Fishfry, my point isn't about whether the multiverse is infinite or not. I'm OK assuming we don't know one way or the other and will likely never know. My point was about the ramifications if there are infinitely many universes with different physical constants. IF that is the case, the set of universes "everyone is a Boltzmann Brain" is infinite and the set "everyone is a real person" is infinite, and they're both countably infinite sets, so how would you decide which set you're in if you don't know? It's a coin toss, in that situation. If the multiverse isn't infinite, none of that applies, of course, but philosophy is about speculation, so I'm speculating here.

ETA:
"And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession...

...The problem with having an infinite multiverse is that if you ask a simple question like, ”If you flip a coin, what’s the probability it will come up heads,“ normally you would say 50 percent. But in the context of the multiverse, the answer is that there’s an infinite number of heads and infinite number of tails. Since there’s no unambiguous way of comparing infinities, there’s no clear way of saying that some types of events are common, and other types of events are rare. That leads to fundamental questions about the meaning of probability. And probability is crucial to physicists because our basic theory is quantum theory, which is based on probabilities, so we had better know what they mean."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/biggest-questions-in-science/the-founder-of-cosmic-inflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/

I don't know. Maybe SA is talking out their ***. They usually don't. But I'm just including this to buttress my tangential point that infinite universes is taken seriously in cosmology.

Fish, if a lottery was being run for the first time, and you were the manager, and the winning ticket's numbers were 314159265359, what would you conclude?

But that just limits you to sets of numbers. Suppose we take the poker example I gave earlier. How many royal flushes does the dealer have to deal himself before you leave the table? Which is to say, how many royal flushes until the probability "dealer cheating" > "chance". That's a tough one to nail down because it's so subjective. Bayes Theorem works great in those kinds of situations.

When physicists use the word infinity they must mean something quite different than what mathematicians mean, else they'd immediately have to ask themselves what is the transfinite cardinality of the set of universes, and whether the universes can be well-ordered, and so forth, or at the very least they'd have to simultaneously note that standard set theory does not apply to their use of the word infinity.

I don't know about any of that. But many cosmologists advocate for a multiverse with infinitely many universes where the values of the physical constants are different.

Since you are speculating that there might be infinitely many universes, why don't you suggest answers to those questions, if only to challenge your own thinking.

What's with the snark? My reply to you in this thread didn't even have a question in it. I was making a bunch of points about infinite universes.

And what is your chain of logic that, " if an infinite number of universes exist, there are an infinite number of universes where incredible fantastical coincidences are the norm ..." What's the argument that this is so?

The values of the physical constants are different. I'm not talking about a set of identical infinite universes. For example, there would be universes (an infinitely many of them) consisting of nothing but Boltzmann Brains constantly popping into and out of existence.

After all there are infinitely many positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... yet none of them is a purple flying elephant, at least as far as we know. Every positive integer is subject to the Peano axioms. So we already have evidence that your claim is (at least arguably, pending some kind of argument) false.

Purple flying elephants are physically impossible. Picture worlds where people win the lottery 20 times in a row, and people always go into spontaneous cancer remission after they drink from a certain fountain. Erosion patterns constantly spelling out the truths of the natural world, E=MC2. Stuff like that.

Really? Have you got an argument for this?

Yes. Countable infinite sets are equal and there are infinitely many worlds where the laws of nature are real, and where the laws of nature are nothing but descriptions of fantastical coincidences happening over and over again. If you don't know what set you're in, and both sets are equal, it's a 50/50 chance if you're guessing.

But I have already pointed out earlier that we ARE in a world of crazy coincidences. From the big bang to your being here reading this requires a chain of the most unlikely coincidences and accidents. So your statement here is unsupported and vacuous.

Aren't you just the pleasure to talk to.

You know I've seen famous physicist Leonard Susskind talk and write about infinity (two separate instances that I have in mind) where he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Physicists are very imprecise in their notions of infinity.

Possibly.

All sequences are likely, but some are more explainable by chance than others. For example 3478907834617856 is explainable by chance. And what I mean by that is there's no competing theory that does better than "chance" for that string of numbers. However, if the numbers were 12345678901234567890, there is a competing hypothesis that beats the chance hypothesis: human intervention.

You assume human error. I always use the example of joining a poker game, and dealer deals himself a royal flush. Nobody would quit the table. After the second one, some people would leave. After the third one, everyone would be gone. As the odds become longer, outside agency starts to look more and more likely.

Also, if an infinite number of universes exist, there are an infinite number of universes where incredible fantastical coincidences are the norm, not the exception. And there would be infinitely many such worlds, so the set of "worlds with extreme amounts of fantastical coincidences" would equal the set of "worlds without extreme amounts of fantastical coincidence". If you didn't know which kind of world you're in (and how would you?), there's a 50/50 chance you're in the world of crazy coincidences.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god.

Interesting.

What's the solution? In your own words.

Exactly.

Idealism begs many questions that of course I have no answers to. However, the mind-body problem is more than just a lack of explanation.

I would be OK with a benevolent AI running things. It can hardly do a worse job than humans are doing.

There are no material objects. Idealism neatly solves the mind-body problem.

You haven't said anything that "sums up" to showing that you are not wrong about any of the above. You never actually talked about the contents of the topics you mentioned.

Do you really need me to go over the Sandy Hook shooting to convince you it's not a "false flag" operation? No, you don't. Good day.

