Jacques Mallah wrote:
Chris Maloney - the latest, and worst, addition to our little group.
I have posted maybe five times. I mainly explain my own personal
theories. Unlike Chris, I haven't read any of the archived posts. None
of my posts have fit in with the regular discussions. Remember my idea
that all worlds branch or converge toward one future. Obviously
crackpot. How 'bout when I dropped time as a dimension. No one has
posted a response to anything I have written.
I have been ignored. I posted ideas about the distant future being
determined or inevitable, and how that shapes the present, which got no
direct response.
Quantumly speaking, we know the past is not determined until we observe
it, as is true of the future. There isn't merely one past. So we can
imagine the wave function of all possible worlds in the past. The wave
function is very wide first considering the immediate past, yet as we
look ever deeper into the past, all the many possible worlds we can
envision merge toward a single beginning, common to all paths, the Big
Bang. All possible worlds begin from or near a common single state.
Notice how that one inevitable distant past shapes what we observe about
the past. It shapes our present. It makes the background radiation
evenly distributed. It shows us one model of the past, not many
depending upon which direction we look, or on different days.
The common origin of all quantum worlds makes our past consistent and
contributes to the flow of time being consistent. It radically narrows
the wave function, as related to what is possible to have happened. Now
look at the future. What is possible in the immediate future is also
wide. Consider that the set of all possible futures narrows toward a
single outcome, a single state, just like the past. Notice how that
single future would shape our world, our present, just as the single
state in our past shapes our world. Notice finally that if the past only
shaped the present, if the future didn't shape the present, then what is
possible; the wave function, would expand radically into chaotic
possibilities. Then, there would be no rational laws of nature.
So anyway, I don't see why Chris gets to be denoted as the worst member
of this group. This is not fair. I mean, he shared something personal
but the topic clearly related to quantum immortality, and come on, it
was great reading. Damn, I thought it was an excerpt from a book or
something. It reminded me of Douglas Adams. Seriously Chris, I thought
it was too polished to be a post. You should consider publishing that
story, and I am not just saying that to redeem my position.
On the issue of quantum suicide, there are factors to what is possible
in the branching paths of time that are not being discussed in this
group and that are simply not known at this time. A line from LeGuin,
"The truth is that as a man's real power grows and his knowledge widens,
ever the way he can follow grows narrower; until at last he chooses
nothing, but does only and wholly what he must do..."
Again, the future is shaping the past, so it doesn't matter much what
course one maneuvers. We cannot escape the future. Eventually we collide
with the same problems, in this life or whatever follows, so we face and
eventually solve them. Its part of the process. We each are an evolving
universe. That's not meant to be positive. Its real.
I didn't think your story was scary at all. It was real and fascinating,
sort of in the sense that fact is more fascinating than fiction. You see
I think already in different terms. If this group is centered upon
discussing an everything universe, and is going to do anything other
than regurgitate other peoples science and idea, it needs to confront
more vividly the issues surrounding timelessness and the meaning of an
infinite universe.
Most people respond with fear and avoidance to the suicide option,
mainly from our common struggle to cope with the meaninglessness that
creeps into our lives. How does our response change if we factually know
that the observer exists beyond death? If this group was really
accomplishing something, it would be a place to exercise the mind in
different ways of seeing such things as real death, or suicide, from the
perspectives that result of MWs, or an anthropic universe, an observer
created reality, etc.
Here is something I like to think about. There is no place where the
universe is not. If the observer is indeed a world in itself, then we
cannot stop existing. Its not a choice we have. Non-existence cannot be.
What we are, what we become, is ever changing, yet each observer
experience ends as another begins. That is true of every moment. We die
in the stillness of each moment and are constantly reborn into another.
Now that is deep shit without direct mention of any science. And I have
spent hours writing my other posts, carefully explaining crackpot
theories that contradict much of what you guys discuss. I don't see why
Chris should get all the violent opposition.
If that doesn't work, let me share other thoughts. I think there should
be a different title for those such as Einstein, Newton, Feynman and
Hawking, the explorers and creators of science, and the masses that
follow claiming also to be scientists, who in fact don't relate at all.
That's really not so much of an insult to anyone as one might think.
Mainly, I think most in this group need to keep in mind a healthy dose
of reasonable doubt that we have all the major factors needed to
understand the shape of many worlds or of an ensemble or everything
theory. This shouldn't be a discussion place of sharply narrow issues
yet. Ideally this group needs a monitor that would keep discussions
civilized, open, and vibrant, to counteract individuals who desire to
squelch all but their own adherence and discipline.
Devin Harris
Received on Mon Jun 21 1999 - 05:15:04 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST