Negative Intention Manifestation

[Angela]

You foxy little pyper, you.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

I suppose it would...


What you're suggesting is that each option is ever-present and the intention manifests by bringing your personally favourable (or unintentionally desired) outcome to bear in this "world".

That is a bit of a leap though, as the many worlds hypothesis doesn't hold up well under occam's razor.

The razor is from the field of logic and is currently not a deciding factor in science. More than not simplistic results lead to greater complexities. that is what the evidence shows.
Many worlds is the leading interpretation of quantum physics among scientists right now. I remember reading in Sci American of an experiment where someone actually viewed an electron in 2 spots, one electron being one of it's other world counterparts.

In the double slit experiment it's believed that the reason photons show up on a screen in a bullseye pattern (that is an interference pattern caused when 2 waves collide and cancel each other out in some predicted areas and strengthen in others - looks like a bullseye target and is mathematically consistent with wave theory) is because they are interfering with other photon waves from other worlds. The photons are fired one at a time so there is technically nothing they should be able to interfere with. When particles are still uncollapsed and still only ghost-like "waves" they may exist in many probable worlds at once.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by joelr

The razor is from the field of logic and is currently not a deciding factor in science.

If I see Occam invoked one more time, I swear I will find a medium to ask if he'd be willing to undergo electrolysis

[cylon]

I don't think we should be using a cutting utensil as a way to explain things. It's a razor, I don't care who owned it.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by joelr

The razor is from the field of logic and is currently not a deciding factor in science. More than not simplistic results lead to greater complexities. that is what the evidence shows.
Many worlds is the leading interpretation of quantum physics among scientists right now. I remember reading in Sci American of an experiment where someone actually viewed an electron in 2 spots, one electron being one of it's other world counterparts.

In the double slit experiment it's believed that the reason photons show up on a screen in a bullseye pattern (that is an interference pattern caused when 2 waves collide and cancel each other out in some predicted areas and strengthen in others - looks like a bullseye target and is mathematically consistent with wave theory) is because they are interfering with other photon waves from other worlds. The photons are fired one at a time so there is technically nothing they should be able to interfere with. When particles are still uncollapsed and still only ghost-like "waves" they may exist in many probable worlds at once.

Occam's razor was invoked purely for the purposes herein, not for the validity of the hypothesis itself.

If we are to suppose that energy (intent) transcends the barrier between the multiple worlds, but matter does not, then our idea of free will is thrown completely out the multiple window.

We no more have choice than we have the abilty to fly, but then I'm sure, in one of the multiple worlds we can fly.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Occam's razor was invoked purely for the purposes herein, not for the validity of the hypothesis itself.

If we are to suppose that energy (intent) transcends the barrier between the multiple worlds, but matter does not, then our idea of free will is thrown completely out the multiple window.

We no more have choice than we have the abilty to fly, but then I'm sure, in one of the multiple worlds we can fly.

Even "herein" I'm not just speaking philosophically, I'm using science in my model. So if the razor isn't valid in a scientific way then I'm not considering it a factor in the many-worlds theory. You can of course.

We do know experimentally that consciousness does transcend the barrier between worlds. Matter does transcend it in it's wave state.
Some scientists do use the many-worlds to return determinism back to quantum physics. It doesn't have to however. All other possible realities do not have to manifest. It may depend on the intent of each consciousness as to which probable worlds actualize.
I imagine many worlds is probabilistic. A world where humans fly is not likely. Flying with jet packs is a better possibility. If everyday pain old matter (particles) can behave not as actual "things" but as probabilities why not all universes? Particles are "atoms"(as in Greek atomos) of 1 universe, universes are "atoms" of the multiverse.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by joelr

The razor is from the field of logic and is currently not a deciding factor in science.

The Razor is not even a fully-accepted principle within the field of logic & philosophy. The Razor has its own critics among the logicians and philosophers. These critics were sometimes known as the anti-razors. The anti-razors included Walter of Chatton; Immanuel Kant and Karl Menger.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The Razor is not even a fully-accepted principle within the field of logic & philosophy. The Razor has its own critics among the logicians and philosophers. These critics were sometimes known as the anti-razors. The anti-razors included Walter of Chatton; Immanuel Kant and Karl Menger.

Good. I hate that razor.

[Angela]

It seems like there's a person or two around here who believes in Occam's Brazilian Bikini Wax. Just bend over and pull it all out by the roots, that's the simplest way. Leave no stragglers.

[cylon]

Thank you for that imagery.

[Pyper900]

Occam and his grooming habits are not the topic of discussion, though his idea that when considering the possibility, or in this case, the probability of IM affecting the manifestation of realities, which are at any given moment both actualised and completely nonexistent, gives strenght to the thought that the complexity of the solution holds it back against simpler explanations.

