Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Michaelson · 01-27-2003, 09:39 PM

Well, as I understand it, compatibilism holds that there is no conflict between determinism and freedom of the will.

bd-from-kg argues for it on the "Could" we have free will? thread. I remain unconvinced.

Answerer · 01-27-2003, 11:07 PM

Guys, I got a question regarding dimensions. Do you believe that superior beings(than humans) live in higher dimensions and will get more 'powerful' and longer lifespan as they move up the levels of dimension space(if there are such beings)? Or will you rather believe that a being will only get 'superior' as it move down the levels in dimensional space? Hope that I'm clear.

ex-xian · 01-29-2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Guys, I got a question regarding dimensions. Do you believe that superior beings(than humans) live in higher dimensions and will get more 'powerful' and longer lifespan as they move up the levels of dimension space(if there are such beings)? Or will you rather believe that a being will only get 'superior' as it move down the levels in dimensional space? Hope that I'm clear.

If you can find it, a book titled "Flatland" has helped many people understand the implication of possible multidimensional reality.

I can give you my perspective, for what it's worth. If higher dimensions exist, as string theory predicts, they are wrapped so small around the four that we live in as to have no effect on us, so life as know it cannot exist. Even is there is life like that, there is difficulty imagining how we could ever come into contact.

If some other theory comes along that predicts differently organized dimensions, dimensions that would be at right angles to ours, then the question is more interesting. Imagine a being that lives in two dimensions. It can see all around it, but only those things that are on the same plane in which it exists. But a person in three dimensions can look into the center of the two dimensional being, something it or someone like it could never do. Further, we, three dimensional beings would be able to observe 2-d guy in his totality.

If there was someone who lived in +3 spatial dimensions, he would be able to do the same thing in our world. He could walk throught closed doors, perform surgery w/o cutting us, all kinds of cool things, because he would moving at "right angles" to our 3 spatial dimensions.

Those are really the only type of "powers" that I could imagine. If anyone with more creativity than me has anything better, it would be an interesting read.

malpensante · 01-30-2003, 06:20 PM

michaelson: fourdimensionalism (i will refer to it as space-time), compatibilism, time travel. on a book i've recently read, by david deutsch, called "the fabric of reality", it says that there are two conceptions of reality, one based on einstein, and one based on quantum physics, one is space-time (3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension), the other is the multiverse, which is made of multiple universes.

deutsch is a compatibilist, he thinks determinism and free will are compatible, but only if multiverse holds. not only that, he believes time travel allows no paradoxes, but only if multiverse holds.

free will: if you have a ticket for last week's lottery, but have not yet found out whether you have won, the outcome is still open from your point of view, even though objectively it is fixed. but, subjectively or objectively you cannot change it. the common-sense theory of free will says that last week you still had the power to change the outcome, but this is incompatible with space-time, because in it, the future is already there, objectively speaking, and its opennes is an illusion. but according to the multiverse view, the many possible futures (the many parallel universes with differing futures) are already there, and in all of them it was you who decided what to do with the ticket.

time travel: in a classical space-time, events are fixed, so you can't change the past or the future, but in multiverse terms, a spetial property holds:

other times are just special cases of other universes.

in this scenario, traveling back in time, say to yesterday noon, means traveling to a parallel universe in which the present is an instant which is exact to yesterday noon, except that now there are now two copies of you in the time that you recognize in your memory as yesterday noon: a copy exact to yourself yesterday noon, and yourself, the time traveler. both copies would be you, sort of like clones. now, in the universe which you would just have left, you would just have dissappeared, and the past wouldn't have been changed, because events in a singular space-time cannot be changed, they have always been the way they are, objectively speaking. the multiple space-times, or universes, are atemporally the way they are.

Michaelson · 01-30-2003, 08:21 PM

Yeah, but what real evidence is there to support a multiverse? Am I wrong in assuming that the consensus is, generally speaking, that space-time exists?

You can get around anything in a multiverse. Kind of dull, isn't it? Things are far more interesting if you work on an assumption of space-time.

crocodile deathroll · 01-31-2003, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michaelson
Yeah, but what real evidence is there to support a multiverse? Am I wrong in assuming that the consensus is, generally speaking, that space-time exists?

You can get around anything in a multiverse. Kind of dull, isn't it? Things are far more interesting if you work on an assumption of space-time.

