New Evidence for Multiverse from Planck Scientist

[Agnosty]

I posted the link originally that contain Nietzsche's line of thinking.  The only opposing argument has been invalidated by the fact that such an apparatus could not exist with the precision necessary in order to avoid the inevitable consequence of eternal return.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_re...g_argument

This is an interesting read, as well, which explains the logic involved: http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist

My bad. I unintentionally took your quote out of context then. I'll check the links soon. Just want to respond to the next points first.

I think you would enjoy them.

Are you saying that even if I come back with the same dna and have all the same environmental influences in exactly the same way, that it's still possible that I won't be me?  I suppose that answers the teleportation question whether Spock is still Spock after being reassembled lol.

Who comes back again? You're already presuming it's you "coming back" instead of "someone else" coming into existence with the same DNA you had.

That just doesn't compute.  I get division by zero error lol.  It's as if you're conceiving of a version of me that is independent from my atomic makeup.  I guess that's possible, but what is the evidence for it?  If Spock goes through the teleporter on Star Trek, who comes out the other side?

Well, to that I would have to wonder what it is, then, that exactly makes ME.  If not my atomic makeup and environment, then what?

That's what got Tim Urban from Wait But Why site all confused. Search for Wait But Why and the article about the self. That was one of the best reads I've ever enjoyed on the concept.

This one?  https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

I think he missed something:

But remember—maybe it’s not about similarity, but about continuity. If similarity were enough to define you, Boston you and London you, who are identical, would be the same person. The thing that my grandfather shared with the six-year-old in the picture is something he shared with no one else on Earth—they were connected to each other by a long, unbroken string of continuous existence.

Continuity is preserved going through a transporter.  But I can't decide what would happen if two identical me's were existing simultaneously.

Personally, I think the self is an illusion as well, at the end of the day. But this is fun to think about nevertheless.

Yup, fun stuff!

I agree that causality is an illusion; just didn't want to let the cat out of the bag yet.  Kudos!

So if causality doesn't exist, then where did the universe come from and what's our relationship to it?

What you're referring to "universe", I like to call "cosmos" to avoid equivocation with local universe.

By "universe", I mean "all there is".

In my current view (subject to change in light of better logic and/or confronting evidence), the cosmos has always been ("frozen" reality). And we are each (with our infinite time instances) part of various frozen "time moments" that comprise this frozen reality. We're not beyond the cosmos; we're confined to it.

It's hard to articulate these ideas in words.  That's why they sought out Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley to describe LSD experiences in the 50s since they were each especially gifted in language.

[Astreja]

I am strongly of the opinion that my current self terminates forever at the  moment of physical death, with no aspect of my personality surviving. 

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious... Do you see yourself as a flash of consciousness between two eternal darknesses?  If so, then how do you see yourself really existing at all?

I perceive things and react to them.  That's all the existence I need, and the only existence I care about.  Don't give a crap about how real it is or whether it's eternal or temporal because those things have zero impact in my life.

[Whateverist]

Its often said by theists when debating the fine tuning argument , there is no evidence for a multiverse. 

I have used the fine-tuning argument before, but now I see it as evidence for an evolutionary process... in a sense like a multiverse.  That is because we use algorithmic learning which mimics evolutionary biology to arrive at solutions which seem far too complex to be solved in a straightforward manner (which would imply supernatural intelligence).

I wonder if you envision a feedback loop of some kind (analogous to survival in the evolution of life) for the eternally changing landscape of the cosmos?  If so, what do you imagine the criteria to be?

To my mind, for us to entertain such questions, would be like a bacterium in the gut of a flea living on the back of parasite within the gill slit of a vast dragon wondering what the dragon is up to today.  (So pointless and beyond us.)

I am strongly of the opinion that my current self terminates forever at the  moment of physical death, with no aspect of my personality surviving. 

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious... Do you see yourself as a flash of consciousness between two eternal darknesses?  If so, then how do you see yourself really existing at all?

Not addressed to me but that doesn't mean I don't have a response.  I'm pretty sure there will be no darkness when I blink out as there will be plenty more me's to carry on the light.  It will just be me's with a different starting point and biography.  

I personally don't worry about before or after.  Life is a wonderful opportunity, no matter the duration of the ride.  

Similar pondering must have prompted Nietzsche's "eternal return" argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_...nal_return

If something happens by chance in an infinite chain of causality, it must happen infinite times.  Anything that happens by chance, cannot happen only once.