Was the outcome of WWII ever present and readily manfested in any of the countless possible directions, as favoured by many-worlds, or, was there only one way for the war to end; that way being the product of the collective physical actions of humanity at the time?

The many-worlds theory -is that cat in the box dead, alive or even there at all until I open the box- is tantamount to wondering if the light really turns off in the refridgerator when the door is closed.

What we are faced with in our reality is strange enough, and largely unexplained, without clouding the issue with influence from other states of reality.

[Pyper900]

I'm about to do a little ranting, so please excuse my double post.

The many-worlds theory poses a few problems for me, problem which might have been brought up by Occam himself.

Most simply, the idea that all matter and energy remain unrealised and unactualised until human (or otherwise) consciousness projects an expectation on it -the potential exists for all possible outcomes at all possible times, until we come to need for a single outcome- , this poses a rather large problem for me.

How does one reconcile probability with perspective?

This is most easily summed up in the argument for divergent perception in colour. How do we know that the colour I perceive to be green, is the same colour that you perceive to be green? We don't, in fact we can't, and in all probability, there is subtle variation in the two, based on perspective.

So, if inside the box, instead of a cat of varying degrees of deaness, there is a single paper card painted bright green, when I open the box, I will either see a green card, or I will not.

If you and I both open the box together, we cause a paradox in physics, matter cannot be to me one thing, and to you something different. We both must see a green card. Many-worlds says that both variations of green card exist in the box at all times, but when we both look at the same time, both must actualise simultaneously.

If we go back to the cat (or mouse as the original thought experiment did), is it possible for the cat to actualise as both dead and alive simultaneously, depending on perspective? No, a dead cat, is a dead cat.

So, if your green card is actualised as slightly different than my green card, because of the perspective offered by our own individual perceptions. How can both cards have actualised sumltaneously? Their potentiality was infinite before the box was opened, but finite once perceived, yet both versions exist.

This I cannot reconcile, and my head hurts.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by joelr

A world where humans fly is not likely. Flying with jet packs is a better possibility.

A world where humans fly is necessary to the validity of many-worlds. All possibilities must exist in potential, in order for the theory to work.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

This I cannot reconcile, and my head hurts.

This is what happens when we get too intellectual. You need to get out of your head. Sorry if that was off topic too.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by cylon

This is what happens when we get too intellectual. You need to get out of your head. Sorry if that was off topic too.

Hehe...thank you! I do need to get out more, of my head and otherwise.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Occam and his grooming habits are not the topic of discussion, though his idea that when considering the possibility, or in this case, the probability of IM affecting the manifestation of realities, which are at any given moment both actualised and completely nonexistent, gives strenght to the thought that the complexity of the solution holds it back against simpler explanations.

I know what you are saying. I can't personally use the razor deductively like you because it's not a law. I'm using it inductively here. Based on past experience nature does not always confirm to the razor conjecture. So I don't see it having any strength. I find that the way things are headed with quantum mechanics and consciousness many-worlds is actually needed and the next logical step based on history. History shows we have always held over simplistic models of reality that need upgrading. Earth was once considered continent sized, then was the center of a small solar system, then up until ~ 1920 the Universe was the milky way galaxy, then it had many galaxies, then billions, super-super clusters, now cosmologists consider parallel universes as a likelyhood, physics considers alternate realities...
Science is man growing smaller and smaller in his environment. Except for quantum mechanics

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Was the outcome of WWII ever present and readily manfested in any of the countless possible directions, as favoured by many-worlds, or, was there only one way for the war to end; that way being the product of the collective physical actions of humanity at the time?

Many worlds would say there were many outcomes of WW2.

Originally Posted by Pyper900

The many-worlds theory -is that cat in the box dead, alive or even there at all until I open the box- is tantamount to wondering if the light really turns off in the refridgerator when the door is closed.

That's Schrodingers cat not many worlds. That is a thought experiment against quantum mechanics. Erwin didn't approve of the strangeness of the observer effect in QM. It's still just as mysterious. Many worlds does help to resolve the problem because the observer does not create a live/dead cat, reality just branches off into 2 worlds.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Most simply, the idea that all matter and energy remain unrealised and unactualised until human (or otherwise) consciousness projects an expectation on it -the potential exists for all possible outcomes at all possible times, until we come to need for a single outcome- , this poses a rather large problem for me.

How does one reconcile probability with perspective?

Well, we do know for sure that subatomic (and now slightly larger!) matter does remain in a unactualized state until observed.
Perspective in terms of colors is something that happens inside each observer and not related to the actual object. Photons from the object hit your eye and your brain draws a mental picture. It can recognize (some) different wavelengths of the photons and makes a picture in your mind of different "colors" for different wavelengths. So color isn't real. That in no way effects the original object so 2 observers could see 1 object differently. The important thing is that a consciousness has received information about a group of particles existing in a specific spot. That knowledge causes them to actualize into definite particles. We see that in the lab with individual particles and now even with larger groups of atoms. I think we may have even seen strange quantum behavior with a small virus in the lab.
I'm not sure if that's where you were headed with the color ideas?

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by joelr

I know what you are saying. I can't personally use the razor deductively like you because it's not a law. I'm using it inductively here. Based on past experience nature does not always confirm to the razor conjecture. So I don't see it having any strength. I find that the way things are headed with quantum mechanics and consciousness many-worlds is actually needed and the next logical step based on history. History shows we have always held over simplistic models of reality that need upgrading. Earth was once considered continent sized, then was the center of a small solar system, then up until ~ 1920 the Universe was the milky way galaxy, then it had many galaxies, then billions, super-super clusters, now cosmologists consider parallel universes as a likelyhood, physics considers alternate realities...
Science is man growing smaller and smaller in his environment. Except for quantum mechanics

I agree, our collective understanding needs to be expanded, or...hehe, enlightened. The knowledge we have of the cosmos and of physic is relative to the size of our experience, essentially, we still know nothing of the way things really are.

Originally Posted by joelr

Many worlds would say there were many outcomes of WW2.

Yes, it would, it would say that there were an infinite number of outcomes, and that the one we witnessed was the only one that fit the cosmological conditions at the time.

Originally Posted by joelr

That's Schrodingers cat not many worlds. That is a thought experiment against quantum mechanics. Erwin didn't approve of the strangeness of the observer effect in QM. It's still just as mysterious. Many worlds does help to resolve the problem because the observer does not create a live/dead cat, reality just branches off into 2 worlds.

I realise Schrodinger was trying to refute Einstein's new weird quantum science, but in hindsight, don't you think that his thought experiment was pretty much right on the mark for the many-worlds hypothetis?

I mean, that is precisely what we're talking about, many worlds of unactualised matter and energy, housing the potential of infinite causal realities. In part the observer effect is the very paradox that the many-world hypothesis tries to solve.

The problem with thought experiments is also the thing that makes them so effective. They ca be both subjective and objective at the same time.

What have we resolved here?

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by joelr

Well, we do know for sure that subatomic (and now slightly larger!) matter does remain in a unactualized state until observed.
Perspective in terms of colors is something that happens inside each observer and not related to the actual object. Photons from the object hit your eye and your brain draws a mental picture. It can recognize (some) different wavelengths of the photons and makes a picture in your mind of different "colors" for different wavelengths. So color isn't real. That in no way effects the original object so 2 observers could see 1 object differently. The important thing is that a consciousness has received information about a group of particles existing in a specific spot. That knowledge causes them to actualize into definite particles. We see that in the lab with individual particles and now even with larger groups of atoms. I think we may have even seen strange quantum behavior with a small virus in the lab.
I'm not sure if that's where you were headed with the color ideas?

I suppose you're right, and yes, that is where I was headed, the colour idea worked well in thought, but not on closer examination.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Occam and his grooming habits are not the topic of discussion, though his idea that when considering the possibility, or in this case, the probability of IM affecting the manifestation of realities, which are at any given moment both actualised and completely nonexistent, gives strenght to the thought that the complexity of the solution holds it back against simpler explanations.

The problems with Occam's Razor are immediately exposed, if you ask:

(a) a child to explain the causes of cancer;

and

(b) a doctor to explain the causes of cancer.

The child will give you a simpler explanation with much fewer assumptions. The doctor will give you a more complicated explanation with many more assumptions.

According to Occam's Razor, the child is more likely to be right.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

I'm about to do a little ranting, so please excuse my double post.

The many-worlds theory poses a few problems for me, problem which might have been brought up by Occam himself.

Most simply, the idea that all matter and energy remain unrealised and unactualised until human (or otherwise) consciousness projects an expectation on it -the potential exists for all possible outcomes at all possible times, until we come to need for a single outcome- , this poses a rather large problem for me.

Umm, that isn't the Many Worlds theory.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Yes, it would, it would say that there were an infinite number of outcomes, and that the one we witnessed was the only one that fit the cosmological conditions at the time.

Well, no not infinite. Keep in mind 10^80^10^80 is as far from infinity as 1 is.The number of outcomes would depend on the number of conscious beings involved. At that there could be a varying number of possibilities for each observer depending on the subtle energies eminating from each observer.

Originally Posted by Pyper900

I mean, that is precisely what we're talking about, many worlds of unactualised matter and energy, housing the potential of infinite causal realities. In part the observer effect is the very paradox that the many-world hypothesis tries to solve.

Yeah. They are dealing with the same phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Pyper900

What have we resolved here?

It's a nice chance to explore how many worlds may or may not fit into LOA.
No resolution until physics firmly catches up to this aspect of reality.