Your assessment is accurate — Jackson

That's the usual reaction of people who don't like to admit defeat.

Prove what are there? — Jackson

The many worlds.

So, can you prove they are there? No.

Not that I am aware of. — Jackson

There are even infinite many worlds in MWI. Right now you should be branching into a multitude of them.

Also, it is my understanding that astronomers are currently looking for evidence of other universes associated with inflation. — T Clark

I read that too. The popular press...

Like I said, feel free what you think. There is no evidence that we are a pocket in an eternally inflating fantasy. If you are okay with that, knock yourself out!

Well, aren't there parallel worlds in the MWI?

And that was in relation to the MWI?

Didn't you cite Sean Carroll?

Okay. I do not agree with anything you said. — Jackson

Do you mean you have seen parallel worlds?

Be my guest!

I don't disagree with initial inflation. I disagree with the eternal variant.

Almost. God is true, the models are a fantasy, explaining nothing about the nature of quantum mechanics or inflation. The are metaphysical fantasies to bridge a gap in knowledge which themselves are not knowledge with observable features. No one has seen a parallel world or eternally inflating space, which is a totally ridiculous assumption.

Gods are the ultimate metaphysics. The MWI or eternal inflation fantasies pale in comparison, though gods are no fantasy, while eternal inflation and MWI are.

I can see the similarities. The mind uploaders are the cargo cultivists.

i.e. my understanding of why people like you believe — 180 Proof

Your understanding. Good observation. But people like you don't (can't) really understand because your thinking obeys the imperative.

Cosmic inflation is no indirect evidence
— Haglund

I disagree. — T Clark

Your good right! If you want to take a fantasy as explanation, feel free!

Thesis: Gods created spacetime and particles.
Observation: There are particles and spacetime
Thesis proven

What you mean by our separation from reality? That we can observe it from a distance, with something between us and reality? Is it our body between the world and the inner world, which gives meaning?

Telling me that I am wrong doesn't answer the questions I have posed. Unless you have something with more substance then I'm done here. — Harry Hindu

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were wrong, but the reasons you gave are just not my reasons. I just don't think science alone offers meaning or reason for life.

I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears. — universeness

The need for such an entity is to give a non scientific reason or meaning to life and the universe it's in. Science can neatly describe the universe and the life in it. But the reason or meaning of it can't be explained scientifically.

In other words, there is a causal relation, therefore there should be evidence of your claim. Where is the evidence for your claim? — Harry Hindu

What causal relation?

What better proof is there? They won't show themselves. Yet...

insufficient evidence — universeness

You call the universe insufficient proof?

I'm still waiting on you to define "god". — Harry Hindu

Forgot that one! Gods are the entities that, for whatever reason, created the universe in which life develops.

It is claimed that god created the universe and that our actions influence his final judgement — Harry Hindu

Why should they judge in the first place? They might frown when they us toiling along maybe...

Are you then saying that none of us are, or were, actually believers — Harry Hindu

No. I just said you were believing for the wrong reasons. Afterlife, morals, or gods of gaps.

If this immaterial thing wasn't present in matter then consciousness, dreaming, not even interaction between matter particles could be present. Particles would be massless empty units, wandering into oblivion in the void of space.

You don't understand the reason for believing. The why is not what you mention.

What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe?
— Haglund
Sure. I was once a believer. When I question my former fellow believers most ask, "well what happens after we die?", so it seems like believing is more of a delusion to aleviate the suffering of knowing you will die and that your friends and family no longer exist for you to meet after death — Harry Hindu

You think an afterlife is the reason for believing? Then you don't understand the reason at all.

I don't think the dreamworld itself is conscious but that inside of a sleeping person who dreams a world exists. This world has roots in matter. So matter contains something non-material.

The difference between the animated organism propagating life and evolution propagating it is, I suspect, a difference in leadership. Let's take a look at extremist Darwinism, i.e., Dawkinsism. Dawkins delegates the competition between the species to the level of the genes. Genes want to survive and in doing so they mutate spontaneously or accidentally (central dogma, i.e., the organism they are in has no influence, which is a very convenient dogma!), and practice will prove it to be useful or not. So live evolves because of a principle without a soul. The genes are in charge, performing leadership. Though to some extent you can call their will to replicate animated.
The animated life functions differently. The organism itself is the driving force and directs life from a will to life and pass life on. Even genes can be changed by the organisms. Which goes against dogma, but remember that that's all it is, a dogma. There is no proof that organisms can't actually alter genes. This form of evolution, by the way, is called Lamarckian evolution. Not popular, but there is no evidence against it.



What about the fact that if you look at a dreaming person there is actually a conscious world in there?

Dawkins claims to be 99.9% certain that no gods exist. Then what about the 0.01%? To be certain that if they exist he didn't say he was sure 100%? So he can always say "You see? I told you! I was right! I said there was a chance!"

Do you say that life is a dream? If so then I dont agree. Most of the time I can tell if I'm awake. It's true though that while dreaming you often don't know that you're dreaming until you wake up.

Being outside the secular domain by definition means a domain with no causal contact, unless they can influence the chances of quantum mechanics. That's the only acausal way to interfere.

No, this is exactly what we cannot do. We must respect the fact that thinking about anything, is, by its very nature something limited by the human condition. So it is absolutely impossible to "think about being without the limitations of the human condition". "Thinking" is fundamentally limited by the human condition therefore these limitations inhere within the thinking. So if we want to take the perspective of some sort of disembodied being, we are not even talking about "thinking" anymore, nor would this disembodied being be properly called an "intellect", as "intellect" is attributed to a thinking human being. We can't even properly call it a "being" — Metaphysician Undercover

What I mean is to let go thinking, perspectives, interpretations, knowledge, views, angles, POV's, etc. all together. To transcends the boundaries, limits, stipulations, concepts, conditions, the brain and body, or physical reality, to step step over or out of them and roam in the no one's land of the pure divine creation, into pure pristine and divine essence. To be the static and eternal infinity created by the gods in their efforts.

Particles a mental construction? They are out there, and in there, for that matter...

Fantastic! All for the sake of cargo?

Not. You're talking about atoms, 'indivisible particles', but there are none. Nowadays a particle is an excitation of a field. — Wayfarer

I talk about what the field, a mental construct, is able to operate in. Particle states. There are not really operators in nature promoting particles from virtual to real, or changing their momenta. All there is are particles, virtual or real, interacting by coupling to virtual particles. The number of virtual particles and real particles is constant.

Some things never change. An elementary particle stays an elementary particle eternally. Only it's relation to other particles change.

Can't we think about being without the limitations of the human condition? A transcendental state can set us free from these limitations. The static whole of the transient, transgressive, changing, differentiating, or becoming nature of subjective being can be experienced as a solid, static, transcendental state of eternal, infinite, and objective, absolute essence, dissolving all distinctions, boundaries, perspective, and diversity in still unity.

Doesn't the very word, being, imply change? Can you be without change? Is being changing, or changing being? Or neither? Is change an a priori for being or becoming? Is the real state of being static, like a block universe? Fairy circles in the desert are still not explained scientifically, and neither is the sticking of gauge blocks after wring them together...