Having no real backround in formal philosophy, I'm having a hard time making my question sound like something other than nonsense, although there is a real question here! If any of you understand what I'm trying to get at and can put this question in clearer terms, please do so!
quote:You asked if everything that ever happened still exists somewhere. Well, it could be way more complicated than that.
Take this exact moment. In the next moment, the possibilities of what could happen are many. You might take your hands off the keyboard. You might type. If you type, you could strike any character, etc. All of these are valid choices, so they are valid possibilities for your immediate future.
One you have made a choice (say you typed the letter "a"), then you have a whole new set of choices. You type another letter. You stop typing. You look out the window. You close a program.
Once you've made that choice, you go to the next choice.
Meanwhile, go back to that frozen moment. At that moment, all possibilites exist. You might have chosen to type a "b", for example. And that leaves you with another huge set of possibilities. The same would be the case if you typed a "c", or turned off the computer, or whatever.
The further into the future you imagine, the more rapidly the number of possibilities grows. Every new choice could be followed by any set of events.
It's your continuing series of choices that creates your actual personal path through spacetime.
Look at this site. There's a drawing of two cones, joined at their tips.
The place where they are joined is This Moment. Moving upward represents moving forward in time. The top cone fans out to represent the increasing number of possible choices as you move forward in time.
Think of the cone as a tree trunk with branches. It gets wider as you move upward. There are a few branches. These have smaller branches (and there are more of the smaller branches). The smaller branches have even more, even smaller branches, etc. You can see how fast the number of branches (choices) can grow.
And the bottom cone represents all the varied events that combined to create the situation that makes This Moment have the characteristics that it has.
(I know all this sounds insane, but the more physics you think about, the weirder it gets.)
So, in one sense, yes: all things that ever happened and/or will happen can be represented in the cone, though you can't really see each individual event.
to which another person answered
quote: The tree is a good analogy. Roots are past and the future is going out on a branch (choice). The problem that leaves me with in trying to understand the multiverse theory of quantum physics is that since we can't go back in time (yet) does not making a choice to follow branch A instead of branch B cause branch B to cease existing?
Scientists, I'd be pleased if you could clear up that question, but I suspect this falls into the realm of philosophy.
The second person's question makes perfect sense. Branch B, by his thinking, not only ceases to exist, but never existed. If something only existed as potential, no one actually experienced it. It existed only when someone could potentially experience it. Although it did exist for a time, since ultimately no one experienced it, it fell off the reality tree, and falls into the realm of imaginary things that don't exist and never did exist.
This leads me to my hard-to-word question.
Regardless of what you believe makes up the "self", if you are an atheist and if you believe that the "self" exists, then you believe that the self does not have eternal life (unless you reject the notion of an individual self that is separate from all other things).
And at some point, there will come a day in which all people who currently hold a bit of what some define as "self" (an experience of my personality, how I look, what I've done, etc.) will die.
Eventually, there will come a time when all who have experienced you will no longer exist. All evidence that any of us existed will cease to exist.
Are we like Branch B, falling off the reality tree as soon as it becomes impossible for anyone to experience us or for anything to show that we ever existed?
We will eventually be as impossible to experience as potential that isn't realized. Therefore, do we exist any more than the gods do? Because nothing but other things as mortal as us record our existance in an impermanant record, do you believe we exist now?
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Two things: (1) The idea of multiple universes began not in philosophy as such but in physics way back about 1927. It had to do with observing particles. Sub-atomic particles can be detected, as to their speed, or as to their position, but not as to both speed and position at the same time, because the method of detection affects the particle. So there was a big debate in physics, all the big boys got into it, Neils Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger. The question was: if a particle can not be detected as to both its speed and position, can it be said to exist before it is detected? Bohr said no; all that exists in the box is certain probabilities. Only when the particle is observed can it be said to exist. At that point, all probabilities except one disappear, or 'collapse'. Then the particle exists. Einstein and others said that it of course exists, we just don't know exactly where, but we know generally where. Bohr won, by the way, by general acceptance, not by unassailable proof.
Anyhow, this speculation led to the idea that when anything is uncertain, e.g. what hat if any I will wear today, the grey area means that all possible answers exist only as a series of probabilities. But I know that I exist while thinking about what hat to wear. So every possible option also exists. Then others speculated that at the time I make the decision, the universe in which I make the decision exists, but so do all the other universes in which I make different decisions, up to a maximum of the number of decisions I could possibly make. (Logic forbids that I could exist in only one universe after having chosen a red hat and a non-red hat.) This notion spawned hundreds of SciFi novelettes, and at least one television series.
