Thanks fieldmarshaldj.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 09/12/2019 9:05:16 AM PDT by C19fan
“Exactly and in the end I think there is something ridiculous about an entirely new universe being created every single time anything happens.”
What mandates that the split remains permanent?
Theories are just that. Theories. They are not facts. They are not proven. As Einstein said, reality is just a perception but a persistent one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Myriad_Ways
The title story can be read as a response to stories featuring the many-worlds interpretation as a key plot point, by taking the social implications of infinite realities to a depressing conclusion. A police detective, pondering a rash of unexplained suicides and murder-suicides occurring since the discovery of travel to parallel universes, begins to realize that if all possible choices that might be made actually are made in parallel universes, people will see their freedom of choice as meaningless. The choice not to commit suicide, or not to commit a crime, seems meaningless if one knows that in some other universe, the choice went the other way. They therefore kill themselves or commit the crime, because they abandon the sense of choice.
But of course we know that this is true. In its simplest form, at every instant of time, everything in the cosmos is destroyed and re-created. One can never recapture what happened even a second ago; everything has changed, and everything means the entire universe or cosmos.
The question is whether alternate cosmoses are also created and whether, as time passes, they are destroyed or continue to exist somewhere.
The absolute termination of any relationship between philosophy and science.
This means in another dimension I am the host of the Twilight Zone.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Imagine a rope made up many, many strands. While they are separate strands, together they make up a rope.
Consider the major reality being the rope, with each strand being a kind of minor reality. In this model the strands branch off and split, but ultimately rejoin, all the while being a part of the larger rope, or all of reality.
*ping*
“Consciousness, in particular, has nothing to do with it. The ‘observer’ could be an earthworm, a microscope or a rock. There’s not even anything special about macroscopic systems, other than the fact that they can’t help but interact and become entangled with the environment. The price we pay for such a powerful and simple unification of quantum dynamics is a large number of separate worlds.”
Because physics (and even others areas of science) has so far failed to present a viable theory of consciousness, I think this assertion is merely an assumption that has not been supported objectively.
Don Hoffman is a physicist who has put forward a couple of strong theories (and proven theorems) that have so far been supported and not been falsified which support that the construct of space-time, including all of its physical laws, are themselves derived from consciousness. That is, what we observe is not objective reality but merely our interface to it.
“....”dark energy” and “string theory” and “many worlds” and “37 dimensions” ....”
Except there is some mathematics support for this. That doesn’t validate it but its better then hand waving and in the past has pointed the way for experiments.
Some of the cosmological theories under present knowledge require impossible levels of energy to validate. This will always be a problem for those types of theories.
If one more can be created why not an infinite number?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.