Parallel universes

[Curiosity]

Hi JimMoyer welcome back !

When I speak of parallel universe I am in no way imagining there is an identical replicate of Earth and that we all perform the same tasks, or in any way imagine the inhabitants may resemble earthly humans at all.

I believe in the possibility that we humans are such flawed creatures - there has to be other experimental 'farms' or or growing places within what we call the universe. Parallel universes in name only not in methodology or evolutionary process.

To believe we are an acceptable pattern as the ultimate creature is the height of ridiculous....

If anything our brains are still in the jungle .... look how little we have developed in ratio to what exists within our skulls for future development.

 

[hermanntrude]

there's no evidence for the theory, though, and DNA is surely not the only molecule unique to each carrier. Also the stipulation that DNA or any molecule is unique to the carrier breaks down when we consider identical twins/triplets etc.

 

[jimmoyer]

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?
---------------------------------------------------------s_lone-----------------------------------

I know analogies are tricky but that one above by s_lone is interesting.
I'm trying to see my way around that point of his compared to the uber-logical (I know some will contest the contradiction inherent) Niflmir's response below:


=============================Niflmir=======================================
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.
================================Niflmir========================


Can the two opposing posts be reconciled in this way: Shouldn't we posit any intuitive thought first ?
Shouldn't we posit a thesis before we can even figure out a valid proof test for it ?

 

[s_lone]

Can the two opposing posts be reconciled in this way: Shouldn't we posit any intuitive thought first ?
Shouldn't we posit a thesis before we can even figure out a valid proof test for it ?

Well if there is such a thing as a ''soul'' that can survive the death of the organic body, we'll probably never find it if science takes for granted it doesn't exist... Hard to find something you're not looking for...

So to prove there is a soul, we'd need to posit the thesis that the soul exists right?

 

[Curiosity]

What has the proof of the existance of a soul have to do with parallel universe ???

That would apply only if there are migration indeces in the far far future - combining species - but certainly not at this stage.

 

[s_lone]

What has the proof of the existance of a soul have to do with parallel universe ???

That would apply only if there are migration indeces in the far far future - combining species - but certainly not at this stage.

Well the discussion wandered off in a couple directions... I spoke of the existence of the soul because of Dexter's link on critical thinking... My point was that believing in an afterlife isn't necessarily irrational...

That being said, if there are parallel universes and if we exist in many parallel universes at once, the notion of 'soul' becomes even more complex than it already is... If immortal 'soul' exists and if parallel universes exist, does Curiosity existing in a parallel universe have the same soul as yours? Or is it a different soul? A parallel soul? Or does Curiosity only have one mega-soul which inhabits all parallel universe which she is part of?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Really? Paranormal simply means not normal.

If you hadn't been the starter of this thread I'd have suggested long ago that we take this hijack of the OP somewhere else. Yes, really, and that's not what paranormal means. By that definition any highly unusual event would be paranormal, and you know that's not correct. It means beyond normal in a particularly inexplicable way, and believers in the paranormal generally postulate unseen and in principle undetectable forces and entities as the agents of paranormal events.

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.

When you redefine words to suit your own purposes and don't think about things very clearly you end up contradicting yourself. Conjoined twins were no more paranormal in 1000BC than they are now, the only difference is that now we know the explanation. The people of 1000BC didn't know the explanation, but there was one. No doubt they would have perceived it as paranormal and possibly credited some irritated god or demon for visiting it upon them for some mysterious reasons of its own, but as you implicitly know, they'd have been wrong. You have essentially made the same point I've been trying to make, that things that appear to be paranormal are due to misunderstandings, lack of information, errors, fraud, etc.

Oh and Dex...the world is not flat. Science sometimes has to rethink.

You're starting to sound a little patronizing, which doesn't help your credibility or my interest in trying to explain anything to you. I know the world isn't flat, and science never said it was. It's only pre-scientific cultures that ever made that claim. You're quite wrong that science sometimes has to rethink. After several decades of a career engaged in various scientific and technical pursuits I think I probably understand that much better than you do. Science is a constant process of rethinking, it does it all the time, not merely sometimes, but it does so based on evidence and critical thinking. It's the only reliable way we've ever found for discovering the truth content of ideas. .

