Parallel universes

[Niflmir]

Well, Dexter Sinister beats me to the punch again. Everything he said is completely accurate.

If you are still reading this thread Dex, you may enjoy this series of links on the serious problem of trying to explain paranormal activity with physics.

In fact most physicists are committed to a single universe mentality, and the big bang is easily explained inside of quantum cosmology, but the problem was in the interpretation of this quantum mechanical system, since the ensemble interpretation cannot hold for a single universe. That has all been taken care of, a "long" time ago.

 

[triedit]

This is from one of the pages linked....

"2. The effects have in common that they are most often associated with emotionally distressing events: a missing or deceased person, an extreme danger, etc"

I can tell you that statistically, this is false. More often than not these events occur to perfectly normal people on any given day.

 

[karrie]

Okay... I'm going to completely ignore all the stuff about the paranormal, because mainly, in order to believe that parallel universes have any influence on dishes or visions, or anything else in this universe, you'd have to believe that the universes were all leaking back and forth, and if that were the case, everything would be in complete chaos. Especially when talking in terms of psychics... we'd be getting visions from other universes of occurences that make no sense to our time line. Which makes not real sense. Or maybe it does if you want to explain why psychics are often wrong, or in cases like with me get the info at stupid times when you can't help out at all.

Now... if parallel universes DID exist in the manner I'm understanding from that post, and pop into existence for every last action we perform, then in typing this post, I've exponentially created, with each key stroke, so many universes as to be ridiculous. If that were the case, then this one would somehow be weakened, no? Nothing comes from nothing right? Or does this theory only pop a new universe into existence for a significant event, like a car accident? I doubt that very much.

Then again, perhaps I've misread or misunderstood, but it seems awfully farfetched.

 

[triedit]

I wouldnt think it would be random, specific events. it would logically have to be constant, or at least not emotion driven.

Why not an infinite number of parallels? I'd love to think there's another "me" out there who is getting things right!

 

[s_lone]

No, that's not right. A true skeptic believes things when the evidence justifies such belief, and in its absence withholds belief. That's what James Lett's rules for critical thinking are about, the only bias he has is one in favour of evidence and reason, how to avoid being fooled. The evidence for any paranormal effects is insufficient to justify belief. Anecdotes and hearsay about bowls flying across the room and smashing against the wall don't cut it, and every case of such alleged poltergeist phenomena that's been properly investigated has proven to have a perfectly mundane explanation. Read this.

The link you presented on critical thinking is very instructive Dexter (makes me rethink some things in particular )

His definition of skepticism is to believe if and only if the evidence warrants. I've got no problem with that... as long as he doesn't claim that skepticism has the monopoly of rationality.

Take this example from the article:

''...the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, and


To me that comes off as arrogant. He clearly doesn't believe in life after death because no scientific evidence can support the claim. That's perfectly OK... But he accuses believers of being irrational and that's where I see a problem... He seems to be stuck in his view that only skepticism as he understands it is THE rational way to think... THE only method to base a belief upon...

From what I understand, he clearly steps out of science and makes the philosophical claim that life after death is unsupportable... But as far as I know, no one has ever proved or disproved the existence of life after death.

Of course, he can say claims to support life after death are 'meaningless' or 'have no use'... But that's only from his scientific view of the world. Once you get out of science, the question of life after death is entirely personal and rationality as I understand it simply does not have an answer on that issue.

That being said, critical thinking as presented in the article (without the author's opiniated undertones) should be taught more rigorously in school and our society would greatly benefit from it.

 

[s_lone]

We are essentially ego-centric and find it disconcerting that it's not about us.

It IS about us... But not ONLY about us.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...as far as I know, no one has ever proved or disproved the existence of life after death.

Why can't you see that that is exactly what makes it an unsupportable claim? It's just a metaphysical speculation with, as James Lett would put it, no propositional content at all.

 

[karrie]

Why can't you see that that is exactly what makes it an unsupportable claim? It's just a metaphysical speculation with, as James Lett would put it, no propositional content at all.

