Does Quantum Physics Prove the Existence of God

[Gaudere]

I’m not gonna argue since it’s now moot,

Oh, good!

[/quote]
but
[/quote]
Damn.

consider also that there is no communication between you and the past you that existed a few moments ago. Is that you?

I was not arguing about “personhood” as requiring communication between past-self and future-self. Where did you get that? Besides, as Spiritus noted, there is communication, just one-way.

The illusion of continuity of youness is created as you move through time. Each individual you is like a frame on a motion picture. Play them in sequence, and that’s you. Prove to me that it’s not just as valid to take a sequence of frames from across the multiverse and call it you.

Because one can follow that it is the same biological entity existing through time and occupying essentially the same space, with a persistent consciousness. In much the same manner I can say that the cup of coffee sitting on my desk is the same one that was there one planck unit of time ago; that things persist through time in approximately the same space is a fairly customary belief. What you seem to be saying is that there is a cup of coffee in a another universe that is the same cup of coffee as mine, which it can’t be because my cup of coffee is right here. Two things occupying different space/time/universes cannot be the same thing; they may be identical atomically, but they are in different “places” and are discrete objects. You’re not even arguing that they’re identical atomically, just that for some reason you think a person who is not the same as me and is in an entirely different universe than the original me and does not share consciousness with the original me is still me.

Let’s say I scan you and produce a atomically identical person three feet to the left of you. Is this other person you? If so, what happens when the original you is killed; can you really say that “you” are not dead as long as someone, somewhere is atomically similar to you? OK, what if I produce a person next to you who is not at all atomically identical, in fact is a different sex and had a different father. Is this person still you? If the original you is killed, does that mean you really still exist, as long as someone, somewhere exists?

Your definition of personhood requires that I believe that a person in another universe with completely different genetic makeup and experiences is me. That is patently unintuitive. By that defintion, we are all the same person, which is a lovely philosophical statement but remarkably unlike our customary concept of personhood.

[Scylla]

Gaudere:

Put me in the atomic duplicator, and make five absolutely identical copies of me, and I will maintain that they are me at that instant.

defining identity is a pretty difficult thing to do, but I don’t think it can be done by degrees of similarity, and coincidence in space-time coordinates. Identity is a myth. There is no “you” or “me.” It just seems that way.

Remember, You wanted to hear this. You asked, so you really have no cause to complain.

There is no such thing as “the same,” and “you” are not continuous. The fact that it’s counterintuitive and against convention doesn’t make it false. The Scylla that proposed this idea is gone forever. There’s no getting him back, but to borrow Spiritus’ example, in a slower time universe, “he” may be just coming into existance now. He is more demonstrably the me that proposed the idea, than I am.

I exist in a five coordinate space time according to MWI (I think.) I have three spatial dimensions, one temporal, and one showing which Universe I’m in.

I am different than the me of Yesterday by four out of five of those coordinates. Atomically I am also disimilar. The me that is about to come into being in an alternate universe and propose these ideas shares the same space-time coordinates and atomic structure, 4 out of 5 plus more physically similar. From a starting point of yesterday, that me is more me than the me of today. My identity is a myth of convention. It only seems continuous.

20 years from now, essentially every atom of your body will have been replaced. You may not be recognizable to the naked eye. Your attitudes will probably be different. There will be a vast difference in space-time seperating you two.

Will that be you?

Where do you draw the line? (as you ask)

Anywhere you do so is arbitrary. Convention says we can ignore space time, and call that you, but there’s no reason to do so. By what logic do you not draw it there, but draw it across coincident universes? Why is that convention any more meaningful than any other?

The you of absolutely identical universe Y is more you than the you of ten years ago? Isn’t she?

[Polycarp]

defining identity is a pretty difficult thing to do, but I don’t think it can be done by degrees of similarity, and coincidence in space-time coordinates. Identity is a myth. There is no “you” or “me.” It just seems that way.

Debating solipsism is a waste of time. One of you has got to be wrong. In fact, if you’re taking the affirmative, you’re wasting your breath talking to someone who doesn’t even exist.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Debating solipsism is indeed a waste of time. You are welcome to begin with that proposition Scylla and see where it takes you. Of course, some of us already know the answer. Nowehere.

You cannot use solipsism as a supporting argument to any meaningful proposition. It is a closed box.

You seem to think that identity must be an illusion since it is not tied to specific atoms. That simply means identity exists somewhere other than in specific atoms. I might suggest you consider organizational principals.