 

[triedit]

I think what's happening is that you are arguing tangibles and I am arguing intangibles. How can you in good conscience say that science is constantly rethinking and yet still poo poo what simply has not yet been explained? You say that the study of paranormal events is pointless, that we should blindly chalk up all that we cannot explain to some sort of science we already know of. I say there are things what we currently know cannot explain. Hence the need for study. Certainly the majority of creaky houses and rattling dishes has a perfectly easy explaination. But the bottom line is, some things don't yet. And to dismiss those things, which are experienced by large numbers of people, as fraud or psychotic episodes is demeaning to credible witnesses, to science, and to psychology.

I have a healthy respect for your scientific/engineering background. I will gladly admit you know more about proven scientific fact than I do. But in the same breath you accuse me of being patronizing, you dismiss my life's work and my expertise. I think I need to back off, for my own sake. Im taking your opinions personally and am insulted. Enjoy the topic and feel free to give your opinions. Im not going to attempt an intelligent conversation with someone disrespectful and closed minded.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

How can you in good conscience say that science is constantly rethinking and yet still poo poo what simply has not yet been explained?

I have never done any such thing. I freely concede that there is much that has not yet been explained, I'm simply arguing that paranormal belief systems are not a useful way to approach them.

... we should blindly chalk up all that we cannot explain to some sort of science we already know of.

I've never said that either. There's a vast amount of science we don't know, and no scientist would claim otherwise. I'm simply arguing, again, that paranormal belief systems will not produce the answers.

I say there are things what we currently know cannot explain. Hence the need for study. Certainly the majority of creaky houses and rattling dishes has a perfectly easy explaination. But the bottom line is, some things don't yet.

I agree completely, but again, my argument is the same. There are proven, successful ways to investigate the unknown, and paranormal beliefs are not among them.

...to dismiss those things, which are experienced by large numbers of people, as fraud or psychotic episodes is demeaning to credible witnesses, to science, and to psychology.

I didn't do that either. I did mention fraud, I did not mention psychotic episodes, and I further listed misunderstandings, misperceptions, cheating, errors, ignorance, and a few other things, I thought non-judgmentally. You are misreading me.

...you accuse me of being patronizing, you dismiss my life's work and my expertise. I think I need to back off, for my own sake. Im taking your opinions personally and am insulted.

No, an accusation of being patronizing would have been worded quite differently and more directly, I simply said you're starting to sound that way, and your statement, "Oh and Dex...the world is not flat." is a trivially silly remark that certainly justifies such an interpretation of your attitude while leaving open the possibility that I might be misunderstanding you. And I cannot dismiss your life's work and expertise, I have no idea what it is. I deduce from that that it has something to do with the paranormal, but that's news to me today. I'm sorry you feel insulted, it wasn't my intention to insult you, but I believe you're wrong and I'm simply trying to tell you what I think you're wrong about and why I think you're wrong.

Im not going to attempt an intelligent conversation with someone disrespectful and closed minded.

Your choice who you talk to of course, but that's not me. I simply insist on good evidence and sound reasoning for any truth claims, and studies of the paranormal have never produced any.

 

[Curiosity]

Well the discussion wandered off in a couple directions... I spoke of the existence of the soul because of Dexter's link on critical thinking... My point was that believing in an afterlife isn't necessarily irrational...

That being said, if there are parallel universes and if we exist in many parallel universes at once, the notion of 'soul' becomes even more complex than it already is... If immortal 'soul' exists and if parallel universes exist, does Curiosity existing in a parallel universe have the same soul as yours? Or is it a different soul? A parallel soul? Or does Curiosity only have one mega-soul which inhabits all parallel universe which she is part of?

S_Lone

Thanks for answering my query. We do seem to be combining multiple reincarnations of our earthly selves, and parallel universes - which I believe to be separate phenomena - but that is my opinion only.

Why would what we consider an 'immortal soul' have anything to do with yet another universe in another realm of life matter when there would be no interconnection as to experience and knowledge?

It sounds as if you believe there are levels of thought and learning and we rise to ongoing separate planes of knowledge, thus perhaps evolving into one connected species?

