1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/introducing-the-paracast/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

April 9, 2017 — Paul Eno

Discussion in 'Talk About the Show' started by Gene Steinberg, Apr 9, 2017.



  1. Gene Steinberg

    Gene Steinberg Forum Super Hero Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,689
    Likes Received:
    4,437
    Occupation:
    Forum Super Hero
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Home Page:
    A truly fascinating discussion about alternate realities — the multiverse — as a possible source of paranormal events.

    That opens up all sorts of fascinating possibilities.

    Indeed, we had so much fun with Paul that we invited him to join us on this week's episode of our After The Paracast podcast, an exclusive feature of The Paracast+:

    Visit: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
     
  2. wwkirk

    wwkirk Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    346
    Paul Eno comes across as intelligent and sensible. I like his radio show, though I don't listen to it very often.
     
  3. Goggs Mackay

    Goggs Mackay Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,916
    Likes Received:
    3,277
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Scotland.
    'Everywhere' and 'Everywhen'. Great!
     
    Ron Away likes this.
  4. ChrisJohnsen

    ChrisJohnsen Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    313
    Occupation:
    Mobile Mac Troubleshooter
    Location:
    West Los Angeles, CA
    So, if I understand Paul Eno's "Multiverse" theory correctly, there are, in essence, infinite versions of ourselves existing simultaneously and it is possible to capture and transport to our "verse" other versions of ourself using a shaman or equally-capable individual to facilitate this.

    My initial reaction to this was to shudder at the thought of infinite Gene Steinbergs but then I had an epiphany that a shaman could "collapse the wave function" between our corny Gene Steinberg and a funny Gene Steinberg that surely MUST exist somewhere else in the Multiverse for a new and improved Gene.

    In order to make this happen we'll need to create a Kickstarter campaign to fund the airfare cost of flying Gene to Australia to meet with the Aboriginal shaman Paul Eno talked about. I'm in for $20...

    As Gene would say "But seriously folks," I really enjoyed this show. Paul Eno was a terrific guest and you really only scratched the surface of his paranormal stories. I hope he might agree to come on again this year to share more of his investigations and personal experiences.

    Speaking of Paul's personal experiences, in his After The Paracast segment he describes being in a "haunted" house and encountering a "gauzy entity" trying to get to a little girl he was protecting and that when he tried to physically push it away he felt bone structure within the "mist." Chris O'Brien's favorite investigative journalist, Leslie Kean, talks in her new book about having a similar experience with an "ectoplasmic manifestation" while visiting a medium and feeling the bone structure of fingers, hand and wrist when reaching into this manifestation. She described her experience in an interview on this week's episode of Mysterious Universe. Quite fascinating.

    By the way, Fringe ran on the Fox Network from 2008-2013. Last time I checked it was available on Netflix. Great series. John Noble was fantastic in the show.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  5. Greers Meeting Planner

    Greers Meeting Planner Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I have to pull you up on your comments about global warming gene, this is not an area where the science has faired too well:
    • Early climate scientists warned of an ice age, not a warming
    • Climate models predictions from several years ago have not delivered accurate predictions
    • Historical evidence from ice cores shows temperature increases lead carbon increase and not carbon increase leading temperature changes
    I am not a climate change denier and I accept the climate is changing (like it has done from year 0) but NOBODY has yet proven that carbon release from human activity is the driving force.
     
  6. Greers Meeting Planner

    Greers Meeting Planner Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  7. blowfish

    blowfish Whittingham

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    531
    Occupation:
    Seeking knowledge from others. Open Minds
    Location:
    Ignoring :Global Warming Rubbish.
    In the same camp the hypothesis of climate change (Global Warming) has not proven without bias its human activity rather could be solar or natural occurrences in the planet's evolutionary processes. Until we find a another planet with other human or similar species and correlate so called Global Warming data then more plausible. In the end its a theory to be proven correct or wrong. Getting back to the great interview with Paul which have not listen too very much. Found their hypothesis similar to the feelings prior to encounter a dimension where the environmentals around the person or persons are changed. One sign is the swirling wind noise (eyewitness ) and or complete silence within some type of natural bubble effect. This could correlate with Professor Brian Greene "parallel dimensions" linking of the other dimensions during a vibrations effects . The fact some humans are experience this could give more credence to the dimensional hijacking another avenue to explore which reminds me of the Hollywood movies Blade Runner, Terminator and Predator (does it exist ) especially in the Missing folks events such as former police detectives David Paulides works. Another evidence of dimensional transfer could be the effects of "Cattle Mutilations' which Chris great work not actual attacks rather effects of an encounter in some cases.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  8. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    132
    Lol...ouch!