As to your hypothetical 5 molecular copies, they would cease being “you” beginning the instant they achieved physical reality.

BTW:

you would have to prove why something shouldn’t be included.

This is an interesting rhetorical position. You are free to imagine anything under the sun and it is up to your opponent to prove that it is not possible under your axioms? How convenient.

As to virtual particles, it is not detection which make them real. What allows a real particle to form is the additional factor of a very high energy environment. (Or, hypothetically, a region of very rapidly expanding space.) It is not the case that they are spontaneously appearing everywhere just waiting for us to detect them.

I agree, though, that the term seems to carry different implications based upon the specific scintific context.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

It doesn’t matter how the info gets there, just that it’s correct.

Correct? In what manner, barring the actual ability to transmit information across Universes, can you state that any information about another Universe is correct?

And one more time if you still don’t like it, then all we need is a being that incorporates quantum wormholes into itself they way you and I have a nervous system.

Quantum wormholes are an interesting flight of fancy. As a logical constuction, though, this particualr deus ex machina does not seem any more compelling than clap if you believe in faeries.

You’re a result of that person, but I don’t understand how you think you’re communicating.

And I do not understand how you imagine a result can be generated without information from the antecedents.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**Debating solipsism is indeed a waste of time. You are welcome to begin with that proposition Scylla and see where it takes you. Of course, some of us already know the answer. Nowehere.

**

Hey! Blame Gaudere, she asked for it, and I feel justified to the unwarranted prejudice that excludes alternate me’s from recognition as part of my gestalt energy. I was nice enought to throw in the quantum wormhole alternative, so you oughtta be grateful.

**You seem to think that identity must be an illusion since it is not tied to specific atoms. That simply means identity exists somewhere other than in specific atoms. I might suggest you consider organizational principals.

**

ANd what oranizational principles would exist that wouldn’t be shared by my alternate selves (Or maybe let’s not bother?)

**As to your hypothetical 5 molecular copies, they would cease being “you” beginning the instant they achieved physical reality.

**

Actually I think it would be the instant after.

**
BTW:

you would have to prove why something shouldn’t be included.

This is an interesting rhetorical position. You are free to imagine anything under the sun and it is up to your opponent to prove that it is not possible under your axioms? How convenient.

**

That’s an unfair characterization of my statement taken out of context. It was a qualified statement. I applied reasons as to why my alternate selves should be included since they were identifiably more similar. I am resisting the arbitrary exclusion.

I am aware of the flaws in this particular argument. I didn’t say it was good, I just said it was defensible. Since it’s also kinda novel and appealing in a certain way I went with it, for fun. Gaudere asked me to. I think we both know what the other means, correct?

**As to virtual particles, it is not detection which make them real. What allows a real particle to form is the additional factor of a very high energy environment. (Or, hypothetically, a region of very rapidly expanding space.) It is not the case that they are spontaneously appearing everywhere just waiting for us to detect them.

**

I think we’ve come to an undestanding of this. They are everywhere occuring. We just can’t detect them until they become “real” in such an environment.
Hey, at least I managed to salvage Salma

[Scylla]

Of course I could state it’s correct, because given an infinity of universes where all possibilities exist, than it would have to be correct. Somewhere.

Quantum wormholes are not quite the fairies you claim them to be. Theoretically they are absolutely possible. That doesn’t make them true, nor does the fact that they would probably be undetectable, and unusable. Again, give me an infinite number of all possible universes, and it’s reasonable. Which is where we were at when we started arguing this.

[Gaudere]

Spiritus:As to your hypothetical 5 molecular copies, they would cease being “you” beginning the instant they achieved physical reality.
Scylla:Actually I think it would be the instant after.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You previously said that a me that picked up a rock and a me that did not pick up a rock were still me, despite being different and in separate universes. At least be consistent with your “everything is also everything else and you are me and I am you and we are this coffee cup” defintion of “same person”.

[Scylla]

Gaudere:
I didn’t say that.

[Gaudere]

Any of those is you.

One of these yous lifts a rock, another doesn’t.

Which one is you?

They both are.

In still another universe, another you remembers it both ways exactly as it happened.

[Scylla]

Gaudere:

I said it.

They would be the same frame of my hypothetical motion picture. The next instant they would be different consecutive frames of the same picture. I should be clearer, but I think you know what I mean.

I’m suggesting a choose your own adventure kinda thing across the many worlds.