How do you reconcile this in your belief?  Have we had this conversation infinite numbers of times previously and are destined to discuss it infinitely more?  Not only that, but in every possible form also for an infinite number of times?

If causality is not infinite, then it must have a beginning and therefore causeless, which doesn't make any sense.  How do we escape the ridiculous?

Recognize a wrong turn and avoid it.  Fortunately the continuation of our time of light is not conditional upon answering every fuzzy headed riddle that comes our way.  Enjoy riddles?  Then go for it but recognize that nothing at all rides on it.

The reason for people to SAY there is no God is because of natural pride and self-sufficiency.

Yes, but isn't it also pride to chose eternal life?  "Nothing can be more egotistical than true repentance." - Alan Watts.

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works; lest any man should boast.

If there is nothing you can do to be saved, then is "choosing" something you do?  If you choose correctly, then you can brag about it, so Ep 2:9 comes into play and it appears that, yes, choosing is a work.  How can anyone, therefore, be saved?

Paul states clearly that it's a gift and there is no bragging about something you had nothing to do with.  You could not have made a choice to receive that gift because then you'd feel entitled to drag your large ego through the Gates while shoving St Peter aside in haste.  "Make way!  I made the right choices and therefore I deserve to enter."  Jesus even tells of such occurrence Matt 7:22...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Paul says, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."  That's as opposed to "proudly proclaiming".

You may consider whether you've realized the true meaning of faith and humility.  Faith isn't clinging to religion and religion and humility are antipodal.

If the atheist community is searching for a reason to push against religion, they may add to the toolbox the assertion that religion defeats its own purpose and may subject its adherents to the very destruction they're fleeing.

Well said.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not able to view the link and unqualified to evaluate the evidence anyway. Do we have a physicist or equivalent to weigh in on this?

And when you step into a transporter, it destroys you; and what steps from the receiving transporter is a duplicate. There's no physical reason in-universe that they couldn't have a copy appear on each teleporter pad. One walks in, five walk out, none of them are actually the person who walked in. That person is dead. McCoy was right.

[siouxdax]

Its often said by theists when debating the fine tuning argument , there is no evidence for a multiverse. 
We just released a short section of our exclusive interview with , George Efstathiou, who was the scientist chosen to present the cosmology results for the European Space Agency's Planck Probe. This is the latest spacecraft to map the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the oldest light we can see in the universe. 
By making maps of the CMB Planck tried to constrain models of cosmic inflation. Inflation is a period of exponential expansion of space that is believed can generate a multiverse.
NASA already claimed some evidence for inflation in their data. We asked George Efstathiou whether the Planck data can say if the data favours the type of inflation that leads to a multiverse. He not only said yes but that its the most important result from Planck 
The link is below:
>snip<

Moderator Notice
Link has been removed for violating 30/30 rule.
OP, please read the rules.

I had just made a post in General Science. There are sub-forums for the various branches of science. I immediately noticed that quantum physics was missing. THIS article belongs there. Yes, I'm a newbie, but I already see a need for a sub-forum specifically for this branch of science.

Moderator Notice
edited to fix quote tags

[Agnosty]

I have used the fine-tuning argument before, but now I see it as evidence for an evolutionary process... in a sense like a multiverse.  That is because we use algorithmic learning which mimics evolutionary biology to arrive at solutions which seem far too complex to be solved in a straightforward manner (which would imply supernatural intelligence).

I wonder if you envision a feedback loop of some kind (analogous to survival in the evolution of life) for the eternally changing landscape of the cosmos?  If so, what do you imagine the criteria to be?

To my mind, for us to entertain such questions, would be like a bacterium in the gut of a flea living on the back of parasite within the gill slit of a vast dragon wondering what the dragon is up to today.  (So pointless and beyond us.)

I think you've done a good job peering in my head.

Yes, feedback loop:







Good read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

And I do picture it as a bacterium etc as you said.

what do you imagine the criteria to be?

I'm not clear on exactly what you're asking, but I'll take a stab by redefining some words:

Perception - the interception of information or simply being in the path of the information.
Awareness - the interception of the information that information was intercepted (perception of perception)
Consciousness - the interception of the information that the information of the interception of information was intercepted. (perception of awareness)

Is there a 4th level?  Perception of consciousness?  Does that produce the unique "point of view"?  I have more questions than answers.