    Look I hate to be a wet blanket here - Paul Eno seems like a very nice guy with lots of interesting stories, but this whole "multiverse" thing has gotten way out of control. So I feel compelled to set some things straight.

    All of this kind of speculation arises from Hugh Everett's "many worlds interpretation," which is probably the worst of many awful consequences spawned by the Copenhagen interpretation, which in turn appears to be the worst of all the possible interpretations of quantum theory - and where all this talk of wavefunction collapse and such stems from. Let's start by being explicit about the many worlds interpretation.

    According to Everett's model, for every probabilistic event that happens anywhere in the universe - all possible outcomes actually happen. To do that, an entirely distinct and separate universe must exist for every possible outcome - and there's generally an infinity of possible outcomes for every probability function (though some of them are simple binary probabilities, like up-or-down spin). So, for example, if an atom can emit a photon in any random direction governed by a probability function, then an infinite number of distinct universes exist; one for each possible outcome. And we are only aware of whatever universe is defined by one outcome of that probabilistic event. In this model there is no "wavefunction collapse," a feature of the Copenhagen interpretation which is a different interpretation of quantum mechanics that shares a common philosophical feature with the many worlds interpretation - namely, that the mathematics of quantum theory supersedes the reality it describes. In other words, the mathematics in both theories is elevated to the status of ontological preeminence, instead of a mere description of the reality it models: the wavefunction is taken to be an objective reality, instead of a mere mathematical tool to predict outcomes. Everett took this misguided notion to its logical extreme to assert that all possible outcomes represented by some outlandishly complex and indeterminable universal wavefunction, are physically real, resulting in a mind-boggling spectrum of distinct and non-interacting universes for every possible outcome of every quantum interaction no matter how small.

    That's insane. According to this model, the action of the uncertainty principle at work in every mote of dust requires infinities upon infinities of complete universes (each of which appears to be more or less infinite in size). Everett's idea is like the mathematical inversion of Occam's razor - I can't even imagine a more complete rejection of that guiding scientific principle, and I doubt that anyone else could either. He's basically saying that the emission of a single photon is sufficient cause to produce an infinity of complete new universes. This is an excellent example of the kinds of philosophical nightmares that result when mathematicians take the reigns away from physicists. We'll get back to this in a minute.

    For the sake of argument, let's go along with Everett's insane idea for a moment, to discuss the physical meaning of this model. The observer exists within each one of the infinities of universes that coexist at every moment, and more infinities of ourselves are required at every moment of time as the universe constantly evolves along all of the possible trajectories for every possible particle everywhere. There's no going back, or "jumping" from one universe to the other. Why? Because the conservation of energy still applies to all of those universes. If you could "jump" between universes, then all of the mass-energy of your body would instantly disappear from one universe and appear in another universe. That's contrary to the laws of physics - and not just laws, but all of the experimental evidence that we've ever collected which supports that law.

    At particle accelerators all over the world, we're constantly testing the conservation of energy under all kinds of conditions, usually very extreme conditions, and we've never detected the disappearance of a single photon or particle. If we had, it would be HUGE news, because countless theorists advocating exotic physical theories involving higher dimensions, microscopic black holes and worm holes, branes, etc, would claim this discovery as evidence for their validity. So far: donuts.

    And if we presume that for some unknown mystical reason, physical beings can do something that subatomic particles can't do (let's ignore the logical paradox of that statement), and one could somehow "step" into a different universe, then the vacuum left in the surrounding atmosphere where the body had been would suddenly collapse into the void left behind, initiating a powerful thunderclap that would be heard for miles. So somebody, somewhere, would have heard such a thing.