I am forced to believe in afterlife myself because as I wrote before, humans as we are now have to be at a very elemental stage of development considering our limitations.

My god Lone - we still kill each other, in war, prebirth, accidental due mistakes and carelessness.....

What evolved society of any life form would settle for that one issue as 'evolved' and 'intelligent'???

I have to believe there is more. Whether it has to do with yet another similar ongoing life activity elsewhere, whether we are connected through 'soul', or whether plodding mankind is still busily trying to evolve from the mud..... I have no answers.

But if we consider ourselves the end of the road....I'd fire the planner...

 

[s_lone]

Why would what we consider an 'immortal soul' have anything to do with yet another universe in another realm of life matter when there would be no interconnection as to experience and knowledge?

We are in extreme metaphysical speculation here, but there is this idea that my 'soul' is much more than I can even imagine... Here's a pretty extreme hypothesis...

Imagine a sphere with a bottom point and top point directly opposing each other. Starting from the bottom point, there is an infinity of perfectly curved lines you can trace that lead to the top point... at least theoretically... this infinity of lines connecting the bottom and top points is actually what constitutes the sphere in question.

Curiosity's true soul would be the sphere as a whole. But the life you are leading right now would only be one line among so many others on that sphere that lead from bottom to top (birth to death). Curiosity's soul is experiencing all possibilities at once, but you, as being only one of these possibilites have a limited understanding of what is going on... You can't see beyond the horizon of your own existence to realize that you actually are much more than you think... A bit like thinking the world is flat while it actually is round...

But this is only an idea... It's an example of how a soul could co-exist in parallel universes...

It sounds as if you believe there are levels of thought and learning and we rise to ongoing separate planes of knowledge, thus perhaps evolving into one connected species?

:-? That's hard to respond to... I'm not really sure what I believe actually! I do tend to believe our species is one connected whole... That explains why I find the Gaia hypothesis a very attractive idea... That the Earth is one living organism which we are part of... We perhaps are its consciousness... but again, this is pure speculation...

I am forced to believe in afterlife myself because as I wrote before, humans as we are now have to be at a very elemental stage of development considering our limitations.

My god Lone - we still kill each other, in war, prebirth, accidental due mistakes and carelessness.....

What evolved society of any life form would settle for that one issue as 'evolved' and 'intelligent'???

I have to believe there is more. Whether it has to do with yet another similar ongoing life activity elsewhere, whether we are connected through 'soul', or whether plodding mankind is still busily trying to evolve from the mud..... I have no answers.

But if we consider ourselves the end of the road....I'd fire the planner...

I totally agree with you there... Especially in firing the planner if we are the end of the road... but i don't believe we are... I like to think humans are only at the beginning of their evolution...

 

[jimmoyer]

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.

Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone care to tackle this ?

How did they figure out that such particles occupy different positions at the same time ?

 

[hermanntrude]

You need a special kind of mind to truly understand quantum mechanics. People say all sorts of silly things, some of which are metaphors and some just a misinterpretation of the weird jargon the quantum mechanics people use.

The rest of us should probably just sit back and gape in wonder.

I studied quantum mechanics for 3 years. I still don't understand it.

 

[Niflmir]

One says that the system is described by the wave function and the Schroedinger equation defines its evolution. If it did not exist than it could not follow any specific evolution equation. It is dangerous to give to much weight to the act of measurement. Using a classical analogy to describe a quantum behavior is equally dangerous.

Quantum teleportation, for example, necessitates entangled pairs, which are a particular type of superposition, in order to carry out the experiments one must know that the state is a superposition, and one has this information only when the system exists and is described by quantum mechanics.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I studied quantum mechanics for 3 years. I still don't understand it.

