dust in our own galaxy can also produce similar signals and the current problem is to differentiate and separate out these signals.

Since the inflation theory is falsifiable it doesn’t lead to problems in the hot BB which comes after it.

I think its the Inflation period at 10⁻³⁰ though I thought it was at 10⁻37s. But this is Guths theory and this is what predicts a Multiverse.

It is about black holes; inside the event horizon of a black hole the mathematics indicates time takes on properties of length and vice versa.

So then does time break down as we know it.

On the contrary what each paper is stating in the entangled state, energy can cover all possible routes simultaneously to reach the reaction centre, however when the entangled state undergoes decoherence or wave collapse the energy takes the quickest route to the reaction centre.
From each paper.

"Once a light-harvesting protein has captured sunlight, it needs to get that trapped energy to the reaction centre in the cell as quickly as possible, where the energy is converted into chemical energy for the organism.
It was assumed the energy gets to the reaction centre in a random fashion, like a drunk staggering home. But quantum coherence would allow the energy to test every possible pathway simultaneously before travelling via the quickest route."

The quickest route does not mean instantaneous time.

But what about the ability of energy to test all pathways simultaneously to determine the quickest root.

I will have to do some more reading as I am sure I read that due to quantum entanglement that cells could communicate instantly which was one of the bodies ability for cell rejuvenation. I am not sure about this paper. I think this is the latest one.

Quantum entanglement of two macroscopic objects is the Physics World 2021 Breakthrough of the Year

Quantum entanglement of two macroscopic objects is the Physics World 2021 Breakthrough of the Year – Physics World

This year’s award is shared by two independent teams

physicsworld.com

So why are you posting this in a science forum?

The thread is really about the science and philosophy. It also seems the philosophy forum is closed on not having any new topics. I mean these last pages have been pretty well about the science and that would be part of clarifying whether there is a mind behind what we see.

The study of Mind and Consciousness or Information as fundemental come under the sciences as well and that is what I am mainly aiming at, how the science is gradually promoting ideas like Mind and Consciousness as fundemental.

Evenso it seems a bit late for that as even the OP implies philsophy and no one has said anything until 500 or so posts in. But I'm not fussed where it sits really.

 

[stevevw]

By Norman Vincent Peale. The book dates from the 1950s. It more focuses on internal attitudes than mind over matter. Still not recommended.

Yes and that is why I think it was revived in the 80's as it was all about positive thinking and mental states as the underlying driver of where a person was at. I don't think many people had actually read it, but was promoted a lot at the time.

I think we still place importance of our mental states over the physical. Motivational speakers, psychologically is now a normal part of business and sports and Life coaches are all the rage getting into peoples heads about mindfulness and having the right state of mind to change things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess they have had a long history of all things Royal that represents something good and a certain standard. There was the Royal Navy and Air Force which was and is well respected and known for nearly 500 years, well the Navy anyway. So its just a continuation of a prestigious association as a mark of the highest honor and standard.

And I grew up thinking royalty was an abomination, so they get no such "prestige" boost from me. Just a SMH. (Good catch on the RAF thing.)

(Did you know the "Royal" Air Force *does* go back 500 years? They were so soundly defeated by Geo. Washington at the Battle of Monmouth Airport that they crawled back in their holes and hid until airplanes were actually invented. [At least that's what DJT told me.] )

Nevertheless the Royal part is just how the British do it but the Acadamy or Association using the name is still a recognised body which controls, registers, and regulates the professionals they represent. So they are not just individual professionals but the teachers and regulators of the professionals. Therefore they have even higher expectation to be credible.

Does your academy also have a problem with creaky old members getting out of their lanes and pushing nonsense (or bigotry) too?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't you remember the craze in the 80's about some self help book called 'the poower of positive thinking'. It was the rage I think because it was a time when we were dicovering the psyche which was disputing behavioural theory (that human behaviour and choices were the result of nerves, genetics and brain chemicals.

So there was a big movement towards the power of the mind and how it could overcome physical problems or physical barriers and push people beyond their physical bodies. I think it was also about nurture and nature and this debate is still going on as to what role does the mind play in influencing reality, the outcomes. About how perspective can be different and how it can make a differences as to what happens.

The current version is called the Prosperity Gospel. "Fake it til you make it." and various other detrimental things. (MLMs, self-improvement cults, investment scams, etc.) Some exposed to this self-delusion think they (and they alone) can fix anything.

So do you think one day it will be possible to make a machine capable of consciousness.

