April 9, 2017 — Paul Eno

[Randall]

It's not really that clear cut though

I think it is that clear-cut. You are not another "you" living in "another universe" at another time. You're the "you" living in this universe now. By branching off from the original you, any other "you" is just a copy, who goes on to have their own independent life and existence. Or if not by branching, then they are created by parallel evolution. There's no way around it that I can see in your explanation.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I think it is that clear-cut. You are not another "you" living in "another universe" at another time. You're the "you" living in this universe now. By branching off from the original you, any other "you" is just a copy, who goes on to have their own independent life and existence. Or if not by branching, then they are created by parallel evolution. There's no way around it that I can see in your explanation.

First you have to bear in mind that nearly all of the descriptions that you hear about this theory are worded very badly, and are usually based on wildly inaccurate misunderstandings of it. For example, the various universes don't interact at all - there's no possibility of "crossovers" like we heard about in this show, because that's not an aspect of the mathematical definition of the quantum wavefunction.

Everett's interpretation is based on the idea that the universe is defined by its total wavefunction. So all of the different possibilities expressed within that one wavefunction are simply facets of the one true reality that's the sum of all of those possibilities. There aren't "many worlds" or "many universes" - rather, all of those universes are simply facets of the one universe, like the facets of a single diamond. They don't exist - they can't exist - without each other.

So there are infinities of facets of the one universal wavefunction where the part that's "you" and everything that you can perceive, do not diverge....where the component of the universal wavefunction that we call "you" remains exactly the same, and only other parts of the universe diverge (often in vanishingly minute ways). In Everett's interpretation, "you" are defined by your collective wavefunction: the iterations of "you" are just aspects of that one whole, which is in turn an aspect of the one whole universal wavefunction. It's as if your wavefunction is the "real you" and all of the various permutations of your wavefunction are just reflections in a house of mirrors.

It's a totally different way of looking at reality, and one that I don't believe for a second, but in this model your wavefunction is the only "true reality," and the iterations are just facets, shadows, echoes, reflections...however you want to look at it.

 

[mike]

Richard C Meredith did a great trilogy called the timeliner trilogy.

Essentially for every possible choice the universe branched. Well worth a read for sci fi fans.
The characters didn't travel "up" and "down" time aka Doctor Who, But rather "skudded" sideways across the timelines.

But the universe also periodically dropped branches of low potential. an excellent fresh view on parallel universes and time travel.

 

[Randall]

First you have to bear in mind that nearly all of the descriptions that you hear about this theory are worded very badly, and are usually based on wildly inaccurate misunderstandings of it. For example, the various universes don't interact at all - there's no possibility of "crossovers" like we heard about in this show, because that's not an aspect of the mathematical definition of the quantum wavefunction.

Everett's interpretation is based on the idea that the universe is defined by its total wavefunction. So all of the different possibilities expressed within that one wavefunction are simply facets of the one true reality that's the sum of all of those possibilities. There aren't "many worlds" or "many universes" - rather, all of those universes are simply facets of the one universe, like the facets of a single diamond. They don't exist - they can't exist - without each other.

So there are infinities of facets of the one universal wavefunction where the part that's "you" and everything that you can perceive, do not diverge....where the component of the universal wavefunction that we call "you" remains exactly the same, and only other parts of the universe diverge (often in vanishingly minute ways). In Everett's interpretation, "you" are defined by your collective wavefunction: the iterations of "you" are just aspects of that one whole, which is in turn an aspect of the one whole universal wavefunction. It's as if your wavefunction is the "real you" and all of the various permutations of your wavefunction are just reflections in a house of mirrors.

It's a totally different way of looking at reality, and one that I don't believe for a second, but in this model your wavefunction is the only "true reality," and the iterations are just facets, shadows, echoes, reflections...however you want to look at it.

Thanks for the reply. I see what you're saying and I think you're also absolutely correct not to believe it. It's pure nonsense. Also, as you suggest, the language and interpretations are also easily co-opted to suit the agendas of various quantum-woo mongers. Here's a relevant article:

If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You? | DiscoverMagazine.com

There's also key reason besides the math and science that makes it impossible for there to be more than one "you". Even if each version of "you" is an exact duplicate made from what is assumed to be the same particles coexisting in two or more places, each version of "you" will still have a different experiential view of their world, and because our worldview and consciousness are considered to be key components of who we are as persons, multiple consciousnesses and worldviews = multiple persons. We do not experience all universes as a single infinite hive mind. Consequently multiple separate persons ≠ one person, and therefore they cannot be the same person.

Or to revisit the diamond analogy you used, a facet on one side of a diamond is not the facet on the other side, even if they are part of the same diamond at the same time. Or if we use the branch analogy, a leaf on one branch is not the same leaf on a different branch, even if they both exist on the same tree at the same time. All leaves and all facets are independent even if they are alike and part of a larger common construct.

