Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

¹I personally dislike Many-worlds theory; we're talking the endless creation of new universes from a prior one here, but without a corresponding input of energy. Since thermodynamics is pretty well one of the most fundamental laws of phsics, that's just painful.

I wasn't aware that the multiverse was proven to be a closed system.

[Osmosis Jones]

¹I personally dislike Many-worlds theory; we're talking the endless creation of new universes from a prior one here, but without a corresponding input of energy. Since thermodynamics is pretty well one of the most fundamental laws of phsics, that's just painful.

I wasn't aware that the multiverse was proven to be a closed system.

Like I said, it's my opinion. Doesn't mean it's true, but it goes against my intuition, and since there is no mathematical way to verify any metaphysical theory, intuition is all I've got.

I'd say that you're not quite groking what the many-worlds theories are saying. According to many-worlds, here's what actually happens:

Spoiler: Quantum Physics (click to show/hide)

1. We start out with an approximately factorable blob of quantum amplitude in a configuation space. Let's say it represents a photon.
2. This photon blob undergoes a quantum event. Let's say we shoot it at a half-silvered mirror, which results in observations of the photon either getting reflected or being absorbed.
3. The photon does NOT randomly either get reflected or absorbed. Instead, what happens is the mirror splits the universal waveform (of which the photon is a single approximate factor) into two (mostly) disconnected nodes. This includes spliting the amplitude that makes up your brain into two nodes in configuration space.
4. Brain-node A is entangled with photon-node A, the one that gets reflected. The mind arising from that node of amplitudes (that "world") observes that "world's" photon being reflected, and cannot detect photon-node B. This is because brain-node A is not entangled with photon-node B. The inverse occurs with Brain-node B getting entangled with photon-node B and not seeing photon-node A.
5. Brain-node A, seeing photon-node A getting reflected and not seeing any photon node getting absorbed, concludes that the mirror randomly decided to reflect the photon this time. Brain-node B concludes the opposite, that the mirror randomly decided to absorb the photon. Both think (for now) that the universe is random on a quantum scale.
6. But wait! If we're especially cunning, and keep the experimental isolated from other photons, we can detect the influence that photon-node A's amplitude has on photon-node B and vis versa. Remember, they're only mostly disconnected at this point, not completely disconnected. That doesn't happen until they interact with other photons, causing more quantum events that move the two aplitude nodes further and further apart, rendering their influence upon eachother indetectable.
7. Having seen those results, and eventually deriving the math that predicts those quantum influences, both brain-nodes figure out that the math is pointing the fact that the photon (or, as it turns out, the amplitude configuration arising from the photon) is actually going both ways, even if it doesn't appear to be doing so on the surface.
8. Hopefully, both brain-nodes realize that while a collapse postulate seems intuitively appealing, as it only postulates a single world (after all, each brain-node only ever gets to see a single world) many-worlds makes more sense mathmatically and doesn't require a magical, despair-inducingly-antioccumian and nondeterministic wave-function collapser.

The key thing to keep in mind here, and this IS actually on topic for the religion thread, is that that The Map Is Not The Territory and, while your map (ie. your understanding of reality) can be uncertain and have probabilities in it, the actual territory (ie. reality itself) cannot be. Reality is exact, unambigious, non-fuzzy and, well, real.

Argghlebargle. Alright, fine, you win on the Many-Worlds angle.  While there are arguments against it, my understanding stops at Quantum 301, and any attempt on my part to use said arguments would just mangle someone else's theory.

If it's true (of which I have my aforementioned doubts), then yes, it appears to be a valid solution to having a deterministic multiverse. On point 8 though; perspective is a funny thing. I must admit I find the idea of collapsing waveforms simpler (hence more "Occumian") than the idea of many worlds theory. All new existences constantly appearing? That doesn't seem simple.

[Grek]

Many-worlds is simpler in Kolmogorov complexity (ie. how complicated of a computer program would you need to simulate this) which is IMHO, the best formalization of Occam's Razor. This is because with collapse models, you have to simulate all of the stuff a many-worlds model does, and then, as an extra step, cull all the 'extra' worlds that get collapsed.

Incidentally, I heartily recomend LessWrong's "An Intuitive Explanation of Solomonoff Induction" to everyone in the thread with time enough to browse through it. Solomonoff Induction (which uses kolmogorov complexity as it's metric for simplicity) is basically the industry standard for applying Occam's Razor, so understanding how that works is pretty vital to making a good argument for/rebuttal against dismissing theology based on Occam.

[kaijyuu]

Minor rambling here:


Bias toward how one thinks the universe should be, rather than how it is.

Basically drawing a conclusion with insufficient evidence, or skewing evidence toward what a researcher thinks the results should be rather than what they really show. In scientific circles this is a no-no. But in philosophy, it's used all the time: It's the biggest argument against solipsism for example. If I'm the only one that exists, you all are just NPCs, and I have no more moral obligation toward you than I do pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto. But I reject that notion because... well no real further reason than "it'd be silly." I have no less logical reason to believe it than I do empiricism, so I'm picking a conclusion based on how I want to the universe to be, rather than evidence as to how it actually is.

