If not, could our search for what we think of as the "soul" be somehow related to a connection between dimensions. — Steve Leard

Interesting hypothesis. But I would like say "Supreme" figure (or God to the religious ones) instead of soul because this soul has to exist necessarily in all the connected worlds in our human bodies. Then, I guess we have to find out who or which is the ruler or host in this context.

The problem is that the many worlds scenario, in scientific rationality, would mean that any event in the entire bubble of reality that we are in, in the entire universe, can split into two possible worlds. So any sub-atomic particle in the entire universe that moves in any direction means that another world has this particle move in another direction. By just calculating this in our head, there is an infinite number of worlds where the only thing different between them is one particle, in one part of the universe, moving in another direction than our own. So to have other worlds where we live other types of lives, are alive or dead etc. are notions that are so absurdly astronomical as differences that it's impossible to really find any relevance to them. It would be impossible to find them really.

So a death in this plane of existence would be analogous to removing a grain of sand from a mountain of sand? Theoretically speaking of course.

I don't think I can answer this simply, I think that if there is a god he doesn't exist right now but is trying to create himself?

I obviously dont have the background necessary to wrap my head around the concept of the many worlds idea and all it implies. Applying a black and white overview doesnt work. My thought was that maybe the theory could, if true, explain the existence of that slippery concept of "soul". Maybe as an ephereal connection between dimensions in order to facilitate states of being or nonbeing as it were.

So a death in this plane of existence would be analogous to removing a grain of sand from a mountain of sand? Theoretically speaking of course. — Steve Leard

Pretty much.

If that theory could be established as a fact what would it say about our concept of reality, in particular our viewpoints on death. For example, if other dimensions are spun up off of events which occur here does that mean that when i die here i am deceased on all planes. — Steve Leard

No, each branch is independent. What someone does on one branch (including when they die) has no effect on any other parallel branch. [*]

If not, could our search for what we think of as the "soul" be somehow related to a connection between dimensions. — Steve Leard

No, from your branch you have no connection to other parallel branches.

Everett's amoeba analogy is useful to get a sense of how Many Worlds works. As Everett put it, 'Each time an individual splits he is unaware of it, and any single individual is at all times unaware of his "other selves" with which he has no interaction from the time of splitting.'

--

[*] In principle, an isolated observer could observe another person's (or cat's) parallel branches in superposition, which would exhibit interference effects for the observer. But an individual person (or cat) can only influence their own branch. See the Schrodinger's Cat and Wigner's Friend thought experiments.

I heard that in one world, Wigner's Friend adopted Schrodinger's Cat, and they lived happily ever after. That'd be the world I'd choose, although I probably won't have the chance.

Have a read of The Multiverse Idea is Rotting Culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality

I heard that in one world, Wigner's Friend adopted Schrodinger's Cat, and they lived happily ever after. That'd be the world I'd choose, although I probably won't have the chance. — Wayfarer

About that cat, I have good news and bad news...

↪Steve Leard Have a read of The Multiverse Idea is Rotting Culture — Wayfarer

Have you tried the Zen Anti-Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

I hold that all interpretations of QM are just crutches that are better or worse at helping you along to the Zen realization that QM is what it is and doesn’t need an interpretation. As Sidney Coleman famously argued, what needs reinterpretation is not QM itself, but all our pre-quantum philosophical baggage—the baggage that leads us to demand, for example, that a wavefunction |ψ⟩ either be “real” like a stubbed toe or else “unreal” like a dream.

...

You shouldn’t confuse the Zen Anti-Interpretation with “Shut Up And Calculate.” The latter phrase, mistakenly attributed to Feynman but really due to David Mermin, is something one might say at the beginning of the path, when one is as a baby. I’m talking here only about the endpoint of the path, which one can approach but never reach—the endpoint where you intuitively understand exactly what a Many-Worlder, Copenhagenist, or Bohmian would say about any given issue, and also how they’d respond to each other, and how they’d respond to the responses, etc. but after years of study and effort you’ve returned to the situation of the baby, who just sees the thing for what it is. — The Zen Anti-Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Scott Aaronson

That’s great. That Aaronson is such a clever fellow.

I always like this one:

What did you do to the cat, Erwin, It looks half dead. — Mrs Schrodinger

I like this, and it reminds me of my own take on many things. In philosophy of time I'm sort of both a presentist and an eternalist, in different senses. On ontology more generally I stand by both the positions that all there is nothing to reality but empirically observable stuff and that all of reality is itself an abstract mathematical object. And yeah, regarding quantum mechanical observations, I can see a Copenhagen interpretation or an Everett interpretation as equally valid, depending on perspective. In all of these issues I've listed here, the main difference is between a first-person perspective and a third-person perspective on the same thing.