 

[William Strathmann]

. . . we’re just groping in the dark.

Well said. Thanks for your thoughts. The reason I asked is that the other day I came across this remark by physicist Frank Close who self-describes as a "21st century atheist":

There is no reason to believe that our inflationary universe is, was, a one-off event. There could be many other such universes that have erupted in similar fashion to this but which are beyond our awareness. When confronted by the astonishing range of coincidences in the nature of the forces, the masses of the fundamental particles, even in there being three dimensions of space, but for which the conditions for life would have almost certainly not have arisen, one is forced to wonder why our universe has turned out so conveniently for us. One line of conjecture among scientists is that there are multiple universes, potentially an infinite number, with their own parameters and dimensions; one of these happens to be just right for life, and that is where we have evolved. So welcome to the multiverse, though I am sceptical whether such conjectures can be tested within the realms of science.

Close, Frank. Nothing: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 136-137). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.​

I think Close's conception of "multiple universes" originate simultaneously, and not sequentially as in Eno's conception. Perhaps a moot point. Evidently grappling with infinity in the physical world, one way or another, stimulates these "many world" conjectures. I am not particularly inclined to either Eno's or Close's ideas. On the idea of the uniqueness of each individual, I think I'd tend to agree with Ususal Suspect.

 

[Trevor Wozny]

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.

Of course they had..you just do not understand the data....sorry.

 

[Trevor Wozny]

I sat through the whole thing. Only spilled my drink once. Now I know why I have never heard of Mr. Eno. His rhetoric seems plausible sounding. It is essentially correct from a specific reference frame. To a point. I have no words for someone that utters "Weaponize the Paranormal" or "Base 2 system...2+2 is 4. Ummm..to the rest of us, it is known as binary. There are no "2"'s or "4" unless your name is Bender Bending Rodriguez. What I can't suss out who he kept referring to as "We"? Did he have a mouse in his pocket?

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Of course they had..you just do not understand the data....sorry.

Rather than apologise, why not support your position by laying out a case?

NOBODY has been able to prove that carbon released into the atmosphere from human activity is the reason for global temperature changes...

over to you....

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

NOBODY has been able to prove that carbon released into the atmosphere from human activity is the reason for global temperature changes...

There are only two reasons that somebody would make that statement:

1.) They haven't actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
2.) They've looked at the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and failed to understand it.

Because it's crystal clear from the empirical evidence obtained through several independent disciplines, including paleoclimatology, the thermodynamics of atmospheric gases, and satellite spectroscopy, that the unprecedented spike in CO2 levels (which are now nearly double of any concentration levels spanning the last half million years) precipitated by the industrial age has directly caused the dramatic increase in global temperatures over the last half century.

NASA climatologists present their indisputable evidence for this here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you want to keep arguing about this, let's start a different thread.

Thank you.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

OK, so I don't think you understood my statement.

Again...
NOBODY has been able to prove that carbon released into the atmosphere from human activity is the reason for global temperature changes...

Your chart shows carbon dioxide over time, it does not prove it is the cause of warming.

I would also draw your attention to the Y axis. Parts per million. You may notice the current level is 100 parts per million above over peaks. That's 100 out of 1,000,0000 or an extra 1 carbon atom in every 10,000 atoms of atmosphere. Change the measurement to parts per 100 and you get a flat line on the chart the change is so small.

I refer also to a earlier points about how temperature change has led carbon change in the past. E.g. carbon increase comes after temperature change. This chart does not prove that carbon released by man's activity is a temerature driver or the main temperature driver on earth (see prior ice ages or sun cycles).

Climate scientists who make a living from climate science have a vested interest in ensuring that their conclusion's keep coming back to carbon dioxide from people. It's this assumption that maintains their funding and raison d'etre. A bit like the CIA needs to keep telling us Russia is still the bogeyman, it keeps their prorgam's and funding in a healthy place.

I would recommend you watch the documentary I linked earlier in the thread plenty of charts from respected thinkers that show that this miopic view of it can only be human release carbon is not one that holds up when all the data is considered.

 

[marduk]

OK, so I don't think you understood my statement.

Again...
NOBODY has been able to prove that carbon released into the atmosphere from human activity is the reason for global temperature changes...

Your chart shows carbon dioxide over time, it does not prove it is the cause of warming.

I would also draw your attention to the Y axis. Parts per million. You may notice the current level is 100 parts per million above over peaks. That's 100 out of 1,000,0000 or an extra 1 carbon atom in every 10,000 atoms of atmosphere. Change the measurement to parts per 100 and you get a flat line on the chart the change is so small.