(2) As to whether you or I exist at this moment, these speculations (above) casts no light upon the question. We are left with poor old overquoted Descartes, 'I think, therefore I am'. Not 'Are immortal beings thinking of me? If not, maybe I am not.' We don't know if immortal beings are thinking about us or not, but we know we exist. ************************************************* 08-12-02, 01:44 AM Minnesota Sari
First of all, I want to make it clear that I believe there is no such thing as free choice or free will--it's a necessary illusion that we all live under. Secondly, do not confuse possibilities with reality. Just because you can imagine a future possibility does not infuse that possibility with any kind of reality other than as a conception of an individual mind: an idea. Only in that sense could it said to be real. So, although the branches of the Tree of Future Possibilities is a real idea, none of them have any substance. They never did, or never will exist. So, there never was was any "potential" for being. Only the pathway that has been constructed from your series of "decisions" (and those arising from other causes our world) has any reality--the reality of our world. BUT, as I contend, because there is no such thing as real choice, ALL pathways are predetermined by antecedent causes. (This is just a side issue, and not all that relevant.)
To Your question.
I am not an atheist, but an agnostic, yet I believe I can speak as one fairly well.
In comparing the fate of the strictly physical self--one of oblivion--to the Branch B (a possibility only having a reality in the mind), you would be mistaking the history of actual physical reality to be on par with non-events. The "possibilities" that you foresaw never attained any kind of reality, whereas the causes and their effects that arose through the passage of time and produced our world, were real.
Now, in time there may well be nothing to show we ever existed, but of course, this doesn't mean that we didn't exist. As for existing "any more than the gods do," I am sure that the atheist will say, "certainly."
I wasn't quite able to figure out what you were getting at in the balance of your question. Sorry.
08-12-02, 10:21 AM sid1114 There's also (maybe this is what you were getting at) the concept in theoretical physics that it's all probabilities: the uncertainty principle says we can't really get to the point of measuring anything perfectly, and where an atom (for example) is at any time is only a matter of probability. From which, it is said, one infers that all possibilities exist at any time, and we're "in" the one most probable. To me, even if every other possible outcome of any choice exists simultaneously with the one I'm "in" at the moment, it's interesting but doesn't really affect my so-called reality. Reality, if illusory, is what it appears to be to us at the moment. So don't let it get you down...
08-13-02, 02:59 PM Sarai Thanks, everyone! These are really thought-provoking answers.
Minnesota, I have a question for you.
quote:Originally posted by Minnesota: _Sari_
First of all, I want to make it clear that I believe there is no such thing as free choice or free will--it's a necessary illusion that we all live under. Secondly, do not confuse possibilities with reality. Just because you can imagine a future possibility does not infuse that possibility with any kind of reality other than as a conception of an individual mind: an idea. Only in that sense could it said to be real. So, although the branches of the Tree of Future Possibilities is a real idea, none of them have any substance. They never did, or never will exist. So, there never was was any "potential" for being. Only the pathway that has been constructed from your series of "decisions" (and those arising from other causes our world) has any reality--the reality of our world. BUT, as I contend, because there is no such thing as real choice, ALL pathways are predetermined by antecedent causes. (This is just a side issue, and not all that relevant.)
I thought this was very interesting. I used to believe there was no free will, but lately I'm undecided. However, if you are right, then there are no "Branch B's" in the universe - no possibilities, only reality. I understand that since time is in one sense a dimension, all that has existed still exists. If you are right that there are no alternate possibilities (that there is no freewill), then would you say that all that will exist does exist now - we simply can't access it?
Wow, that sure puts a new spin on "nothing new under the sun," doesn't it?
quote: To Your question.
I am not an atheist, but an agnostic, yet I believe I can speak as one fairly well.
In comparing the fate of the strictly physical self--one of oblivion--to the Branch B (a possibility only having a reality in the mind), you would be mistaking the history of actual physical reality to be on par with non-events. The "possibilities" that you foresaw never attained any kind of reality, whereas the causes and their effects that arose through the passage of time and produced our world, were real.
How do you define "real?" It seems to me that a possibility is real, and does exist - as a possibility. Likewise, I am real and do exist - as a human being.
I guess I would say that the possibilities, the "B brances" that are not realized did really exist, just as a human being who died really did exist. The point is that they both existed at some point.
As for us being more real than the gods, that was just me trying to be flowery with language (will you remind me not to do that? wink ). However, I would say that we are not more real than gods. Gods exist - as imaginary things. We simply exist as tangible things. Gods exist in the realm of imagination, possibilities exist in the realm of possibilities, and people exist in tangible form.
quote:I wasn't quite able to figure out what you were getting at in the balance of your question. Sorry.