But doesn't being unfalsifiable simply make it non-scientific? It doesn't prove it doesn't exist, it merely puts it outside the realm of testable by current scientific methods. While I appreciate your ardent view that only publicly testable theories are worth human inquiry, it overlooks a vast amount of the human psyche. Being willing to look into the non-scientific theories (metaphysical speculations) that drive humanity is just as valuable, even if it's not on the same page as your endeavors.

 

[s_lone]

Why can't you see that that is exactly what makes it an unsupportable claim? It's just a metaphysical speculation with, as James Lett would put it, no propositional content at all.

It's only unsupportable form a scientific point of view. Philosophically, the debate on the existence of the soul hasn't been resolved as far as I know. A car needs a driver to move around. I see the body as needing a driver to think and act upon the world. Is that unrational?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, Dexter Sinister beats me to the punch again. Everything he said is completely accurate.

Thank you. I was hoping you'd weigh in here, and thanks for the links to Gerard t'Hooft's thoughts. That's a smart guy, didn't know he had a personal web site though. There's much more in a similar vein here, including some more of t'Hooft's thoughts. Just as a matter of personal curiosity, are you at the Max Planck Institute? I know it has sites in Bonn, Stuttgart, and Leipzig, and probably a few other places, and your profile identifies you as being in Bonn.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

I have a theory and personnal expierence to back it up.

I think there are parrallel universe with the endless possabilies of one living out every possible event in each different universe....

Each person has an infinite possible scenarios happening at the same time...

I think it is DNA connected and each person having their own DNA code is replicated in each universe...

I think one can elevate one's life to a higher quality of life in one of the other parralel's universes...or lower one's quality life...

Because the DNA is the same one's concousness transfers without even noticing....

i think when miracles occur that is exactly what took place....you entered a different universe with a healthy body the other you fell into yours.....


It's all Karma/Majik related

sorcerors can do"THINGS" to force the change...

Certain spiritual puryfying techniques induce the change.....

There is one thing in my memory that drives me nutso....

I was into to the tarot cards heavily for awhile...A guy transfered the gift to me once and it worked astoundedly.....

I never charged people.....i fell heavily inot drugs and alcohol letting all spiritual stuff lapse for years.....

There is a woman who used to read on the streets of Yorkdale....
i used to drink with her on occaision in Kensington market and Grossman's tavern.

One day she came in and needed money..i was sitting with a new girlfriend ...
I gave her the usual 5 bucks for a reading but did not want a reading..

i said let me do this.....i wanted to just see something....
i picked a card.....the lovers came out......

i put it back and asked her to shuffle and the lovers came out when my new beaux picked it.....We all freaked.....

anyway a few months later ..same scenario happened only this time the card with the blind folded woman surrounded by swords came up fopr me , then soon to be ex girlfriend.....we all freaked again.....

few months later going into a bleeker street apartment i saw the tarot lady and her boyfriend on elevator...she looked horrified to see me and said thats him ..thats the guy....i said hi to her and she only colded frightenly nodded.....

i think she was a fraud and i scared her.....

ok tying it all together.....
the lovers card was a depiction of of a man and woman /adam and eve...entwined by a snake..... i remeber it in the rider deck...i remember the james bond movie live and let die to have this ver card in his ruse to get laid with the psychic.......

About 3 years ago i saw the james bond movie and the card had changed....
my rider pack changed as well....

i went online to a very good tarot site and querried this whole thing...not the part about this thread's topic....just the tarot card....they showed me some witchcraft deck with sort of the image.....i cannot find this image....that
a) was in my original deck when i started in the 70's
b) was in james bond movie
c)was in the rider used in kensington market times


I assume that certain things change in different parrallel universes and if you have a good memory you can pick up clues ....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

But doesn't being unfalsifiable simply make it non-scientific?

No, it makes it pointless. If no conceivable evidence could ever possibly prove or disprove a claim, it means all evidence for or against it is irrelevant; as Lett points out, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence. What could such a claim mean?