I refer also to a earlier points about how temperature change has led carbon change in the past. E.g. carbon increase comes after temperature change. This chart does not prove that carbon released by man's activity is a temerature driver or the main temperature driver on earth (see prior ice ages or sun cycles).

Climate scientists who make a living from climate science have a vested interest in ensuring that their conclusion's keep coming back to carbon dioxide from people. It's this assumption that maintains their funding and raison d'etre. A bit like the CIA needs to keep telling us Russia is still the bogeyman, it keeps their prorgam's and funding in a healthy place.

I would recommend you watch the documentary I linked earlier in the thread plenty of charts from respected thinkers that show that this miopic view of it can only be human release carbon is not one that holds up when all the data is considered.

This is a total joke.

The evidence is irrefutable. You just don't want it to be so.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

This is a total joke.

The evidence is irrefutable. You just don't want it to be so.

It's not a joke buddy.

Yes, you can prove carbon has increased. And yes you can show temperature has increased. However... you cannot say that one is causing the other until you have proved that in a control exeriment where you remove all the other variables.

The temperature of the planet is influenced by many other factors such as the big yellow thing in the sky.

Carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of the gas in the atmosphere. Oxygen by comparison is 21 percent. So Co2 is only 400 parts in every 1,000,000 it's overwhelmingly insignificant and to say it's the key driver of temperature is the joke and the joke is on us.

Plus the temperature change is so little that again, if you look at the scale on the chart it's hard to argue it's changed in any significant way at all.

Drive your v8 car fast and leave your lights on because try as hard as you want you won't change the earth's temp.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I moved my response to this futile climate change debate to a new thread, since this topic has nothing to do with the paranormal or Paul Eno:
Climate Change: Fact and Denial

 

[Han]

Belated thank you for asking my questions, I have only just managed to listen to the episode.

Really interesting!

"the answer to Bigfoot is yes"

 

[Linton]

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.

I apologize for my lateness to the conversation, and, admittedly, have not delved into Itzhak Bars theory, but if one is dealing with perpendicular dimensions of time, that in itself would seem to suggest multiple alternate dimensional existence at every given moment the other versions of you splitting of infinitely sideways in time.

Perhaps as three dimensional beings our limited perceptions come to rest on those time iterations that most overlap, or resemble one another, the others, while just as valid and potentially part of the perceived dominant reality of someone else, becoming lost in the endless six dimensional fractal pattern that makes up our individual reality. We only see the dominant fractal pattern from our own perspective, the subtle variations become lost, but may intersect with someone elses dominant fractal. Essentially we all become the lead character in our own existence, and bit players in everyone else's.

Were someone able to travel through time, forward or back may not be the only choice. Choosing or shifting sideways along your time path could thereby shift your dominant fractal perception, creating memory shadows (Mandela effect). Just spit-balling here.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I apologize for my lateness to the conversation, and, admittedly, have not delved into Itzhak Bars theory, but if one is dealing with perpendicular dimensions of time, that in itself would seem to suggest multiple alternate dimensional existence at every given moment the other versions of you splitting of infinitely sideways in time.

Welcome to the discussion Linton. Yeah that’s what I thought too, after reading a brief article about this theory in the popular science press. But after spending a few days reading his papers and watching his lectures on this, it’s clear that his model doesn’t predict a multiverse like the many worlds interpretation.

In Bars’ theory, which is amazing and gorgeous but expressed in the supremely abstract terms of bleeding-edge theoretical physics, the 6D universe is constrained by a specific gauge symmetry to perfectly reproduce the 4D universe that we observe, replete with a linear causality chain. That symmetry makes position and momentum indistinguishable at any instant - which is a powerful theoretical explanation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. And without this constraining symmetry, we would be able to observe things like matter suddenly moving in the extra dimension of space and instantly disappearing from view, which obviously never happens. So the empirical evidence of the higher-dimensional reality is thereby restricted to the surprising symmetries among seemingly disparate physical phenomena – revealing them to all be various facets of a single higher-dimensional system.

For example, from one “angle” in 6D phase space projected onto the 4D “shadow” that we observe as reality, he derives the standard model of particles and forces (minus the elusive axion particle, which is an intriguing result). From another orientation in 6D phase space, he derives the physics of a particle moving in the expanding Robertson-Walker spacetime metric, and from another orientation still, he derives the Hamiltonian of a harmonic oscillator, and so on. So all of these seemingly different manifestations of particles and forces and physical systems that appear to be distinct in our 4D reality, are all just various manifestations of the gauge symmetry acting on a 6D phase space that we can’t observe directly, but we can infer from the surprising symmetries that we observe among the various regimes of physics.

The most accessible outline of his theory can be found here, and for greater insight I recommend his video lectures, because his papers are so advanced that even the vast majority of physics PhDs find his academic papers to be a bracing challenge:
Itzhak Bars, Research Interests