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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @vakibs @TheodoreBolha and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @Plinz @TheodoreBolha and
Life is confusing :) There are many concepts for which truth values cannot be assigned. We try to do the best with what we have (language). Sometimes we convey meaning. It is easier to convey meaning when there is a human on the other side, and not a computer.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
By the way, thank you for your pointer wrt. diverging but partially interactive multiverses (I was stuck there for a while too). This made me discover an important argument against the monadic perspective and may lead to deeper insights!
-
-
Basically, try to construct a highly connected substrate graph with information flowing along its links, and for each node try find subset of nodes/links that forms a deterministic causal network. Anthropic principle, and we are in one of the solutions? How to derive uniformity?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The *best* pointer to deeper insights via the multiverse is David Deutsch. Have you read any of his stuff? Fabric of Reality, Beginning of Infinity or Constructor Theory? http://constructortheory.org Would love to hear your take on any of these.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.