Parallel Universes

[MisterJingo]

Regarding entanglement. It's considered now that faster than light communication is not needed. For example:
A radioactive particle decays and sends out two particles in opposite directions and with opposite spins. If an observer measures the spin of one particle he can say with certainty what the spin of what the other particle is even if it is on the other side of the universe. This is where Einstein became confused. Observing the spin of one particle does not instantly change the spin of the other, as the observers could no more choose the spin of the observed particle (S. Hawkins.)
I'm not sure how this implies free will is an illusion though. If the deterministic view of the universe was proved (with methods such as p-brane theory of black holes) then it could suggest that free will is an illusion - although I'm not sure how the determinism of particles could transcribe to seemingly complex humans/consciousness. It is something that concerns me though.

In my view, If the deterministic view of the universe was proved that would suck the very essence of Life out of the world. A predeterminate Universe would be a dead meaningless Universe. I refuse to believe that.

I agree completely. It would more than suck the essence of life out of the universe, it would automatism us. Even our horror reactions at such a thing would not be 'ours,' we would not be 'ours.' But. Just because something is scary and looks terrible, it doesn't mean we should ignore it if evidence starts to point towards it. On a quest for truth we can't ignore the truths we don't like
I just find it hard to define consciousness in relation to the cause and effect reality it exists within. How can an independent thought be created? What is the mechanism which causes it to be? The problem is that once a choice is made the choice cannot be changed. Each action, reaction, though, and emotion etc in our life is a forever one of a kind event. So even our progress through time seems to suggest a deterministic view of the universe. How can you 'know' your last action was your own. It goes deeper than that though, back to the watcher and further still. I guess it's a fundamental question to sentient awareness itself. Is it really just an illusion?

I think most things are scary when you think of them The potential oblivion of death (I've experienced amazing things which suggest death isn't the end, but you can't ultimately discount any possibility) is just as scary as the thought of eternal life! Eternity is a very very long time...

[Leyla]

Deja vus are future events that we saw in Dreams.
My sister has a lot of them. She usually can decide whether she wants to change the experience or let it happen like it is supposed to.

I've dream journaled for many years and totally agree with that theory.  Yes, my dreams keep me up on events ahead of time. Sometimes I have two weeks, and other times it's the very next day.

I feel that if I was just supposed to let a bad event happen, then I what would be the purpose of a "warning" dream?

However if I like the event my dream shows me, I go along with it.

[sublunary]

In my view, If the deterministic view of the universe was proved that would suck the very essence of Life out of the world. A predeterminate Universe would be a dead meaningless Universe. I refuse to believe that.

I agree completely. It would more than suck the essence of life out of the universe, it would automatism us. ...

The latest questioned polled to scientists on Edge.org was this:

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?

Susan Blackmore, a psychologist (and former para-psychologist) answered with this:

"It  is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will. As Samuel Johnson said "All theory  is against the freedom of the will; all experience  is for it." With recent developments in neuroscience  and theories of consciousness, theory is even more against it than it was in his time, more than 200  years ago. So I long ago set about systematically  changing the experience. I now have no feeling of  acting with free will, although the feeling took many years to ebb away.

But  what happens? People say I'm lying! They say it's  impossible and so I must be deluding myself to  preserve my theory. And what can I do or say to challenge them? I have no idea—other than  to suggest that other people try the exercise,  demanding as it is.

When the feeling is gone, decisions just happen with no sense of anyone making them, but then a new question arises—will the decisions  be morally acceptable? Here I have made a great leap of faith (or the  memes and genes and world have done so). It seems that when people throw  out the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think  of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous  as it sounds—but this too I cannot prove.

As for giving up the sense of an inner conscious self altogether—this  is very much harder. I just keep on seeming to exist. But though I cannot  prove it—I think it is true that I don't."

http://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#blackmorehttp://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#blackmore

[catmeow]

Susie Blackmore is well weird.  Once a semi-believer in ESP, she has had OBE experiences but has been skeptical for some time now, and is often quoted together with James Randi when trying to debunk ESP and OBE.  Unlike Randi who has no scientific qualifications (and is also a second rate illusionist), Blackmore is actually quite well respected, and has a PhD I think.  She has an interesting viewpoint, which ultimately can not be disproved, although that doesn't mean she is correct!

Interesting link by the way...  

catmeow

[Tombo]

I agree completely. It would more than suck the essence of life out of the universe, it would automatism us. Even our horror reactions at such a thing would not be 'ours,' we would not be 'ours.' But. Just because something is scary and looks terrible, it doesn't mean we should ignore it if evidence starts to point towards it. On a quest for truth we can't ignore the truths we don't like  
I just find it hard to define consciousness in relation to the cause and effect reality it exists within. How can an independent thought be created? What is the mechanism which causes it to be? The problem is that once a choice is made the choice cannot be changed. Each action, reaction, though, and emotion etc in our life is a forever one of a kind event. So even our progress through time seems to suggest a deterministic view of the universe.