How about the inflationary cosmos theory as an valid alternative to the muliverse theory or even a combination of the two?

malpensante · 01-31-2003, 09:52 AM

michaelson:
i think the multiverse view isn't "dull because it gets around anything", i think it's fascinating because it gets around many things, scientifically and philosophically. the philosophical things around which it gets (well, at least some of them) are summarized at the beggining of a thread initiated by me in this section (philosophy), it's called "arguments for the parallel universes worldview", and i invite you to visit it.

now, about the scientifical things around which it gets, there is a lot of debate, and i think the multiverse view is winning. i don't know if i should explain the experiments that it took about 4 pages for david deutsch in his book "the fabric of reality" to convince me, but i will try. first you have to know what the "two slits experiment" is, and what is an interferometer (i'm not going to explain that). according to deutsch, the outcomes of these experiments are evidence of the fact that interference phenomena consist of the actual observable photon, interacting with something that is actual too, but is not directly observable, only indirectly observable (thru interference phenomena). we can't observe directly other universes, we can only observe them indirectly thru interference phenomena. in the two slit experiment, the single photon takes its mysterious path only because it collides with invisible photons that actually exist in parallel universes. in the interferometer, the photon takes its non-random path because of its interactions with the parallel counterparts of the single passing photon.

also, the multiverse view is the working theory for quantum computation scientists and quantum cosmologists.

junkyardgod · 01-31-2003, 12:06 PM

I think that four dimentionalism( i've never heard it phrased that wy before), is more of a scientific concept, than a philosophic position.

I think it's just a way of saying that any static position you may assume is only relative. Everthing is traveling through space/time.

I don't know how this relates to time travel, at least not within a single universe. To my understanding, even if one could travel back through space/time, the best that one could hope for is to encountour the "light cone" of past events. The event itself is past - beyond reach - done.

jyg

Michaelson · 01-31-2003, 05:25 PM

Not right now, but when I have some more time I'll check out the arguments for a multiverse.

I haven't really been working on the assumption that space-time is the correct theory, but I was certainly under the impression that it was the most commonly held view.

As for whether it's a scientific or philosophcal concern, obviously it's both. Questions about determinism and fatalism depend hugely on what assumptions we make about the nature of time, don't they?

And as for the possibility of time-travel, of course it has consequences. According to the multiverse view you can, in a sense, change the past. According to the space-time view, the past would be unchangable and reversed causation would be required in order to time travel. According to a presentist view, there is nowhere for us to travel to.

Space-time would hold that the past event is not beyond reach and done, but that past and future times exist just as other places exist.

crocodile deathroll · 01-31-2003, 08:14 PM

Time travel is as much a part of reality as space travel, otherwise we would be just frozen one point in time when we first become aware of our own existence and if that happen to be back in the 60s you would be stuck there. But the rate of travel depends on velocity and gravity and if you were falling into to event horizon of a black hole you would witness the entire universe played on fast forward and even observe galaxies spinning like tops at the final instance you fell in.

01-31-2003, 08:14 PM	#20
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Time travel is a reality Time travel is as much a part of reality as space travel, otherwise we would be just frozen one point in time when we first become aware of our own existence and if that happen to be back in the 60s you would be stuck there. But the rate of travel depends on velocity and gravity and if you were falling into to event horizon of a black hole you would witness the entire universe played on fast forward and even observe galaxies spinning like tops at the final instance you fell in.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-27-2003, 09:39 PM	#11
Michaelson Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Straya Posts: 290	Well, as I understand it, compatibilism holds that there is no conflict between determinism and freedom of the will. bd-from-kg argues for it on the "Could" we have free will? thread. I remain unconvinced.

01-27-2003, 11:07 PM	#12
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Guys, I got a question regarding dimensions. Do you believe that superior beings(than humans) live in higher dimensions and will get more 'powerful' and longer lifespan as they move up the levels of dimension space(if there are such beings)? Or will you rather believe that a being will only get 'superior' as it move down the levels in dimensional space? Hope that I'm clear.

