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.