Well, you did pretty well, considering. I can't seem to find a way to express the question very well. Thanks!
08-14-02, 11:28 PM Minnesota Sarai
By looking at time as a dimension (on par with the three we are so familiar with) that is at once complete in of itself and also exhibits a transitory nature when viewed from a world such as ours, I think you are correct in concluding that all that has existed still exists. And, I would have to say that, given the above characteristics of time to be true, all that will exist does exist now, and we can't access it.
As for defining "real," in the context I was using it, it means the condition of existing in time and space. I see possibilities only as concepts within the illusion of free will and free choice. To say that there is some sense of reality to a possibility is to say that there are actions or conditions without a cause, which is nonsense. If an action or condition is possible it is only so because it has to be: the action or condition will have to happen because of the causes that led up to it. If a "possible" action or condition does not occur then it was never a possibility in the first place because the necessary series of causes that would lead up to that possibility never transpired.
You say, "I guess I would say that the possibilities, the "B branches" that are not realized did really exist, just as a human being who died really did exist. The point is that they both existed at some point." I will have ask, in what sense of "existence" did the unrealized possibility manifest itself? The idea of a possibility could certainly be said to have existed, but such an existence has no more reality than an idea of a twelve-legged horse. And as an idea, yes, it could be said to have a reality, but this is not the same kind of reality or existence that we accord actions or conditions that have appeared in space and time (my conditions wink ). So, no, the possibility did not exist, unlike the human who died.
08-14-02, 11:54 PM Sarai I know that this is outside of your belief system (since you don't believe in the existence of possibilities), but I would like to push this last point for the sake of seeing where it goes:
quote:Originally posted by Minnesota:
You say, "_I guess I would say that the possibilities, the "B branches" that are not realized did really exist, just as a human being who died really did exist. The point is that they both existed at some point._" I will have ask, in what sense of "existence" did the unrealized possibility manifest itself? The _idea_ of a possibility could certainly be said to have existed, but such an existence has no more reality than an idea of a twelve-legged horse. And as an _idea_, yes, it could be said to have a reality, but this is not the same kind of reality or existence that we accord actions or conditions that have appeared in space and time (my conditions wink ). So, no, the possibility did not exist, unlike the human who died.
You seem to be defining reality as something that appeared in space and time. However, don't ideas exist in space and time? If I generate an idea, it exists in the interaction of neurons firing in my brain. If I draw it, it exists on paper. If I write a book about it, it exists in words and then very quickly it exists in the firing neurons of all my readers. It exists in a place and in a time, just as I do.
A possibility also exists in space and time - at least, according to the post I quoted in my question. I'm not a scientist, so I can't attest for it's scientific accuracy, but the link seems to be saying that a possibility exists in a time that we haven't yet reached (and may never reach), wherever it could possibly take place. It exists in a future time and place that may or my not be experienced by us.
08-15-02, 08:37 AM Minnesota Sarai
I question whether or not an idea has a spacial component because it manifests itself by the firing of neurons. It could be that neuron activity does not create ideas, but that ideas trigger neuron activity--for whatever reason (this is, of course, pure speculation). In any event, any expression of an idea is not the same thing as the idea itself. An expression of an idea would, by its very nature, have to exist in time and space. This is why the drawing of an idea or the written expression of an idea will have a much different form of reality (one with a spacial component) than the reality of an idea (one with no spacial component).
I didn't have time to look over your link as carefully as I would have liked, but I did do a word search on each page for the term, "possibility," which came up empty. So, I don't know where you got the idea that "A possibility also exists in space and time - at least, according to the post I quoted in my question."
[This message was edited by Minnesota on 08-15-02 at 08:49 AM.]
08-15-02, 11:00 PM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by Minnesota: _Sarai_
I question whether or not an idea has a spacial component because it manifests itself by the firing of neurons. It could be that neuron activity does not create ideas, but that ideas trigger neuron activity--for whatever reason (this is, of course, pure speculation).
If neurons don't cause ideas, then where are the ideas that trigger the firing of neutrons? Are you suggesting that something that doesn't exist could cause something to happen, such as the firing of neurons?
quote: In any event, any _expression_ of an idea is not the same thing as the idea itself. An expression of an idea would, by its very nature, have to exist in time and space. This is why the _drawing_ of an idea or the _written expression_ of an idea will have a much _different form of reality_ (one with a spacial component) than the reality of an idea (one with no spacial component).