    There's a dark joke in the physics community about the only definitive test of the many worlds interpretation. It goes like this: since there's always a non-zero probability of every outcome permitted by physical law, the many worlds interpretation states that if you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, there's a universe where the gun jams, or the round in the chamber fails to go off, or some other event intervenes, and you go on your merry way in that universe. If the many worlds interpretation is correct, it's impossible to experience your own suicide. To date, no one has accepted the challenge to test the many worlds interpretation and lived to tell the tale.

    Let's get back to the theoretical underpinnings of all this. The entire basis for the many worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation appears to be little more than one big historical tragedy of scientific reasoning stemming from a simple and troubling little experiment: the good old double-slit experiment. Physicists were bewildered and disturbed by the simple and confusing fact that when you shoot single photons or electrons at a wall with two parallel slits, with a detection screen behind it, the distribution pattern on the screen is an interference pattern, rather than a pair of impact sites behind each slot, which one would expect from a classical particle, like bullets fired from a gun. And this confusion yielded everything from the idea of "wave-particle duality" to the notion of "wavefunction collapse" to Hugh Everett's insane idea about infinities of infinite universes - one for every possible outcome of every probabilistic event to ever occur.

    And our most brilliant physicists remained utterly perplexed by the double-slit experiment for decades, so they went along with all of this. Richard Feynman even said, regarding the double-slit experiment:

    "In this chapter we shall tackle immediately the basic element of the mysterious behavior in its most strange form. We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by 'explaining' how it works. We will just tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics."
    The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. III Ch. 1: Quantum Behavior

    Well, it turns out that they were all wrong. In 2005, a French physicist named Yves Couder performed a nifty little experiment that reproduces the results of the double-slit experiment using a purely classical system. He simply poured some oil onto a vibrating plate, and dropped some oil droplets onto it so that they bounced along the surface, making little waves with each bounce. And when they passed through a double-slit toward a detection screen, they reproduced the interference pattern of the double-slit experiment that had baffled physicists for nearly a century. The field of pilot-wave hydrodynamics was born:


    It’s almost impossible to overstate the significance of this experiment on our understanding of quantum physics. We now have a completely classical explanation for quantum behavior, which restores determinism to quantum theory, refutes the Copenhagen interpretation, dashes the notion of “wavefunction collapse” (which was an ugly and insoluble conundrum to begin with), and provides a clear and sensible path forward to re-writing everything we thought we knew about quantum physics. It also spells the end for Everett’s “many worlds interpretation,” thankfully. Additionally, a new technique called "weak measurement" has provided compelling support for the pilot-wave theory. If some clever physicist had thought up Yves Couder's experiment 70-80 years ago, the history of quantum theory would almost certainly have taken an entirely different, classically deterministic direction.

    In fact the biggest problem now is that the physics establishment is so deeply invested in decades of work in the wrong direction, that they’re loathe to go back and start over from scratch. All of the equations still work the same way, and yield flawless results. But our interpretation of all those equations will have to be chucked out entirely, and replaced with brand new explanations. A god-awful amount of work has to be done to restore common sense and classical understanding to our theory of the microcosm. Fortunately, huge strides have already been made: the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory has been around for decades, but most physicists ignored it because the Copenhagen interpretation was far more fashionable (and honestly I think that most quantum physicists have enjoyed the public perception of their work as some kind of exotic witchcraft that defied human reasoning – they’ll have to hand in their magic wands and cool pointy hats).

    And similarly, an alternative model for quantum vacuum fluctuations has recently made huge strides, and its first major successful prediction, and now appears to be poised to overthrow the interpretation of the quantum field based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It’s called stochastic electrodynamics, and it postulates that the field of “virtual particles” proposed by quantum theory is actually a field of real particles. And with only a handful of maverick physicists working on it, they’ve already managed to accurately model the Casimir effect, the Van der Waals force, diamagnetism, spontaneous parametric upconversion (its first major prediction) and a wide spectrum of explanations that are currently under development for other keys aspects of physics. Wikipedia has a begrudgingly tiny page dedicated to a rough outline of this theory:
    Stochastic electrodynamics - Wikipedia

    So it seems that quantum metaphysical mumbo jumbo is on the way out, and the halcyon days of scientific rationality and deterministic causality will soon be restored. Einstein would be delighted, but legions of would-be quantum mystics will soon be populating the bread lines.