But yes, feedback loop.  Alan Watts talked much about feedback using examples such as singing in the bathtub (as opposed to open-air).

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious... Do you see yourself as a flash of consciousness between two eternal darknesses?  If so, then how do you see yourself really existing at all?

Not addressed to me but that doesn't mean I don't have a response.

 
By all means, jump in whenever you want.  You challenge me and I appreciate that.

I'm pretty sure there will be no darkness when I blink out

I suppose we can't be conscious of nothing, so the only experience we could possibly have is the experience when we were born.

as there will be plenty more me's to carry on the light.  It will just be me's with a different starting point and biography.

Well, the eternal return argument insists you will appear exactly as you are now.  It won't be slightly different, but exactly the same. (Of course, there will be versions that are slightly different as well as versions that are vastly different.) 

I personally don't worry about before or after.  Life is a wonderful opportunity, no matter the duration of the ride.  

Puzzles are fun; that's all

Similar pondering must have prompted Nietzsche's "eternal return" argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_...nal_return

If something happens by chance in an infinite chain of causality, it must happen infinite times.  Anything that happens by chance, cannot happen only once.

How do you reconcile this in your belief?  Have we had this conversation infinite numbers of times previously and are destined to discuss it infinitely more?  Not only that, but in every possible form also for an infinite number of times?

If causality is not infinite, then it must have a beginning and therefore causeless, which doesn't make any sense.  How do we escape the ridiculous?

Recognize a wrong turn and avoid it.  Fortunately the continuation of our time of light is not conditional upon answering every fuzzy headed riddle that comes our way.  Enjoy riddles?  Then go for it but recognize that nothing at all rides on it.

Agreed.  Well, wait... what about the feedback loop?  I am a product of the universe (what there is), but if I change something....

Yes, but isn't it also pride to chose eternal life?  "Nothing can be more egotistical than true repentance." - Alan Watts.

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works; lest any man should boast.

If there is nothing you can do to be saved, then is "choosing" something you do?  If you choose correctly, then you can brag about it, so Ep 2:9 comes into play and it appears that, yes, choosing is a work.  How can anyone, therefore, be saved?

Paul states clearly that it's a gift and there is no bragging about something you had nothing to do with.  You could not have made a choice to receive that gift because then you'd feel entitled to drag your large ego through the Gates while shoving St Peter aside in haste.  "Make way!  I made the right choices and therefore I deserve to enter."  Jesus even tells of such occurrence Matt 7:22...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Paul says, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."  That's as opposed to "proudly proclaiming".

You may consider whether you've realized the true meaning of faith and humility.  Faith isn't clinging to religion and religion and humility are antipodal.

If the atheist community is searching for a reason to push against religion, they may add to the toolbox the assertion that religion defeats its own purpose and may subject its adherents to the very destruction they're fleeing.

Well said.

Thanks!

[Whateverist]

When I responded to the part about a flash of light bookended by endless darkness, the me's I had in mind which would replace my 'light' weren't narrowly this me. I was thinking just me's appropriate to their starting conditions. So essentially me's in potential, but that's enough. What difference does it make? I wouldn't want a lot of memories and biases from a bunch of dead people in the past clogging up my experience, no one to come would want that from me.

[vulcanlogician]

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious... Do you see yourself as a flash of consciousness between two eternal darknesses?  If so, then how do you see yourself really existing at all?

Similar pondering must have prompted Nietzsche's "eternal return" argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_...nal_return

If something happens by chance in an infinite chain of causality, it must happen infinite times.  Anything that happens by chance, cannot happen only once.

I tend not to view the eternal recurrence as a metaphysical proposition. Rather as a thought experiment designed to show where the locus of meaning lies in life. Whether one's life is a one shot deal or perpetually repeats, the meaning of that life is found within that life.

Ought we not lead a life that we affirm? So much that we would live it again and again? What kind of life would that be? Don't look elsewhere for answers. Why not ask oneself?

You're the one who would have to live that life again and again were it to eternally recur.

The question isn't whether life repeats to eternity or not.

The question is: Why not live life as if it did?

[Whateverist]

Of course there is an upside to deadlines: get off your duff and make it happen. Eventually there is no later. But the long view is important too.

[vulcanlogician]

Wise words, Whateverist.