01-30-2003, 06:20 PM	#14
malpensante Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: bogota, colombia Posts: 91	michaelson: fourdimensionalism (i will refer to it as space-time), compatibilism, time travel. on a book i've recently read, by david deutsch, called "the fabric of reality", it says that there are two conceptions of reality, one based on einstein, and one based on quantum physics, one is space-time (3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension), the other is the multiverse, which is made of multiple universes. deutsch is a compatibilist, he thinks determinism and free will are compatible, but only if multiverse holds. not only that, he believes time travel allows no paradoxes, but only if multiverse holds. free will: if you have a ticket for last week's lottery, but have not yet found out whether you have won, the outcome is still open from your point of view, even though objectively it is fixed. but, subjectively or objectively you cannot change it. the common-sense theory of free will says that last week you still had the power to change the outcome, but this is incompatible with space-time, because in it, the future is already there, objectively speaking, and its opennes is an illusion. but according to the multiverse view, the many possible futures (the many parallel universes with differing futures) are already there, and in all of them it was you who decided what to do with the ticket. time travel: in a classical space-time, events are fixed, so you can't change the past or the future, but in multiverse terms, a spetial property holds: other times are just special cases of other universes. in this scenario, traveling back in time, say to yesterday noon, means traveling to a parallel universe in which the present is an instant which is exact to yesterday noon, except that now there are now two copies of you in the time that you recognize in your memory as yesterday noon: a copy exact to yourself yesterday noon, and yourself, the time traveler. both copies would be you, sort of like clones. now, in the universe which you would just have left, you would just have dissappeared, and the past wouldn't have been changed, because events in a singular space-time cannot be changed, they have always been the way they are, objectively speaking. the multiple space-times, or universes, are atemporally the way they are.

01-30-2003, 08:21 PM	#15
Michaelson Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Straya Posts: 290	Yeah, but what real evidence is there to support a multiverse? Am I wrong in assuming that the consensus is, generally speaking, that space-time exists? You can get around anything in a multiverse. Kind of dull, isn't it? Things are far more interesting if you work on an assumption of space-time.

01-31-2003, 09:52 AM	#17
malpensante Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: bogota, colombia Posts: 91	michaelson: i think the multiverse view isn't "dull because it gets around anything", i think it's fascinating because it gets around many things, scientifically and philosophically. the philosophical things around which it gets (well, at least some of them) are summarized at the beggining of a thread initiated by me in this section (philosophy), it's called "arguments for the parallel universes worldview", and i invite you to visit it. now, about the scientifical things around which it gets, there is a lot of debate, and i think the multiverse view is winning. i don't know if i should explain the experiments that it took about 4 pages for david deutsch in his book "the fabric of reality" to convince me, but i will try. first you have to know what the "two slits experiment" is, and what is an interferometer (i'm not going to explain that). according to deutsch, the outcomes of these experiments are evidence of the fact that interference phenomena consist of the actual observable photon, interacting with something that is actual too, but is not directly observable, only indirectly observable (thru interference phenomena). we can't observe directly other universes, we can only observe them indirectly thru interference phenomena. in the two slit experiment, the single photon takes its mysterious path only because it collides with invisible photons that actually exist in parallel universes. in the interferometer, the photon takes its non-random path because of its interactions with the parallel counterparts of the single passing photon. also, the multiverse view is the working theory for quantum computation scientists and quantum cosmologists.

01-31-2003, 12:06 PM	#18
junkyardgod Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: ct Posts: 157	I think that four dimentionalism( i've never heard it phrased that wy before), is more of a scientific concept, than a philosophic position. I think it's just a way of saying that any static position you may assume is only relative. Everthing is traveling through space/time. I don't know how this relates to time travel, at least not within a single universe. To my understanding, even if one could travel back through space/time, the best that one could hope for is to encountour the "light cone" of past events. The event itself is past - beyond reach - done. jyg

01-31-2003, 05:25 PM	#19
Michaelson Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Straya Posts: 290	Not right now, but when I have some more time I'll check out the arguments for a multiverse. I haven't really been working on the assumption that space-time is the correct theory, but I was certainly under the impression that it was the most commonly held view. As for whether it's a scientific or philosophcal concern, obviously it's both. Questions about determinism and fatalism depend hugely on what assumptions we make about the nature of time, don't they? And as for the possibility of time-travel, of course it has consequences. According to the multiverse view you can, in a sense, change the past. According to the space-time view, the past would be unchangable and reversed causation would be required in order to time travel. According to a presentist view, there is nowhere for us to travel to. Space-time would hold that the past event is not beyond reach and done, but that past and future times exist just as other places exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.