Only if I find a like-minded partner...

 

[Hans Blaster]

lol thanks. Its just as we know when it comes to consciousness its a bit hard to explain. Well its not really when you remove the assumption of physicalism. But its hard to explain to the physicalist.

I didn't actually post a link with the first quote as I thought the credibility of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was enough. But the second quote came from the same article and you will find these in the first 3 paragraphs.

Nevertheless it doesn't matter I post a few links on the meaning. Broadly they all say it does involve feelings and beliefs but its also more than these sensory experiences. Its about something beyond this, some universal truth or greater insight and meaning to life beyond the physical world. People have all sorts of meanings they attribute and religion is not necessarly spirituality though its closely associated.

At this point I'm probably need a link to the article from the college of psychiatry. The last quote you gave is a sentence fragment and context is need. I have no doubt people think/feel/etc. that there is more to experience than perception, brain states, and emotions.

 

[Tuur]

The current version is called the Prosperity Gospel. "Fake it til you make it." and various other detrimental things. (MLMs, self-improvement cults, investment scams, etc.) Some exposed to this self-delusion think they (and they alone) can fix anything.

I think the last version was The Secret. It struck me as similar. I don't recommend that book, either. Prosperity gospel looks similar to something floating around in the 17th Century. Not authorized by clergy then (that I know of), but it was still floating around. Prosperity gospel would look at Paul sitting in prison and tell him "You're doing it wrong."

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think the last version was The Secret. It struck me as similar. I don't recommend that book, either. Prosperity gospel looks similar to something floating around in the 17th Century. Not authorized by clergy then (that I know of), but it was still floating around. Prosperity gospel would look at Paul sitting in prison and tell him "You're doing it wrong."

Yeah, there is "the secret" and various other things pushed by Oprah and her tree of horrors (Phil, Oz, Marianne, etc.). We Americans seem to be so susceptible to ego-boosting flim flam.

 

[sjastro]

No but whatever idea that will replace the Multiverse is also not going to be easily verified because some sort of counter intuitive idea is required according to the observations and predictions of current models. Unless the current models are completey scrapped.

But because ideas like the Multiverse fits so well and answers some difficult issues some want to uphold these ideas simply because they fit and are so elegant. They want to lower the criteria for verification.

I also thought the idea of QM and the Multiverse was that there would be various random universes and not ones the exact same as ours.

The multiverse falls in the not even wrong category since it is not falsifiable and therefore there are no observations to support or disprove it.
How can you replace the multiverse idea when you don’t even know it is wrong?

Since you want to conflate philosophy with science, the multiverse is a working example of the inverse gambler’s fallacy where the physical parameters that define our universe, or any other universe for that matter, has been assumed to be determined by the infinite number of universes that were created beforehand ensuring any given universe can exist.

Clearly the many worlds interpretation of QM requires each universe created to have the same physical parameters in order for us to exist in these alternate realities.

I think its the Inflation period at 10⁻³⁰ though I thought it was at 10⁻37s. But this is Guths theory and this is what predicts a Multiverse.

With eternal inflation space time undergoes indefinite exponential expansion but when a bubble universe such as our own is formed inflation needs to cease in order to allow gravity to eventually form stars and galaxies.
The inflation period for our universe lasted from 10⁻³⁶ to 10⁻³²s after the initial BB before the hot BB kicked in at 10⁻³⁰s.

So then does time break down as we know it.

Also length breaks down as we know it which perhaps indicates our understanding of time and length as physical parameters is not complete.

But what about the ability of energy to test all pathways simultaneously to determine the quickest root.

I will have to do some more reading as I am sure I read that due to quantum entanglement that cells could communicate instantly which was one of the bodies ability for cell rejuvenation. I am not sure about this paper. I think this is the latest one.

Quantum entanglement of two macroscopic objects is the Physics World 2021 Breakthrough of the Year

Quantum entanglement of two macroscopic objects is the Physics World 2021 Breakthrough of the Year – Physics World

This year’s award is shared by two independent teams

physicsworld.com

It is not the cells that are entangled but the electrons which carry the energy to the reaction sites which are.
It has been explained on numerous occasions communication can only occur after decoherence or wave function collapse.

What has your supportive link about the entanglement of macro sized resonators got to do with the rejuvenation of cells?

The thread is really about the science and philosophy. It also seems the philosophy forum is closed on not having any new topics. I mean these last pages have been pretty well about the science and that would be part of clarifying whether there is a mind behind what we see.