    But do not despair! Exciting things are happening behind the scenes that promise to unlock a dizzying spectrum of mind-bending new vistas of physical reality. For starters, we’ll soon find out if antimatter falls up or down in the Earth’s gravitational field – and if it falls up, a beautiful new theory will explain the dark matter and the dark energy effects in one fell blow. And yes, we’re talking about antigravity here ;

    Also: a largely unsung theoretical physics genius named Itzhak Bars has elucidated a riveting new theory that describes our 4D universe as a “shadow” of a higher-dimensional 6D reality that possesses two perpendicular dimensions of time. He’s already derived general relativity and the standard model of physics from this beautiful new theory, which points the way to new insights into the nature (and malleability) of gravity, and resolves the problem of the hypothetical axion particle. It hasn’t caught on yet, but the powerful symmetries and elegance of his theory can’t remain ignored forever - the as-yet-unrealized potential of his model will lure in some ambitious brilliant theorists sooner or later. Then maybe we’ll achieve some real understanding of the most exotic paranormal events as the intersection of this higher-dimensional reality with the four dimensional world that we know and love.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  9. ChrisJohnsen

    ChrisJohnsen Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    313
    Occupation:
    Mobile Mac Troubleshooter
    Location:
    West Los Angeles, CA
    Fantastic post. Most of it (OK, all of it) way above my head. Here's my layman's take after reading it, twice - no chance of a "wavefunction collapse" creating a funny Gene Steinberg. Huge bummer. Thanks Thomas!
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  10. ChrisJohnsen

    ChrisJohnsen Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    313
    Occupation:
    Mobile Mac Troubleshooter
    Location:
    West Los Angeles, CA
    If you would please keep the right-wing science-denial chit chat where it belongs, in the Paracast Political Thread, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
     
    beyondthestargate likes this.
  11. blowfish

    blowfish Whittingham

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    531
    Occupation:
    Seeking knowledge from others. Open Minds
    Location:
    Ignoring :Global Warming Rubbish.
    Lol what only left wing policy's ideology is the true science your forgetting science has many threads of investigation which like it or not goes hand in hand in academia and government policy not censorship please. The Paracast interview brought up the topic of global warming fella and the debate is about it effects within science dogma. Also the topic moved into other areas of paranormal lighten up.
    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
    technomage likes this.
  12. beyondthestargate

    beyondthestargate Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    456
    Occupation:
    Retired - Telecommunications
    Location:
    Arizona
    I find Paul's view of a new universe being created every time we make a decision rather appalling. This would mean that each of 7 billion humans here and now create literally trillions of universes every day. I decide to go to the bathroom at 10:05 a.m. In another universe, I decide to go at 10:04 a.m. In another universe, at 10:06 a.m. Good Grief! Could such a reality actually exist? It seems like an incredible waste of energy. Oops! I am eating breakfast. I just decided to have a spoonful of oatmeal with a blue berry. Then I ate a banana slice and had a sip of hot tea. But these were choices. So in another universe, I had a spoonful of oatmeal WITHIN a blue berry. Then I had a sip of tea followed by a slice of banana. OMG! Trillions of trillions of universes created just over our bathroom and eating chronology choices?

    AND! Bear in mind that each of ourselves in each new universe supposedly has the free will to continue making different choices, thereby also creating trillions of new universes! Could there really be that much "memory storage" available for these endless new universes?
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  13. beyondthestargate

    beyondthestargate Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    456
    Occupation:
    Retired - Telecommunications
    Location:
    Arizona
    You said what I said but in much more sophisticated substantiated language. THANK YOU!! Now I will return to my bathroom and breakfast food choices analogies. LOL
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  14. beyondthestargate

    beyondthestargate Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    456
    Occupation:
    Retired - Telecommunications
    Location:
    Arizona
    Yes, Instead of mainstream science, let's trust Alex Jones and fringe science done by such notables as Creation scientists. and members of conservative Koch funded DC think tanks. (Eye roll)
     
  15. beyondthestargate

    beyondthestargate Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    456
    Occupation:
    Retired - Telecommunications
    Location:
    Arizona
    Science is based on experimentation and testing. The analysis of results are constantly open to revised interpretation and the introduction of new data.

    Meanwhile, right wing political dogma never changes and is based on ideology. Facts that refute the dogma are soundly denounced and ignored.