[Gaudere]

::shrug:: Then they’re not the same person. You could pretty much as sensibly say: “In one universe Bob picks up a rock. In another universe, his clone does not. Someone in another universe bizarrely “remembers” doing both (although s/he has no idea if this memory is a true memory of actions in other universes).” And you propose this as “valid” communication?

[Scylla]

Gaudere:

I guess that “posting as an alternate self gives me abitrary deniability due to my lack of identity” joke didn’t work. I know I said it. It was a poor joke.

BTW is posting as an alternate self allowable under SDMB rules?

If the alternate self got his own username would that be grounds for banning both?

Should alternate selves post under the same username?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Gaudere *
And you propose this as “valid” communication? **

I told you it sucked, but nooooo, you wanted to hear it. It’s a workaround. Who needs real communication when the fake stuff will WORK!!.

In a court of law, any of those yous is you.

If an alternate you actualizes in this universe and strangles me to death for coming up with such a horrible cheat of an idea, and leaves it’s fingerprints and DNA everywhere, in a court of law someone could prove you did it. You’d be guilty. It was you who did it.

Fortunately this hasn’t come up since Schroedinger vs. Illinois ASPCA.

[Gaudere]

BTW is posting as an alternate self allowable under SDMB rules?

Not by my defintion of “same person”. That would be a novel argument for allowing it though.

If the alternate self got his own username would that be grounds for banning both?

In the same universe? Not by my defintion of “same person”; they should have separate usernames. Heck, I’m inclined to consider soliphistic arguments that they really are the same person themselves grounds for banning the person who makes it considerably moreso than the validity of the argument itself.

Should alternate selves post under the same username?

If they are on this same message board, no. Moderators have great powers, but monitoring SDMBs in alternate universes may be beyond us. They may choose whatever name they wish in their alternate universe SDMB, since there will not be any confusing the two people since they cannot both post on the same board.

[Gaudere]

If an alternate you actualizes in this universe and strangles me to death for coming up with such a horrible cheat of an idea, and leaves it’s fingerprints and DNA everywhere, in a court of law someone could prove you did it.

Not if I had a killer alibi. People would assume I was framed by someone else, which I was. Or an evil twin; don’t you ever watch the soaps? Like this issue hasn’t been dealt with 500 times!

You’d be guilty.

I am not guilty; I didn’t kill you. The alternate person who looks a lot like me did it. She could not even be much like me if she would kill you; she is a best an evil clone, and may possibly even have to be genetically different.

It was you who did it.

See above.
[Edited by Gaudere on 10-27-2000 at 02:44 PM]

[Scylla]

Mind you, I’m not saying I buy into any of this stuff, but, I was going for omnipotence here. That’s a pretty big job. If I need a little solipsism to get it done, well it’s nothing worse than some of the stuf Rich did in Survivor.
All in all, I think I took a pretty good shot at it.

[Scylla]

"Ladies and Gentleman of the jury. Here are the photos from the security camera clearly showing the defendant strangling Scylla. Here’s the results of the DNA testing, and fingerprints. Here’s a lock of the hair the defendant left behind even though she** claims** she was working in her studio at the time.

As for the alibi, of course one of her friends will try to back her up. This is flimsiness in the extreme."
Guilty!!!

[Polycarp]

IANAM, however:

If duplicate selves were in alternate universes, they would obviously be posting from different IP addresses. They might dispute over who has claim to the name “Scylla,” however, and it would be interesting to see how the Administrators determine to whom to award it.

If they were in the same universe, then the question would be whether they immediately begin to have distinct personalities or function as sock puppets. If the latter, then obviously you need only one username. If the former, then each would stand according to the jerk? troll? abiding by TOS? sort of evaluation that administration now uses.

It would offer the one insight, however, that such anecdotal evidence of telepathy as I possess suggests that it is not a communication medium but the result of two minds “running in parallel” so to speak, where each is able to think the thoughts of the other due to shared experience and known motivations. Your five selves would automatically be telepathic, on that basis, having been you down to a molecular level and therefore sharing experience and motivations, for as long as they cared to be. This would, in turn, prolong the period before distinct identities occurred.

[Gaudere]

The court is only supposed to find me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and it will if I have no good alibi. Alternate universe Gauderes are not reasonable. However…is there any doubt that the Gaudere sent to jail for the crime actually did not do it?

If you have to use soliphism to get omnipotence, omnipotence is worth dick, IMHO. “Ok, I can do anything. However, nothing is really real.” Shoot, I call that “daydreams”.