Well I think the more we learn about reality the more it gets obvious that a deterministic view is wrong. There is no way to exactly measure things in the subatomic scale (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html)
Not only that but things seem to be completly alien to ourselfs (nor Particle nor wave)
It is impossible to calculate the future cause it is not possible to measure the actual state of the universe. If I look at it very scientifically I must say if something is not measurable and not possible to calculate it is within the world of science not REAL. Therefore it is  a matter of believe. I believe the universe is not deterministic, Period.

On the other hand I must say if could even imagine a deterministic world and a free will coexisting: If we could step out of time it is imaginable that we decided (using free will) what Life we wanne live including all the decions we wanna make. Then we stepped into time and now we go thru it.

I now have no feeling of acting with free will, although the feeling took many years to ebb away.

But what happens? People say I'm lying! They say it's impossible and so I must be deluding myself to preserve my theory. And what can I do or say to challenge them? I have no idea—other than to suggest that other people try the exercise, demanding as it is.

When the feeling is gone, decisions just happen with no sense of anyone making them, but then a new question arises—will the decisions be morally acceptable? Here I have made a great leap of faith (or the memes and genes and world have done so). It seems that when people throw out the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous as it sounds—but this too I cannot prove.

As for giving up the sense of an inner conscious self altogether—this is very much harder. I just keep on seeming to exist. But though I cannot prove it—I think it is true that I don't."

But nevertheless decisions take place, where does a thought come from? I have no clue, but it must be somewere I guess.
Maybe free will is a illusion. But only cause you have no control of things (your apparent decisions) doesn't mean nobody (God) hasn't! it leads to paradox situations were the rational mind starts to fail. Things stop making sense and probably they aren't supposed to make sense! But what do we do with this insights?
Somewhere must be a real Core of reality! Particles are unreal, free will is unreal, self is unreal............What is real then?

Quantum science suggests that they Universe is not divisible into seperate things. The universe is a whole and we are part of it. Doesn't that fit together perfectly. Any view of a independent self must be wrong according to Quantum Phyics. And I think that is the most logical solution: There is just one hugh consciousness that we are a part of.

[MisterJingo]

Well I think the more we learn about reality the more it gets obvious that a deterministic view is wrong. There is no way to exactly measure things in the subatomic scale (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html)
Not only that but things seem to be completly alien to ourselfs (nor Particle nor wave)
It is impossible to calculate the future cause it is not possible to measure the actual state of the universe. If I look at it very scientifically I must say if something is not measurable and not possible to calculate it is within the world of science not REAL. Therefore it is  a matter of believe. I believe the universe is not deterministic, Period.

On the other hand I must say if could even imagine a deterministic world and a free will coexisting: If we could step out of time it is imaginable that we decided (using free will) what Life we wanne live including all the decions we wanna make. Then we stepped into time and now we go thru it.

In the quantum world the biggest factor against a deterministic universe was loss of data in such places as black holes. The reason relativity works on the macro universe (even though it doesn't on the micro) is that very large systems of uncertainty average themselves out. A crude analogy is in casinos, the only way to beat the house is to have a few very high stake bets, because over time they will win.
Have you read into blackhole entropy? The aspect of universe which seemed to rule out determinism (the loss of data into a blackhole) looks like it could have been resolved. It is thought now that blackholes get smaller and smaller until they disappear and space-time is reverted to its original form. If looked at as a p-brane, the black hole will store all data which fell into it, so this information is not lost. This is very important in predicting the wave function of every partical. This also puts determinism back onto the map.

Just because we don't understand enough of the action of QM at our current state, hasn't stopped us putting it to use, and is not a reason to assume we will never understand it Another note, QM is a system of describing the micro-universe. The terms and theory used is not how things actually are. But us picturing things that way help us to work thing out better. A very good example of this is imaginary time, which is a construct used extensively in science. We create this new time form to help us build a model. It doesn't cause the time form to actually exist. A lot of people have taken these ideas to extreme in the QM world, such as moons disappearing,and reality instantly constructing itself on our observation and then reverting back to wavefronts etc.

[catmeow]

I'm keeping out of the determinism discussion for the moment at least.  The following I thought is true:

Another note, QM is a system of describing the micro-universe. The terms and theory used is not how things actually are. But us picturing things that way help us to work thing out better. A very good example of this is imaginary time, which is a construct used extensively in science. We create this new time form to help us build a model. It doesn't cause the time form to actually exist.