Since this is the religion/theology thread, this obviously applied when picking religions theories. Anyone who comes to an unfalsifiable conclusion is just practicing wishful thinking. Well, "wishful" thinking might be the wrong word, but rather just choosing based on gut feeling, which could have an "undesirable" conclusion (such as atheism).

So I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance right now about the concept of belief. Is it inherently bad, as it means we think the universe is how we want it to be rather than basing opinions solely on what we have evidence for? Is it good, as coming to a conclusion ends the useless cycle of unanswerable questions? Or is it just neutral? I dunno.

[Leafsnail]

Since this is the religion/theology thread, this obviously applied when picking religions theories. Anyone who comes to an unfalsifiable conclusion is just practicing wishful thinking. Well, "wishful" thinking might be the wrong word, but rather just choosing based on gut feeling, which could have an "undesirable" conclusion (such as atheism).

What do you mean by this?  I agree with you that coming to believe in an unfalsifiable theory tends to be a result of wishful thinking, but your next sentence is confusing.

[MagmaMcFry]

So I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance right now about the concept of belief. Is it inherently bad, as it means we think the universe is how we want it to be rather than basing opinions solely on what we have evidence for? Is it good, as coming to a conclusion ends the useless cycle of unanswerable questions? Or is it just neutral? I dunno.

Belief is not inherently bad, but most religions have certain rules (e.g. reject technology, restrict social behaviour, force your beliefs on your children, dislike unbelievers) that are simply counterproductive.

[i2amroy]

So I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance right now about the concept of belief. Is it inherently bad, as it means we think the universe is how we want it to be rather than basing opinions solely on what we have evidence for? Is it good, as coming to a conclusion ends the useless cycle of unanswerable questions? Or is it just neutral? I dunno.

Belief is not inherently bad, but most religions have certain rules (e.g. reject technology, restrict social behaviour, force your beliefs on your children, dislike unbelievers) that are simply counterproductive.

Not to be antagonistic one way or the other, but I believe that this comic sums up that idea the best.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Personally I believe that belief can be a wonderful thing, and even religion as a whole, working as a way to teach the younger generations how they should live their lives and then giving them something to cling to in times of trouble. The problem lies in, as mentioned, when "bad" or counterproductive behaviors are integrated into what could otherwise help society as a whole.

[Leafsnail]

Surely the fact that religion inherently teaches you to not question things (or at least, requires you to not question the central ideas of the religion) means it's inevitably a vector for bad stuff.  I know Frumple disagrees, but he still hasn't provided his killer example yet.

[Frumple]

Well, for that particular statement I can just say "Buddhism"

Siddhartha explicitly stated to question what he proposed, iirc, and that his conclusions could be reached via reasoning. S'definitely not how all of the organizations have ended up, though, sure.

[Leafsnail]

I meant theistic religions.  In any case plenty of Buddhist sects have to add in the "don't question this stuff" clause because otherwise people question it and leave, even if the founder said otherwise.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

considering a religion is at it's core a group of people with a set of common beliefs, once one of them starts questioning those beliefs, he no longer belongs to the group, so no, religion can't allow you to question some core tenants, at the penalty of no longer accepting you as part of the group at best

[kaijyuu]

Um, no? Religions can evolve, you know. They're not static things.

If you're saying they're not really the same religion if they change... that's a pretty wacky assertion. Do sports teams become fundamentally and completely different when they change players? Are scientists of 500 years ago fundamentally and completely different from scientists of today since they believed wacky stuff like alchemy?

Change != separation.

[MrWiggles]

Its pretty interesting defense mechanism that theist philo have though. Its like they intrinsically know that their belief system can't actually stand up to scrutiny.

Interestingly though, most forms humanism require criticism and question of its tenets.

[MrWiggles]

Um, no? Religions can evolve, you know. They're not static things.

If you're saying they're not really the same religion if they change... that's a pretty wacky assertion. Do sports teams become fundamentally and completely different when they change players? Are scientists of 500 years ago fundamentally and completely different from scientists of today since they believed wacky stuff like alchemy?

Change != separation.

Religion Splinters more then it changes. And religion generally only changes due to mass societal pressure and not through internal refutation of its tenets.

[kaijyuu]

Interestingly though, most forms humanism require criticism and question of its tenets.

How to be a heretical humanist:

Humans are just dust in the wind, not worth caring about.


Dun dun dun!

Religion Splinters more then it changes. And religion generally only changes due to mass societal pressure and not through internal refutation of its tenets.

That "mass societal pressure" isn't 100% external; in most cases, not nearly. And plus, looking at the big western religious shifts like the protestant movement and Calvinism, you'd be hard pressed to call it anything other than "internal refutation."