Neither does anyone else. Some people know how to use the equations and the Feynman diagrams and whatnot to figure out what quantum particles are likely to do, but as for what it *really* means in an ontological sense, nobody knows. No less an intellect than Richard Feynman himself, an expert in the subject, had this to say about it: Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

Mixing his metaphors a bit, but the point is clear: a man who won a Nobel prize for his work on the subject didn't understand it either.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Neither does anyone else. Some people know how to use the equations and the Feynman diagrams and whatnot to figure out what quantum particles are likely to do, but as for what it *really* means in an ontological sense, nobody knows. No less an intellect than Richard Feynman himself, an expert in the subject, had this to say about it: Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

Mixing his metaphors a bit, but the point is clear: a man who won a Nobel prize for his work on the subject didn't understand it either.

i would strongly suggest you watch what the bleep do we know....
all will be revealled....
keep an open mind....




































lol runs for cover...just buggin ya mate..lol....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed.
...
How did they figure out that such particles occupy different positions at the same time ?

Well, as Niflmir said, it's a little risky to try extending human intuitions to such things. It's not really that things don't exist until they're observed, it's just that we can't offer anything more than a probabilistic description of what's happening until an observation, or more strictly a measurement, is made.

One of the simplest tests to demonstrate quantum weirdness is the double slit experiment. If you shine a light through a pair of narrow, closely spaced slits, the light that emerges on the other side will produce a pattern of light and dark bands on a photographic plate due to constructive and destructive interference of the light waves coming through the two slits. If you cover up one slit, you don't get the interference pattern, you get just a fuzzy patch due to spreading of the light beam. If you then dim the light source to the point of emitting only one photon at a time--and it can be done with certain light sources--you'd expect to get two fuzzy patches with two slits open. The light can't be going through both slits if only one photon at a time is emitted. But in reality, you still get the interference pattern, as if each photon somehow "knows" what the experimental setup is and its possible paths to the detector are restricted accordingly. Something, your intuition will tell you, has to be going through both slits to generate an interference pattern. So what is it? Does the photon somehow go through both slits at once? You can do the same trick with electrons too, or any quantum particle with appropriate sources, slits, and detectors, and the same thing happens. That kind of effect is the origin of the popular claim that particles can be in two places at once, but quantum theory is so completely counter-intuitive that all metaphors and analogies ultimately fail, there's no way to grasp it except through the mathematics. And it still won't make sense.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

i would strongly suggest you watch what the bleep do we know....
all will be revealled....
keep an open mind....

I've seen it. It's crap. New Age mystic nonsense of the dumbest sort.











;-) Buggin' ya right back mate, just responding as you'd have predicted...

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Well, as Niflmir said, it's a little risky to try extending human intuitions to such things. It's not really that things don't exist until they're observed, it's just that we can't offer anything more than a probabilistic description of what's happening until an observation, or more strictly a measurement, is made.

One of the simplest tests to demonstrate quantum weirdness is the double slit experiment. If you shine a light through a pair of narrow, closely spaced slits, the light that emerges on the other side will produce a pattern of light and dark bands on a photographic plate due to constructive and destructive interference of the light waves coming through the two slits. If you cover up one slit, you don't get the interference pattern, you get just a fuzzy patch due to spreading of the light beam. If you then dim the light source to the point of emitting only one photon at a time--and it can be done with certain light sources--you'd expect to get two fuzzy patches with two slits open. The light can't be going through both slits if only one photon at a time is emitted. But in reality, you still get the interference pattern, as if each photon somehow "knows" what the experimental setup is and its possible paths to the detector are restricted accordingly. Something, your intuition will tell you, has to be going through both slits to generate an interference pattern. So what is it? Does the photon somehow go through both slits at once? You can do the same trick with electrons too, or any quantum particle with appropriate sources, slits, and detectors, and the same thing happens. That kind of effect is the origin of the popular claim that particles can be in two places at once, but quantum theory is so completely counter-intuitive that all metaphors and analogies ultimately fail, there's no way to grasp it except through the mathematics. And it still won't make sense.

man dex you make it readable...you really do have a knack for us shlubbs to understand what you are saying......

thanks so much for so much dude....

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

I've seen it. It's crap. New Age mystic nonsense of the dumbest sort.











;-) Buggin' ya right back mate, just responding as you'd have predicted...

i know we talked before...and you are getting to me....but i still love that movie and book.....yer debunking certain things and at least giving in return....i don't get everything you say but i can follow it and get a glimpse into where you are pointing....well it's all just pointing for me...