I had exactly the same thought myself, and I was thinking of the imaginary number axis (square root of -1).  Also Laplace transforms, Fourier transforms etc. Just because we use abstractions such as this in a mathematical model doesn't mean that the abstraction actually exists.  

catmeow

[Tombo]

Well I think the more we learn about reality the more it gets obvious that a deterministic view is wrong. There is no way to exactly measure things in the subatomic scale (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html)
Not only that but things seem to be completly alien to ourselfs (nor Particle nor wave)
It is impossible to calculate the future cause it is not possible to measure the actual state of the universe. If I look at it very scientifically I must say if something is not measurable and not possible to calculate it is within the world of science not REAL. Therefore it is  a matter of believe. I believe the universe is not deterministic, Period.

On the other hand I must say if could even imagine a deterministic world and a free will coexisting: If we could step out of time it is imaginable that we decided (using free will) what Life we wanne live including all the decions we wanna make. Then we stepped into time and now we go thru it.

In the quantum world the biggest factor against a deterministic universe was loss of data in such places as black holes. The reason relativity works on the macro universe (even though it doesn't on the micro) is that very large systems of uncertainty average themselves out. A crude analogy is in casinos, the only way to beat the house is to have a few very high stake bets, because over time they will win.
Have you read into blackhole entropy? The aspect of universe which seemed to rule out determinism (the loss of data into a blackhole) looks like it could have been resolved. It is thought now that blackholes get smaller and smaller until they disappear and space-time is reverted to its original form. If looked at as a p-brane, the black hole will store all data which fell into it, so this information is not lost. This is very important in predicting the wave function of every partical. This also puts determinism back onto the map.

Just because we don't understand enough of the action of QM at our current state, hasn't stopped us putting it to use, and is not a reason to assume we will never understand it Another note, QM is a system of describing the micro-universe. The terms and theory used is not how things actually are. But us picturing things that way help us to work thing out better. A very good example of this is imaginary time, which is a construct used extensively in science. We create this new time form to help us build a model. It doesn't cause the time form to actually exist. A lot of people have taken these ideas to extreme in the QM world, such as moons disappearing,and reality instantly constructing itself on our observation and then reverting back to wavefronts etc.

Agree! But I think you missed my point. For example if we have a single Plutonium Atom we can not predict when it will decay. If this is not possible at all or if our current knowledge is just not good enough, I think, is unclear.
So, you do not need a black hole, if a decay is truly random then the universe is not determined!
Of course it may be possible that someday we completely understand QM, but I can just talk about the current situation, not about what might be.
Your note about QM not, being the reality but just a help to picture reality is important. I think Einstein summed it up well once: "Math can only talk about relations between concepts but not about relation between concepts and reality" I think the same is true for all of science.

Another note: As long as we do not understand consciousness (and I doubt we ever will) it is not possible to decide whether the universe is determined or not.

[MisterJingo]

I should state my position: I don't agree with the deterministic view of the universe myself because we do not have enough understanding or information to come to such a conclusion, but we also do not have enough information to say a non-deterministic view is true either.
I guess my point in arguing was the fact that we should be open to all possibilities, however much we might not like their implications

[anton1]

while being open to all possibilities, remember what rational and irrational thinking gave us. thanks to rational thinking we have TVs, microwaves, and the Internet. irrational thinking is responsible for witch trials and spanish inquisition.

just a heads up

[MisterJingo]

I agree. But by what standard are we use to judge a thing irrational? The theory which spawned the technology which built TV's, microwaves, and the internet was considered irrational by a large proportion of the eminent scientists of the day. Even Einstein was not totally convinced of this new area of science (Quantum), even spending a lot of time trying to discredit it. Now we know this area (which was once thought of as irrational) is rational, it helped shape technology and medical science as we see it today. So again, it helps to keep an open mind

[astralspinner]

irrational thinking is responsible for witch trials and spanish inquisition.

Actually, the people that came up with those were being perfectly rational, within their own cultures and values.

I daresay you're aware that the brain is split into the left & right hemisphjeres. The left is logical and 'rational', the right is creative and 'irrational'

Most of the people we regard as geniuses today - Van Gough, Mozart, Einstein, Shakespear - all were very right-sided thinkers.

Logic is all about cause-and-effect and turning the world into patterns and rules. It's no good at creating anything new.

[Tombo]

irrational thinking is responsible for witch trials and spanish inquisition.

Actually, the people that came up with those were being perfectly rational, within their own cultures and values.

I daresay you're aware that the brain is split into the left & right hemisphjeres. The left is logical and 'rational', the right is creative and 'irrational'

Most of the people we regard as geniuses today - Van Gough, Mozart, Einstein, Shakespear - all were very right-sided thinkers.

Logic is all about cause-and-effect and turning the world into patterns and rules. It's no good at creating anything new.

Nicely said!

[Blackstream]

Nonsense.  Logic is what takes those radical creative impulses and actually figures out how to do something useful with them :p  So if it wasn't for logic, we'd come up with plenty of new things, but we wouldn't know how to do anything about them