The study of Mind and Consciousness or Information as fundemental come under the sciences as well and that is what I am mainly aiming at, how the science is gradually promoting ideas like Mind and Consciousness as fundemental.

Evenso it seems a bit late for that as even the OP implies philsophy and no one has said anything until 500 or so posts in. But I'm not fussed where it sits really.

The reason why this thread has gone for 500+ posts is your obsession in beating a dead hose by conflating science with religion, metaphysics and philosophy in the hope it is going to make science more complete despite your denials.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reason why this thread has gone for 500+ posts is your obsession in beating a dead hose by conflating science with religion, metaphysics and philosophy in the hope it is going to make science more complete despite your denials.

Here, here.

 

[stevevw]

The multiverse falls in the not even wrong category since it is not falsifiable and therefore there are no observations to support or disprove it.
How can you replace the multiverse idea when you don’t even know it is wrong?

So therefore This also effects eternal inflation theory as well because its predicting an unfalsifiable idea. From memory this was the very reason one of the pioneers of inflation theory, I think Steinhardt who had revised his position and said he thought inflation theory was now dead.

But my point was that there is going to come a point where the current science cannot falsify some ideas because the ideas required fall beyond observations. No matter what the idea be it Multiverse, String theory or some other multidimensional idea its going to be impossible to verify.

Since you want to conflate philosophy with science, the multiverse is a working example of the inverse gambler’s fallacy where the physical parameters that define our universe, or any other universe for that matter, has been assumed to be determined by the infinite number of universes that were created beforehand ensuring any given universe can exist.

Clearly the many worlds interpretation of QM requires each universe created to have the same physical parameters in order for us to exist in these alternate realities.

I thought that was one of the reasons the multiverse solves the problem of why conscious intelligent life cvould arise from a random unordered universe that because ours is one of many varying universes its not so special. That is often used to counter the fine tuning arguement.

But I also thought it was the result of QM and the Many Worlds interpretation. It postulates that that each new branch or world could have any physical makeup. A universe that has 'us' in it to exist just as we are is just one universe and there may be others where we live a different existence or where some universes never produced intelligent life or maybe produced some other strange intelligent life according to the particular physical parameters.

With eternal inflation space time undergoes indefinite exponential expansion but when a bubble universe such as our own is formed inflation needs to cease in order to allow gravity to eventually form stars and galaxies.
The inflation period for our universe lasted from 10⁻³⁶ to 10⁻³²s after the initial BB before the hot BB kicked in at 10⁻³⁰s.

Yes but I thought some of these bubble universe will turn out universes that are unlike our own. That is the idea of the Multiverse or Bubble universes or Big Bounce as some call it.

Also length breaks down as we know it which perhaps indicates our understanding of time and length as physical parameters is not complete.

Yes that is all I am saying.

It is not the cells that are entangled but the electrons which carry the energy to the reaction sites which are.
It has been explained on numerous occasions communication can only occur after decoherence or wave function collapse.

OK so after wave function collapse how is the energy communicated. Is there some physical connection or is this just some basic law of Quantum entanglement I think Bell's theorem.

What has your supportive link about the entanglement of macro sized resonators got to do with the rejuvenation of cells?

Nothing I was saying that besides the link I posted about entangled resonators is just one example. I was saying that there is another paper about entangled cells communicating as well. That there seems to be more evdience for entangled states in the macro world in recent times.

The reason why this thread has gone for 500+ posts is your obsession in beating a dead hose by conflating science with religion, metaphysics and philosophy in the hope it is going to make science more complete despite your denials.

I have linked the science to metaphysics and philosophy which is certainly a natural connection when it comes to ideas like Consciousness and Mind. But I certainly haven't pushed the religiuous or God angle. I think thats something you believe is happening perhaps because of your own assumptions.

Like I said if you notice I am discussion the science, what it verifies or cannot verify or not, what it actually says and thanks to yourself and others that is being clarified. But not everything is verified is its natural to question these issues espercially something like consciousness which even mainstream sciences find difficult to talk about without including subjective experiences which then poses the famous 'hard Problem' to discuss and overcome.

 

[sjastro]

So therefore This also effects eternal inflation theory as well because its predicting an unfalsifiable idea. From memory this was the very reason one of the pioneers of inflation theory, I think Steinhardt who had revised his position and said he thought inflation theory was now dead.

But my point was that there is going to come a point where the current science cannot falsify some ideas because the ideas required fall beyond observations. No matter what the idea be it Multiverse, String theory or some other multidimensional idea its going to be impossible to verify.