    I choose Science, buddy.
     
  16. Greers Meeting Planner

    Greers Meeting Planner Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    As do I. I appreciate your comment, I'm just not clear on what point your making
     
  17. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    132
    To be fair, and as strange as it may seem, the many worlds interpretation is consummately logical. Because it simply takes the fundamental mathematics of quantum mechanics absolutely literally. Those equations state that all possible outcomes are equally valid - and since we know that each outcome that we observe is physically real, then Everett simply concluded that they all must be equally physically real.

    But that's the kind of malarkey that you get caught up in when you place too much credence in the mathematics themselves. Just because an equation works, doesn't make it "the word of God." Mathematicians seem to be prone to that kind of thinking - that their equations are more "real" than the processes they describe: they seem to forget that mathematics were invented by human beings, and are therefore flawed and incomplete tools to describe reality, which are subject to constant changes in both form and interpretation.
     
    technomage and beyondthestargate like this.
  18. Usual Suspect

    Usual Suspect USI Calgary

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    5,260
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    There may very well be multiple universes, but as usual, the assumptions with respect to the paranormal haven't been thought through. For example, even if we assume there are multiple universes with planets similar enough to ours that the people there resemble us all the way down to each individual particle, those people are still just copies, or coincidences of identical evolution. It is not "you". They have their own separate life and existence. So all the talk about other versions of "us" is nonsense. There is only one you, no matter how many other universes there are with other beings that resemble you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  19. William Strathmann

    William Strathmann Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    A Holy Mountain
    After reading your post I wondered if you have any thoughts about the appeal to "many worlds" to alleviate the teleological implications of fine tuning?
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  20. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    132
    Zounds...this question can go as deep as you want to go. Let’s start with a disclaimer, and then attempt some kind of answer.

    Disclaimer

    This question brings to mind a quote that Daniel Fry attributed to Einstein, ostensibly in an early preface to the special theory of relativity that was subsequently abandoned from future publications. It certainly sounds like Einstein, and it makes a powerful point:

    “All of the knowledge which we have concerning the universe about us comes to us through our senses. Therefore if we are to formulate mathematical laws concerning this universe, we must begin with the postulate that what our senses tell us is true. This means that if we observe through a large telescope the formation of a nova in a distant galaxy and at the same time we observe the eruption of a volcano upon our own Earth, we must for the purpose of our mathematics assume that these two events are simultaneous. It is true that this is a difficult concept to accept because the faculty which we call reason immediately interposes the objection that a separation in space involves an elapse of time between an event and our perception of it. But if we are to allow our reason to interfere before our mathematics are complete, we will be evolving a concept whose value is based only upon the validity of our reason and not upon the accuracy of our observations. Then, when we have completed our mathematics, we can allow reason to deal with what we have.”

    Presently our mathematics are incomplete. General relativity and quantum theory both perform impressively in their own respective domains, and yet they remain mathematically and conceptually irreconcilable. And in the last twenty years we’ve discovered that both edifices explain a mere 4% of the content of the observable universe; the remaining 96% consisting of “dark matter” and “dark energy” - if indeed they are actually matter and energy at all - are still totally opaque to our understanding. In addition to that, the standard model contains 25 ad hoc parameters that defy numerical derivation via underlying physical processes. And our best model of the early universe requires an entirely new physical process to account for the inflationary epoch, and a hypothetical new particle nicknamed the “inflaton” which has never been detected or even convincingly modeled.

    So while it’s tempting to marvel at the successes of our best theoretical models and attempt to scry their deeper significance, we’re faced with overwhelming evidence of the incompleteness and disunity of our contemporary physical understanding of the universe. If history is any indicator (and it’s the only indicator we have), then we can predict that the eventual resolution of all of these various issues will completely transform all of our most fundamental assumptions about the physical character of reality.

    For now, we’re still so far from that dream of a grand unified field theory that the physics of our day is more likely to mislead us, than to guide us in our quest to unravel the deeper meaning of existence, if there is one.

    I realize that’s not an answer. But it’s an honest appraisal of our current, inadequate level of scientific understanding.

    Hopefully a truly global theory of physics will provide sensible causal derivations for all of the constants in the universe, and illuminate elegant new symmetries between all of the guiding equations of nature, while shedding light on the nature of consciousness and opening the door to the unification of physics and metaphysics as well.

