"you religious people"? seriously?
-
-
I think when we are rising above the level of the mind of an infant and seriously follow truth wherever it leads, we must become either religious, sociopathic or nihilist. You can also pick more than one.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
No, you can a) realize the arbitrariness of everything and b) choose to do good, to be good. It just means you're free from HAVING to accept the answer that was given to you. Now, the REAL mindfuck is lack of any kind of free will. Better to ignore it ;)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Free will may be understood as the ability to do what you think is right. The more you understand that, the less room you have for confusion, and the more you must submit. The opposite of free will is not determinism or coercion, but compulsion.
7 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
We can only do what occurs to us, and what occurs to our brains is not in our control. If so, you would somehow think the thoughts before you think them. The universe is unfolding the one and only way it possibly can.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheodoreBolha @Plinz and
There is no proof that the universe is unfolding in one and only way. In fact, it might be unfolding in zillion different ways from where an observer stands in time. One observer might go along one path and another might go in a different path. Each thinks the history is unique.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
In which case you have different universes, since they don't interact beyond sharing a single state, so neither of the observers needs to worry about the idea (or could have evidence) that other observers and their universes exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
The universe with respect to an observer is only the causal network that feeds back to him. All causal branches that cannot lead back are part of a different universe. Thus, we can be in a setup like the one you have in mind but it makes no difference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
I think there is only one universe. But the link of causality is constrained for certain observers who cannot see the othe paths in which the universe is unfolding. But it is not true always. For example, the double slit experiment in quantum interference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If we cannot have any evidence for the number of universes in existence, it is logically wrong to have a nonzero confidence in the belief that there is only one. What would such evidence look like? Likewise, speculation about observers in other universes is pointless.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
We disagree merely about how we define the word "universe". I am sticking to the etymology of the word: uni+verse.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
Isn't it confusing to pick meaning for words that cannot have a referent with assignable truth values?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.