My point in bringing up Q-anon is to contrast myself with Trump supporters because you kept claiming I might be ignorant about Q-anon being wrong and Sandy Hook being a false flag (I notice you didn't bring that one up). I'm not. Here are where Trump supporters and objective reality part ways:
- The election was not stolen
- Q-anon is bullshit
- Hillary Clinton is not a murderer
- Climate change is not a hoax
- Obama was an American citizen
- Sandy Hook really happened
- Masks work

And on and on.

So, to sum up, no, I'm not wrong about any of the above, it's all bullshit, and I don't want to have anything to do with the people who are stupid/crazy enough to believe that stuff.

Let's start with something simple:

Do you think it's possible Trump actually won the election?

So, you're an American and you started a politics thread, and you're saying you don't know about Q-anon?

I don't know even who Q-anon is.

Are you an American?

"That is to say , what you want to call the felt sensation of red is not a stable primitive of experiencing but a bodily mediated interpretation."

Unpack this, please.

""The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc" the only apparent reason I understand, for you to believe you are right, is that you believe that the other side is just wrong."

If you are coming from the position Q-anon *might* be right, or Sandy Hook *might* have been a false flag operation, the discussion ends here. The moon might be made of green cheese. But it's not, and Q-anon is nonsense.

Do you actually think Q-anon might be right??? Do you actually entertain that as a possibility?

Are you just confident that you are smarter than the "Trump supporters?"

2016? Probably. 2020? Yes. Now? Without a doubt. I don't see the appeal of the Trump con. I could not get fleeced by him. I think you have to be kind of dumb to fall for his shtick in the first place and really dumb to fall for it twice. My experience with Trump supporters has been: they can't do nuance, they think they're bigger victims than minorities, they believe ridiculous things, and they don't like "demographic change", and when you drill down on that, "demographic change"="country getting browner", and they're a lot more racist than the population at large.

"Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax"
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about, not some nuanced discussion about how much humans are to blame. Those kinds of conservatives haven't lost their minds. I'm talking about the ones who think climate change involves a secret cabal of scientists all fudging numbers to get that sweet sweet grant money. And also, Alex Jones, Qanon, #releasethekraken, #clintonbodycount, etc.

You're trying to make an equivalence where none exists. The problem for Trump supporters is on their end, not mine, and this is objectively true. The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc. I'm also not in a cult.

They may say that about me, but it's not true, and that's the problem- many conservatives have become detached from reality. I, personally, am not enthrall to any political leaders. I don't understand the Trumpian mindset. I've never been slavishly loyal to anyone. I also don't believe in the kooky conspiracy theories they believe. I also am not afraid of "demographic change". So, they may think the same about me, but they are objectively wrong (e.g., climate change is real and is a serious man-made threat). They're the ones that need to come back to reality, and until they do, I would rather avoid them.

The reason politics has become divisive is because the conservative movement (about 80% of it) has lost their minds, has bought in to all this white grievance BS, believes crazy conspiracy theory shit, and is enthrall to a narcissistic sociopath. How can I have common cause with such people? So, I avoid them as much as possible.

Think of it like solipsism with other consciousnesses. The analogy I always like is the jigsaw puzzle: there are individual unique pieces (our individual consciousnesses) and together they make a unified whole (the One Mind that we're all a part of and yes I know how new-agey that sounds, it doesn't make it not true). But there really is just one mind that exists, and "god" is a good label for it.

I understand where you're coming from. My reply before was kind of pompous sounding. You sound sympathetic to mysterianism.

The reason I don't think this is a language problem is that "mind" while hard to define for someone else is easy to define for one's self- we all know what our own mind is, even if we can't put into words just what it is. So, for any person who can think, they're going to realize it's impossible they can be mindless. They're also going to ask themselves how a bunch of non-conscious stuff can combine a certain way with some electricity and produce conscious awareness. I don't see a language problem anywhere there.

Yeah, I guess it would be: for any x, if x has a mind, x is not justified in doubting the existence of that mind.

They are just words as well, yes. But I’m not claiming they’re beyond question. As I went on to explain.

Before we decide if we’re mindless, tell us what mind means. Otherwise it’s like discussing God. Are you Godless?

But first, what do you mean by "means"? I don't care to go down this rabbit hole.

Sure it can. "Mind" and "ideas" are just words. Why not simply start where Descartes does, with conscious awareness?

"Conscious awareness" is words too. More to the point, do you seriously think you might be "mindless"?

If you think any set of philosophical ideas should be immediately readable by you in particular in a way that appears ‘simple and clear’ then I suggest what you really are looking for is a set of ideas that fit within a worldview that is already eminently familiar to you.

Good philosophy is clear and accessible, even to the novice: Mary's Room, Defense of Abortion, Trolley Car, Allegory of the Cave, Riddle of Induction, What is it like to be a Bat, Ship of Theseus, Transporter Problem, and so on.

Ok

So unpack that statement for me. Do you believe you're a physical animal with a brain that produces consciousness?

That we're not not programmed with the means to do so? Why would assume we are? We're just animals evolved to behave in a certain way. Why would you assume our programming just maps 1-to-1 onto the way the world "is"?

Did you mean for there to be a period there?

I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never read Hegel. Maybe someone quoted him here and I agreed?

Well, that's we're discussing: which "ism" has the strongest foundation?

Any "ism" should have a strong foundation, regardless of whether the adherents think it necessary or not.

This really isn't a language problem, though. I know full well what I mean by "it hurts to stub my toe" and I also know full well the meaning of "how does matter produce my subjective experiences?" There's no vagueness there. Even if I can't communicate to someone else what my subjective experiences are like, I certainly know what they're like for me. So the question "how does matter cause subjective experiences?", for anyone who has subjective experiences, is a meaningful question that needs to be answered.