I think you're right that these are two different forms of existence, but both are forms of existence. The idea "red" exists independently of words, but when I say the word to you, I have just given that idea a "body" so that I could send the idea I'm thinking of to you, and I do the same when I write the letters "r-e-d."
Also, if an idea doesn't exist, then how can these non-existent things be communicated? If there is no "idea" of red that exists, then why can I send the thought of red to you, even if you are in a room in which there is no red at all?
quote: I didn't have time to look over your link as carefully as I would have liked, but I did do a word search on each page for the term, "possibility," which came up empty. So, I don't know where you got the idea that "A possibility also exists in space and time - at least, according to the post I quoted in my question."
Sorry, Minnesota, I wasn't very clear. I was talking about the post itself, not the link provided in the post. The accuracy of the post isn't something I can attest to, but if it is correct, the poster suggests that possibilities exist on a spacial plane.
08-15-02, 11:10 PM Sarai I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that we exist, and ideas exist, but we exist as little more than ideas. I suppose the possibilities issue isn't all that important.
A unicorn is nothing more than an idea. But I think the unicorn certainly exists - as an idea. The unicorn must exist somewhere in the way my neurons come together in my brain (because I don't believe non-existent things can cause things that exist to move).
I exist - as a tangible thing. I exist in the way my body, mind and emotions come together.
A unicorn has no free will. Because it is my idea, I control the unicorn's actions when I think about it. I decide if he is eating or running or sleeping, not the unicorn.
I may or may not have free will. I suspect you're right - I may not have any more free will than a unicorn.
The only difference I see between the idea and me is that I am tangible, and an idea is not. The firing of neurons doesn't create an image that you can see, unless I 'send' the image to you via spoken words or letters on a page.
In a sense, though, aren't your senses acting like the spoken and written word for tangible things like me? Isn't my existence "sent" to you through your 5 senses? Without your 5 senses, you wouldn't know of my existence any more than you would know of my ideas if you couldn't understand my language.
However, to answer my own question, when I die, I will have existed, just as ideas have existed. If I have an idea and I never communicate it and then I forget about it, I still had that idea. In 2 million years, I will be like the forgotten idea. Not very nice, but at least I can say that I do exist - but as nothing much more substancial than ideas like unicorns or gods.
08-15-02, 11:54 PM tsaeb Sarai: Possibilities are certainties. If I, being confined with closed windows, can barely breathe for the first 21 years of my life, I will conclude--perhaps accurately, perhaps erroneously--that this is the way that things will always be for me: stuffy. However, one day I trip on a shoe in my path, crash into a window, let in fresh air, and expect to forever after--perhaps accurately, perhaps erroneously--conclude the new alternative: refreshing. At age 35, I cannot breathe deeply. I arrive at the new and clearly erroneous conclusion that I am suffering from old age when what I have is asthma. In short, events can trigger accurate or erroneous ideas. Do we need events for this flow of ideas? No. We have imaginations precisely to think what we are able: true and false, good and evil. If at any time we begin to think of the way that we would want things to truly be, then we are exercising faith, which is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Faith, therefore, is very akin to openmindedness. Should we arrive much more consistently than before at truth . . . then we have found God, who is truth.
[This message was edited by tsaeb on 08-16-02 at 12:02 AM.]
08-16-02, 01:32 AM babthrower Sarai, Through the senses we derive a belief that others exist just as tangibly as we do? And we assign to them attributes like ours, including the ability to think?
08-16-02, 12:05 PM Sarai Babthrower, yes I think you could definitely say that. But I don't think it matters whether something exists "tangibly" or not. I can't see any fundamental difference between an idea's existence and your existance or mine, for that matter. The tangibility still must be communicated, just as an idea must be communicated.
08-16-02, 12:20 PM babthrower Serai, as you know the dispute between materialist and idea(l)ist philosophy has been going on since Plato. I think it's interesting that in the last century physics has blurred the distinction between energy and matter. Seems in line with what you're saying, if I haven't misunderstood.
08-23-02, 01:34 AM Omega Raven I believe Einstein said it best: "For those who understand physics, there is no seperation between past, present, and future."
The world of the past is every bit as "real" as the world of the present, and the future.
Some other clever fellow said that: "Anything that CAN occur, DOES occur, in alternate realities."
So, there's your answer. But, I wouldn't bother looking too hard for hard evidence for this theory.
For, we can't prove the existence of alternate realities any more so than we can reach our hand into the past or the future.
Hope that answers your question.
[This message was edited by Omega Raven on 08-23-02 at 01:44 AM.]
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6414 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