    Until then, we’re just groping in the dark.

    Some Kind of Answer

    Bearing all of that in mind, here’s some of my stabbing in the dark regarding this question.

    Until we have a unified physical model, even the question of “fine tuning” is premature. Perhaps the forces of nature need to be what they are, or there wouldn’t have been a Big Bang in the first place. Or perhaps the as-yet undiscovered underlying symmetries of natural law can produce all kinds of variations in field strengths and soforth, but they balance in a way that permits nucleosynthesis, increasing complexity, and eventually some variety of intelligent life. Perhaps the universe is cyclic after all, and each iteration of the universe undergoes symmetry breaking in different ways until this iteration just happened to produce all of the factors required for stellar formation and the complex organic chemistry leading to life.

    Or we can go another way: all of the available evidence to date, but most notably the study of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, is consistent with an infinite universe. So while we can only see 46.6 billion light-years of comoving (radial) distance, it seems that the observable universe is only an infinitesimal speck of the entire cosmos. Therefore, the physical character of the universe may be anisotropic over vast cosmic scales, and we evolved in one of the regions that permit complex organic chemistry. However, none of our observations suggest that the physical constants of nature vary whatsoever across the entire span of the observable universe, so if there is variation it’s at a vastly larger scale than the cosmic speck that we can observe.

    Until we understand why the physical laws and constants are what they are, and related the way they are, we can’t say whether or not it’s exceptional for them to be what they are.

    But even with a fully unified field theory under our belt, I don’t know if we’ll glean any insight into teleological questions about the universe. Physics may be fundamentally incapable of providing any guidance whatsoever in that realm. Perhaps it will always be a metaphysical issue.

    Fortunately, enormous strides have been made over the millenia in the area of metaphysics, which provide reliable and repeatable techniques for directly apprehending the nature of reality and consciousness. The experimental laboratory in this domain is the mind, so the results of those experiments cannot be objectively quantified, or even conveyed to others in any meaningful way. But there’s nothing more deeply significant to be found in all of human experience. I found the threshold to that discovery in the brief essays of a brilliant mystic named Jiddu Krishnamurti, who, it just so happens, conducted a series of fascinating interviews with the late great physicist David Bohm. Perhaps you’ll find the answers to your deepest questions beyond that illuminating threshold as well:
    Flame of Attention, The - J. Krishnamurti Online

    It's not really that clear cut though - the kaleidoscopic insanity of Everett's many worlds interpretation invokes serious questions about the nature of the self.

    According to his interpretation of the mathematics, a veritable infinity of universes appear to "branch off" from every probabilistic event anywhere in the universe, all the time. So there are virtually infinite iterations of the universe where your entire existence from birth to death are totally identical in every detail down to the quantum level, but some quantum event on the other side of the universe that you could never even detect, occurred differently. So in what sense are any of those selves distinguishable from the one I'm conversing with right now? They're not. In Everett's model, "you" (or rather, the collection of quantum particles that we call "you") represent a collection of factors in the universal wavefunction, and those infinite versions of "you" are just echoes of your contribution to that one wavefunction manifesting all of its possible permutations.

    But there are also roughly an infinity of "branches" of your own existence that become different at a specific moment. So there's an infinity of iterations where your entire life up to a specific instant are identical, and then diverge - some diverge insignificantly (like an electron in your fingernail flipping "up" instead of "down"), and others where your pasts are identical up to some defining moment where you decided to become a neurosurgeon instead of an engineer or whatever. In fact, our ideas of "self" are essentially imaginary in Everett's interpretation of quantum theory - there's only matter and energy and space and time; we're collections of quantum objects following the permutations afforded by the laws of physics, and the assignment of an identity to those ensembles of particles and fields is no more valid for you or I, than they are for a couch or a mote of dust. That's true of all the interpretations of quantum mechanics, btw, because there's no factor for consciousness in quantum mechanics - it's assumed to be nothing more than an emergent phenomenon of complex chemical interactions.

    There are ancient notions about consciousness being a universal field, which I tend to favor, but even that model describes a unitary field that we only experience as individual phenomena. That's another subject though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
Loading...

Share This Page