It’s not case of predicting an unfalsifiable idea, as Steinhardt puts it's eternal inflation predicts nothing.
Why does it predict nothing; not only because multiverses take up all possibilities but also of the existence of a particle horizon as information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
This has been explained to you on numerous occasions which you ignore resulting in this thread going around in circles and adding to the post count unnecessarily.

I thought that was one of the reasons the multiverse solves the problem of why conscious intelligent life cvould arise from a random unordered universe that because ours is one of many varying universes its not so special. That is often used to counter the fine tuning arguement.

Did I not explain this to you in my previous post?

“Since you want to conflate philosophy with science, the multiverse is a working example of the inverse gambler’s fallacy where the physical parameters that define our universe, or any other universe for that matter, has been assumed to be determined by the infinite number of universes that were created beforehand ensuring any given universe can exist.”

But I also thought it was the result of QM and the Many Worlds interpretation. It postulates that that each new branch or world could have any physical makeup. A universe that has 'us' in it to exist just as we are is just one universe and there may be others where we live a different existence or where some universes never produced intelligent life or maybe produced some other strange intelligent life according to the particular physical parameters.

With the Many Worlds interpretation, I had in mind an entangled human observer in which case every new world created contains the human observer as well.
If fine tuning is essential for the human observer’s existence one would expect these alternate worlds to have the same physical parameters.

Yes but I thought some of these bubble universe will turn out universes that are unlike our own. That is the idea of the Multiverse or Bubble universes or Big Bounce as some call it.

My explanation was based on the timeline for our universe and nothing else.

Yes that is all I am saying.

What I was saying our physical understanding of both time and length which is inextricably linked in black hole mathematics may not be complete.

OK so after wave function collapse how is the energy communicated. Is there some physical connection or is this just some basic law of Quantum entanglement I think Bell's theorem.

Bell’s theorem involves the subject of locality and non-locality and is not relevant to the discussion of photosynthesis.
In an earlier post in this thread, I explained some ideas around Lagrangian mechanics which states classical mechanics is based on the principle of least action and is also used in QM.
Similar to the principle of least action is the principle of least time which a light path takes and in the case of photosynthesis also by electrons after decoherence or wave function collapse has occurred.

Repeating myself again least time does not mean instantaneous time.

Nothing I was saying that besides the link I posted about entangled resonators is just one example. I was saying that there is another paper about entangled cells communicating as well. That there seems to be more evdience for entangled states in the macro world in recent times.

It doesn’t come across that way, this is what you stated, “I will have to do some more reading as I am sure I read that due to quantum entanglement that cells could communicate instantly which was one of the bodies ability for cell rejuvenation. I am not sure about this paper. I think this is the latest one”.
Link.

The link is about resonators not cells.

I have linked the science to metaphysics and philosophy which is certainly a natural connection when it comes to ideas like Consciousness and Mind. But I certainly haven't pushed the religiuous or God angle. I think thats something you believe is happening perhaps because of your own assumptions.

Like I said if you notice I am discussion the science, what it verifies or cannot verify or not, what it actually says and thanks to yourself and others that is being clarified. But not everything is verified is its natural to question these issues espercially something like consciousness which even mainstream sciences find difficult to talk about without including subjective experiences which then poses the famous 'hard Problem' to discuss and overcome.

You haven’t pushed “the religious or God angle”; are you kidding given the thread title reads,
Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

This has gone on far enough; this thread has been going around in circles and should have ended around 450 posts ago when it was pointed out consciousness is an interpretation of QM and not a separate theory.
Yet along with your other assertions which are wrong such as information being transmitted instantaneously you refuse to accept the science as doesn’t fit within the scope of ID.

That’s my theory of your motivations in this thread and I’ll stick to it.

 

[stevevw]

It’s not case of predicting an unfalsifiable idea, as Steinhardt puts it's eternal inflation predicts nothing.
Why does it predict nothing; not only because multiverses take up all possibilities but also of the existence of a particle horizon as information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
This has been explained to you on numerous occasions which you ignore resulting in this thread going around in circles and adding to the post count unnecessarily.

So what are you saying Inflation and the Multiverse theories are dead.

Did I not explain this to you in my previous post?

“Since you want to conflate philosophy with science, the multiverse is a working example of the inverse gambler’s fallacy where the physical parameters that define our universe, or any other universe for that matter, has been assumed to be determined by the infinite number of universes that were created beforehand ensuring any given universe can exist.”