 

[karrie]

No, it makes it pointless. If no conceivable evidence could ever possibly prove or disprove a claim, it means all evidence for or against it is irrelevant; as Lett points out, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence. What could such a claim mean?

Like I said, such claims are a huge part of the human psyche. They're a huge underpinning of humanity. For that reason alone I believe they deserve a lot of attention. Perhaps not from hard scientists like you. But by people who are capable of bending their minds toward the unfalsifiable, definitely.

 

[s_lone]

No, it makes it pointless. If no conceivable evidence could ever possibly prove or disprove a claim, it means all evidence for or against it is irrelevant; as Lett points out, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence. What could such a claim mean?

Pointless to you maybe, but meaningful to a heck of a lot of people....

And from an exclusively scientific view of the world, perhaps we WILL eventually find some answers concerning life after death.

For example, maybe we all have in our brains an atom of krypton which sends signals to the rest of the brain and that is where the ''soul'' lies... in the atom of krypton... Perhaps we would discover that when someone takes a conscious decision, what goes on in the brain is explainable and PRECEDED by the quantum activity of one single atom of krypton hidden somewhere in the brain... That would mean that our consciousness actually comes from that atom of krypton and we could then deduce that life after death IS possible because an atom survives the death of a human body.

Coming back to Earth, this is just pure science fiction... All I'm trying to say is that life after death is perhaps not as unaccessible as we think.

 

[Niflmir]

Thank you. I was hoping you'd weigh in here, and thanks for the links to Gerard t'Hooft's thoughts. That's a smart guy, didn't know he had a personal web site though. There's much more in a similar vein here, including some more of t'Hooft's thoughts. Just as a matter of personal curiosity, are you at the Max Planck Institute? I know it has sites in Bonn, Stuttgart, and Leipzig, and probably a few other places, and your profile identifies you as being in Bonn.

I am sort of affiliated with the Max Planck institute. Technically I am a student of the University of British Columbia, my wife has an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship here and so I came to live with her since I can do my work from basically anywhere and my supervisor doesn't mind. She works at the Argelander Institut fur Astronomie, which is attached by a library to the Max Planck institute for Radioastronomy. I am currently an official guest at the Argelander Institut.

There are in fact Max Planck institutes all over Germany, I will be going to the one in Potsdam to give a presentation on the 4th as part of the application process there.

But doesn't being unfalsifiable simply make it non-scientific? It doesn't prove it doesn't exist, it merely puts it outside the realm of testable by current scientific methods.

Although it might be untestable outside of physics, anything which can occur can always be tested with statistics. That is how we find new physics, somebody measures something outrageous, people ask, "Did you perhaps make a blunder?" Then people rerun the measurements and statistical evidence piles up.

But when something has no prepositional content you can't really even do statistics, you cannot ever count an event.

 

[triedit]

Doc--there may be something to the "genetic memory" that you suggested

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I I see the body as needing a driver to think and act upon the world. Is that unrational?

Not at all, but the brain provides a perfectly satisfactory driver, there's no need to postulate a soul.

Of course there is a "naturalistic" explaination. But that doesnt preclude it from being paranormal.

I'm amazed anybody would advance that as a serious argument. A naturalistic explanation by definition precludes the paranormal.

 

[triedit]

Really? Paranormal simply means not normal. Not all things that occur in nature are normal, not by a long shot. Lets say it's 1000bc and your kids are born joined at the elbow. We now know how and why that occurs, but at the time it was paranormal. Oh and Dex...the world is not flat. Science sometimes has to rethink.

 

[hermanntrude]

DNA is just a molecule. You might as well propose that beings are linked through the parallel universes by RNA, or by cellulose.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

DNA is just a molecule. You might as well propose that beings are linked through the parallel universes by RNA, or by cellulose.

look this is
just a theory of mine that fit well with the OP.

Human DNA is unique to each individual....i was just theorizing that each individual in each universe would have the same code sequence....
this is a valid theory based on quantum science.....