I've heard the Sanskrit term "advaita" (nondualism) and am often tempted to use it to describe this type of thinking, but TBH I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of that area's philosophy to be sure I'd be using it right. (I'm at least familiar with the notion of "Atman is Brahman", and the veil of maya creating an illusory distinction between them, and while I don't think I agree with the usual interpretation of that, the diagram of the relationship between them that comes to me mind does remind me of a diagram I've often pictured of my own philosophy: the surface of a mirror, against which the eye of an invisible observer is pressed, and everything happening at that boundary between eye and mirror is all of phenomenal reality; the invisible observer abstracts things from those phenomena in his mind, behind his eye, but because of the mirror, he sees those things projected behind the phenomena instead; and infinitely far back into the mind recedes, forever inaccessible, the notion of some true self, which is then mirrored as and projected infinitely far into the distance as the notion of some kind of supreme being behind all of reality. If the structural similarities aren't clear: the phenomena on the surface of the eye/mirror boundary are maya, the true self imagined infinitely far back into the mind is Atman, and the supreme being imagined infinitely far behind the mirror is Brahman, which is just a reflection of Atman, which itself is just imaginary).

↪Andrew M I like this, and it reminds me of my own take on many things. In philosophy of time I'm sort of both a presentist and an eternalist, in different senses. On ontology more generally I stand by both the positions that all there is nothing to reality but empirically observable stuff and that all of reality is itself an abstract mathematical object. And yeah, regarding quantum mechanical observations, I can see a Copenhagen interpretation or an Everett interpretation as equally valid, depending on perspective. In all of these issues I've listed here, the main difference is between a first-person perspective and a third-person perspective on the same thing. — Pfhorrest

Yes. What I think is also needed is a reframing that doesn't depend on those dual first-person/third-person perspectives. I find Aristotle a useful resource here.

I've heard the Sanskrit term "advaita" (nondualism) and am often tempted to use it to describe this type of thinking — Pfhorrest

I'm not particularly familiar with Eastern non-dualism. However on Aristotle's hylomorphic view, mathematical objects are abstractions of empirically observable stuff, and not separable from that context (though they can be considered separately, as mathematicians do). I'm not sure if that really differs from your own conclusions, but perhaps a different way of getting there.

I always like this one:

What did you do to the cat, Erwin, It looks half dead.
— Mrs Schrodinger — Wayfarer

:up:

Have a read of The Multiverse Idea is Rotting Culture — Wayfarer

Couldn't agree more. The multiverse is obscenely anti-ockhamist, it assumes a awful lot and for no good reason. The hypothesis of God is indeed far less costly... and that's an atheist talking.

If we didn’t know for sure already that there were exoplanets, would it be less parsimonious to assume that some special circumstances occurred to create planets like Earth here, than to assume there’s probably just tons on planets frickin’ everywhere and ours is probably not an especially notable one?

Also, same question but about the existence of life on those planets instead, since that’s not a settled question yet: more parsimonious to think there is something special about Earth alone that permits life, or that there’s probably tons of life all over the place and we’re nothing special?

The principle of mediocrity is a natural theorem of the principle of parsimony, became assuming our circumstances are not unique is less complex a theory than assume something that would make us unique, even though assuming we’re not unique implies there are a lot of things like us, while if we assume we are unique then it might be just us.

Many worlds, modal realism, the multiverse, are all just the principle of mediocrity on a cosmic scale. Our universe is not special in its actuality. It’s just the one we happen to be in, and there’s lots more just like it.

Our universe is not special in its actuality. It’s just the one we happen to be in, and there’s lots more just like it. — Pfhorrest

Right. And many flying unicorns too.

If not, could our search for what we think of as the "soul" be somehow related to a connection between dimensions. — Steve Leard

Except for one important difference - after death, if souls are real, we're supposed to get a fresh start as babies.

Couldn't agree more. The multiverse is obscenely anti-ockhamist, it assumes a awful lot and for no good reason. — Olivier5

THe point of the Sam Kriss article is how (pseudo)-scientific conjectures such as the many worlds interpretation filter down into popular culture. I think especially in movies, like Sliding Doors, Inception, and others of that ilk, the idea of there being an infinite number of parallel realms is naturally intriguing to us. Kriss makes that point very well.

On the other hand, imagine the kind of sobriety that would be introduced to scientific discourse if, for some reason, such ideas were suddenly declared off limits. Popular science would be obliged to be circumspect - which they claim to be, except when their formulae entail something incommensurable with their materialism, which is basically what drives the Everett interpretation (which I believe is integral to quantum computing, so let's see how that pans out).