Ok so there goes the Many Worlds theory as well. We keep going there won't be many theories left. No wonder the standard model is said to be in trouble,.

With the Many Worlds interpretation, I had in mind an entangled human observer in which case every new world created contains the human observer as well.

But many universes will be created without a human observer.

If fine tuning is essential for the human observer’s existence one would expect these alternate worlds to have the same physical parameters.

I don't think that was how most people understood the fine tuning arguement. The idea is that the many physical parameters required for conscious intelligent humans is fined tuned so much that if this was the only outcome from a random and disordered event then this makes it highly unlikely.

So having many multiverses with varying physics where some won't have any humans at all makes ours not so special and therefore dispells the fine tuning arguement.

My explanation was based on the timeline for our universe and nothing else.

So the question is did our universe come from nothing or as most say it was rebirthed from another universe thud avoiding the 'something from nothing' problem. So then what was the universe before our universe like, did it have humans, maybe or maybe not.

What I was saying our physical understanding of both time and length which is inextricably linked in black hole mathematics may not be complete.

So what does that mean for time and length of our understanding is incomplete. There maybe more to it than we realize, we may not understand the true nature of time.

Bell’s theorem involves the subject of locality and non-locality and is not relevant to the discussion of photosynthesis.
In an earlier post in this thread, I explained some ideas around Lagrangian mechanics which states classical mechanics is based on the principle of least action and is also used in QM.
Similar to the principle of least action is the principle of least time which a light path takes and in the case of photosynthesis also by electrons after decoherence or wave function collapse has occurred.

Repeating myself again least time does not mean instantaneous time.

OK so they have not worked out entanglement yet at the macro level. Do you think they will be able to send information instanteously or non locally one day.

It doesn’t come across that way, this is what you stated, “I will have to do some more reading as I am sure I read that due to quantum entanglement that cells could communicate instantly which was one of the bodies ability for cell rejuvenation. I am not sure about this paper. I think this is the latest one”.
Link.

The link is about resonators not cells.

Yes as I said I was having trouble finding it now as I read it a few years ago. I was then trying to find simiular papers on entanglement and not necessarily about cells.

You haven’t pushed “the religious or God angle”; are you kidding given the thread title reads,
Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

Yes thats a question and not pushing anything. But besides the title I have hardly mentioned God or relaigion. We have been debating topics like time and space, the BB, Inflation and Multiverse theory, math, physics, psychology and a bit of evolution. They are not theistic topics. The only topic close to religion is consciousness which also has a science to it.

This has gone on far enough; this thread has been going around in circles and should have ended around 450 posts ago when it was pointed out consciousness is an interpretation of QM and not a separate theory.
Yet along with your other assertions which are wrong such as information being transmitted instantaneously you refuse to accept the science as doesn’t fit within the scope of ID.

That’s my theory of your motivations in this thread and I’ll stick to it.

Thats fair enough but I am not sure what you mean "it was pointed out consciousness is an interpretation of QM and not a separate theory".

Are you saying consciousness is an interpretation of QM and not a separate theory. If so what do you mean by this. Is this another way of saying consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain.

 

[sjastro]

So what are you saying Inflation and the Multiverse theories are dead.

No. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Ok so there goes the Many Worlds theory as well. We keep going there won't be many theories left. No wonder the standard model is said to be in trouble,.

Many Worlds is not a theory. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

But many universes will be created without a human observer.

Discussion was about entangled human observers. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

I don't think that was how most people understood the fine tuning arguement. The idea is that the many physical parameters required for conscious intelligent humans is fined tuned so much that if this was the only outcome from a random and disordered event then this makes it highly unlikely.

So having many multiverses with varying physics where some won't have any humans at all makes ours not so special and therefore dispells the fine tuning arguement.

That's correct. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

So the question is did our universe come from nothing or as most say it was rebirthed from another universe thud avoiding the 'something from nothing' problem. So then what was the universe before our universe like, did it have humans, maybe or maybe not.

Rebirthing universes is not mainstream.

So what does that mean for time and length of our understanding is incomplete. There maybe more to it than we realize, we may not understand the true nature of time.

Why omit our understanding of length? Refer to previous posts in this thread.

OK so they have not worked out entanglement yet at the macro level. Do you think they will be able to send information instanteously or non locally one day.

To coin a popular creationist theme, I don't have a time machine to find out.

Yes as I said I was having trouble finding it now as I read it a few years ago. I was then trying to find simiular papers on entanglement and not necessarily about cells.

Then stop linking the wrong references.

Yes thats a question and not pushing anything. But besides the title I have hardly mentioned God or relaigion. We have been debating topics like time and space, the BB, Inflation and Multiverse theory, math, physics, psychology and a bit of evolution. They are not theistic topics. The only topic close to religion is consciousness which also has a science to it.

Baloney this has been a front for ID, the thread title said it all.

Thats fair enough but I am not sure what you mean "it was pointed out consciousness is an interpretation of QM and not a separate theory".

Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Are you saying consciousness is an interpretation of QM and not a separate theory. If so what do you mean by this. Is this another way of saying consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain.

Refer to previous posts in this thread.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's correct. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Today I got an award for 15 years as a member of Physics Forums so in honor of the occasion I'm going to do something which I almost never do on PF, I'm going to ask a question.

The fine-tuning argument assumes that if the fundamental constants undergirding our reality were even slightly different, then life as we know it couldn't exist.

My question is, do we know enough about why those fundamental constants are the way they are, to be able to confidently say that they could've been different? Hypothetically we can imagine any physical parameters that we want to, but are those alternative physical parameters actually possible?

This is another case in which I like to refer to Feynman's explanation of why light always takes the shortest path from the source to the observer. Sure we can imagine light taking another path, but it's never going to happen, simply due to the nature of light. Is the same type of thing true with the fundamental constants, in that if we knew why they are the way they are, we'd realize that they couldn't possibly be different, and the fine-tuning problem would vanish without any need to invoke a multiverse.

Take your time... I've got 15 more years before I can ask another question. (It'll probably take me that long to figure out your answer to this one)

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. Refer to previous posts in this thread.


Many Worlds is not a theory. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Discussion was about entangled human observers. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

That's correct. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

I'm sensing a theme...

Rebirthing universes is not mainstream.

Why omit our understanding of length? Refer to previous posts in this thread.

To coin a popular creationist theme, I don't have a time machine to find out.

We really need to work on that time machine...

Then stop linking the wrong references.

Baloney this has been a front for ID, the thread title said it all.

I see your patience had run out.

Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Nearly everything is a repeat in a thread of repeats. Sigh.

 

[stevevw]

No. Refer to previous posts in this thread.


Many Worlds is not a theory. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Discussion was about entangled human observers. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Actually the reason the Multiverse was brought up was to show how generally there may be alternative dimensions where time and space operate at different levels or physics meaning time and space as we know it may be different.

I think from what I understand you agree that our models are incomplete and not a true representation of the ultimate fundemental reality that may be yet discovered or beyond our reach of knowing.

That's correct. Refer to previous posts in this thread.

But its not just based on this idea but also ideas like String theory. What I am saying is that one way or another all ideas seem to introduce extra dimensions or worlds and physics because that is what the data points to.

Rebirthing universes is not mainstream.

It has tyo be I think because once we get to the point of what was before our universe, or how it was birthed it posits something before our universe. It didn't just happen out of thin air or the void as the void needed something to create it. So the most logical solution was to propose our universe as the result of QM.

I mean what else can it be. What other explanations could they posit.

Why omit our understanding of length? Refer to previous posts in this thread.

Because it works OK within our world but may not be a universal way of understanding time fundementally beyond our world.

To coin a popular creationist theme, I don't have a time machine to find out.

Ok l;et me put it another way. Do you think its theorectically possible according to Qunatum theory.

Then stop linking the wrong references.

I didn't know they were wrong.

Baloney this has been a front for ID, the thread title said it all.

That in itself is a fallacy, that you judge a book by its cover. I have mainly been interested in the science itself, how the math can map so well onto reality, how science itself has pointed to Mind and consciousness being fundemental and a solution to the many problems faced by material science.

There are many many scientists and philosophers out there posing the same questions who have nothing to do with God or theism. In fact they have been my go to sources like with Wheeler, Wigner, Nagal, Penrose, Chalmers and Stapp. All questioning the ability of physicalism in explaining consciousness and the ability of scientific materiam to explain fundemental reality.

I have learnt there is no sense in proposing a God of the gaps or trying to prove God. I am more interested in looking at whether generally that the evdience points to something beyond our current understanding. This itself is a battle as its almost as though its the materialist who have the religious dogma of protecting the status quo than religious people.

To do that you have to take the steps through science first to get to the beyond part, to see if science itself is suggesting that. This is what I am mostly interested in. This will not prove God, nothing can prove God to a materialist so going down that path is a useless endeavour.