Everett’s scientific journey began one night in 1954, he recounted two decades later, “after a slosh or two of sherry.” He and his Princeton classmate Charles Misner and a visitor named Aage Petersen (then an assistant to Niels Bohr) were thinking up “ridiculous things about the implications of quantum mechanics.” During this session Everett had the basic idea behind the many-worlds theory, and in the weeks that followed he began developing it into a dissertation. 1

Everett, after abandoning academic physics to work for on the design of atomic missiles during the Cold War, died at 51 of alcoholism and wrote in his will that his ashes be put in the trash. I believe he was depicted by one of the cameos in Dr Strangelove.

On the other hand, imagine the kind of sobriety that would be introduced to scientific discourse if, for some reason, such ideas were suddenly declared off limits. Popular science would be obliged to be circumspect — Wayfarer

:gasp:

many flying unicorns — Olivier5

If we come across one flying unicorn (that we can confirm definitely is a flying unicorn and not some hoax or something), the most parsimonious assumption is that there is a whole species of flying unicorns that has somehow evaded detection thus far, rather than that some special circumstances brought about just this one individual. It's always most parsimonious to assume the things we encounter are normal and not unique until proven otherwise.

The simplest curve that fits to a single data point is a straight line of zero slope through that point.

If we come across one flying unicorn (that we can confirm definitely is a flying unicorn — Pfhorrest

Oh no need for that. You see, in the multiverse, everything that can happen does happen, LITERALLY.

At every single nano second, gazillions of worlds are created for each possible outcome of each quantum event in the multiverse. So everything that can happen does happen. Now who's to say that flying unicorns are impossible, and that a world where the skies of planet earth are dominated by winged unicorns cannot possibly happen?

the idea of there being an infinite number of parallel realms is naturally intriguing to us. Kriss makes that point very well. — Wayfarer

This has been the stuff of science fiction for decades. Read The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold for a sample.

You see, in the multiverse, everything that can happen does happen, — Olivier5

One, you (and probably others, I haven't read the entire thread) are confusing the multiverse with the many-worlds interpretation. They're two entirely separate things. And two, your statement is false. Just as you could flip a trillion coins and they all land on heads, there are things that might not happen even in the multiverse (which again, is NOT the many-worlds interpretation).

Thank you to all who responded to my question.and suggested material to further my understanding. I do appreciate it.

you (and probably others, I haven't read the entire thread) are confusing the multiverse with the many-worlds interpretation. They're two entirely separate things. — fishfry

Okay so, are you going to tell us the difference between the many-worlds and the multiverse, or are you going to keep it for yourself?

there are things that might not happen even in the multiverse

I never said otherwise. I said "in the multiverse, everything that can happen does happen".

Okay so, are you going to tell us the difference between the many-worlds and the multiverse, or are you going to keep it for yourself? — Olivier5

I'll keep it between me and Wikipedia.

I never said otherwise. I said "in the multiverse, everything that can happen does happen". — Olivier5

How do you know? And who decides what "can" happen in order to make your claim true?

between me and Wikipedia. — fishfry

Okay, the many-worlds interpretation. Multiverse is another sci-fi scenario, fair enough.

How do you know? And who decides what "can" happen in order to make your claim true? — fishfry

The Schrödinger equation ?

Okay, the many-worlds interpretation. Multiverse is another sci-fi scenario, fair enough. — Olivier5

Ok.

The Schrödinger equation ? — Olivier5

Is that a question? Make your case that "whatever can happen, will happen." If I flip infinitely many fair coins, it's possible that I never get a tail. Unlikely, but possible. The multiverse (which is what we're talking about in this case) might do something unlikely like that. And since it's a perfectly unfalsifiable notion, it's not science. You already agreed that multiverse theory is sci-fi, yet you claim to be able to make predictions about it. How do you square those two things?

You already agreed that multiverse theory is sci-fi, yet you claim to be able to make predictions about it. How do you square those two things? — fishfry

Actually, I'm talking of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. You were fiscal enough to point at the difference with the multiverse, so now you're stuck with it.

I just apply the definition of the oh-so-many-worlds scenario. It is a scenario that exhausts all quantum possibilities, by definition. So, assuming for the sake of the argument that tossing a coin is quantic, in the many-worlds interpretation there is one world where you get "head" and another world where you get "tail". If you toss the coin one million times, one of the world "created" by your tossing will have you get 1 million times "head" in a row, and in another world, another version of yourself got 1 million times "tail" in a row. And all the possible combinations in between those two extremes would also see the light of day in their own world.

And all the possible combinations in between those two extremes would also see the light of day in their own world.

Just spit balling here and its off topic i know. If there is a multiverse there would have to be an original "verse", as it were. And if this is true, going a step further, what if changes in the original verse is also the only dimension that can generate spin offs because it is imbued with the magic sauce that is required for this to happen. And could that sauce be the existence of quantum mechanics.