You know, that’s true. All those alternate selves would be functionally telepaths!
Who needs the real thing when we can fake it?
Gaudere:
It’s not all that bad. Only a little Sollipsism, and it applies equally well to everyday life, without bothering you. Why should it bother you on the alternate universes level?
That aside, I still think the the most interesting conclusion of this thread is that Omnipotence ain’t all it it’s cracked up to be. It seems being omnipotent practically eliminates choice and free-will (in the MW sense.)
Hm. How do you choose to think the same thoughts as another person? Heck, the Scylla-clones will be aware that they were just cloned; that alone will make their thoughts appreciably different than Scylla’s, he won’t be thinking about himself being a clone! Scylla could imagine what he might think if he found out he was a clone, but he won’t know that for sure until he actually expereinces it. So, the Scylla-clones would have more in common with each other than with him, but different geographical positioning will gradually make them think differently from each other, i.e., one sees a bluebird and one does not. Their personalities might be the same, but their thoughts could rapidly become very different, not even sharing even the “parallel tracks” pseudo-telepathy for long. Scylla clone A may think he knows what he’ll think when he sees a bluebird, but he won’t know for sure what Scylla clone B will think when he sees it.
No. You could say “it matches sone finite fraction of the infiite possible Universe. Said fraction, of course, reduces to 0.”
I did not claim they were fairies. I said resorting to them to salvage your argument was no more compelling than clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.
No. The key word is “possible”. We do not know at present whether quantum wormholes are possible.
Re Salma: Sorry. You will need some extremely impressive mathematics to move from the potential materialization of a proton under extreme conditions to the materialization of a fully formed human baing, complex chemicals, neurologial patterns, fiery latin personality, et al. But my wife continues to appreciate your bringing this subject to the top of my thoughts, I’m sure.
Re duplicates: Beginning the instant of materialization we no longer share an identical environment. At that moment, we diverge. Both copies can, however, be conceptualized as continuations of my past self.
The other problem with Salma that I just realized is that I don’t think we can get anything more complex than Hydrogen. Everything else would require fusion reactions which we’re just not gonna get from the fortuitous stray cosmic ray.
I now don’t understand what Sagan was talking about when he said that the materialization of an object was theoretically possible, and gave like 10 to the 50th billion years as a figure it might happen in. I will check the book, and post an exact quote. Maybe you can help me figure it out.
I guess were all clear on virtual particles though. That’s worth something.
Stop the presses!!!
When did we reach a conclusion on omnipotence? I thought you wanted to avoid revisiting that topic? If you would like to ereintroduce it, then we need to go back to the beginning. How many things do you need to accept axiomatically to allow for your definition of omnipotence?
Infinite Universes
All things possible happen in some Universe.
Real transmission of data between Universes.
Anything else?
And this gets you whay? A being that fits exactly what criteria?
spiritus:
Fine! Then to heck with quantum wormholes. I’ll just use a modified Einstein-Rosen Bridge propped open with exotic matter.
http://tycho.as.utexas.edu/~wheel/ast309/text/chapter12.html
Gaudere: None of them would “realize he was a clone” – they’d all think that they were the original and the other four were clones. And I posited that they would begin by having shared all the same experiences and motivations – not that that bluebird would appear within the field of vision of only one of them…they can continue their telepathy until the thought pattern of one or more of them diverges sufficiently from the others that they can no longer follow his train of thought. So the obvious thing to do if one sees a bluebird is say, “Look at the bluebird, guys!” to keep the sensory stimuli as close to equal as possible.
Well, you can try.
Of course, “To make a worm hole or a worm hole time machine in this way, we have to bring in the operation of introducing a tear in space time, a tear in the quantum foam. We will not know whether such an operation even makes sense until we have a theory of quantum gravity that tells how space and time behave if such a rent is threatened. Once again, we cannot think constructively about worm holes or time machines without a theory of quantum gravity to guide us.”
Clap. Clap if you believe.
Any other ideas you’d like to pull out of your, um . . . black hole?
[sub]BTW, am I off the ropes yet?[/sub]
Spiritus:
No that’s all I need, unless you know a good place I can get an old leather briefcase fixed.
Yeah, that get’s us omnipotence, pretty much. Make it conditional, because there might still be a couple of things you can’t do.
The problem with an omnipotent being across the MWI is he’s gonna be all “been there, done that” anytime you suggest something.
I like the Einstein Rosen bridge better, because I can use that to travel back in time, which crosses a lot of the really tough stuff off the omnipotence list.
Polycarp:
The latest models for neurological firings that I’ve seen all use strange atractors as a launching point. The brain does not appear ot be “quiet” until a thought forms. Neurons fire in chatic patterns until coallescing into a thought. As soon as direct sensory experience begins to differ the neurological patterns begin to diverge.
Besides, I am somewhat rtoubled by labeling the ability to accurately predict a person’s thoughts with telepathy. Telepathy is generally used to describe a hypothetical ability to send or receive thoughts to/from another person. Predicting with arbitrary reliability might sem finctionally identical at first glance, but it isn’t.
consider, for instance, clone 1 reading a book. Clone 2 cannot see the words of the book. If he were telepathic, he could “read” clone 1’s thoughts and know what they were. If he is only “neurologically similar”, he cannot.
Spiritus:
Methinks you’re being a little too proud of yourself. This thread is by nature speculative. Shooting this stuff down, while necessary, isn’t exactly the accomplishment of the decade.
In other words, I got your theory of quantum gravity right here, Bub… 
Either strap yourself into your wormhole coaster and set the controls for the heart of the Sun, or go argue in an accounting thread.
If you don’t like Einstein Rosen Bridges or wormholes or solipsim then help me propose a better way to communicate across universes.
Omnipotence is a tough job. It’s not like we’re trying to prove 2+2=4 here. Stop throwing wrenches in the works and get with the program.
Find the best way to do it, then we’ll see if it’s possible later.
You haven’t derived anything, though. You have simply constructed a set of properties (and not at all precisely, for that matter) and said "I will label this omnipotence.
It is not the result of a chain of deduction. It is simply a label put to a fuzzy conception. It is neither more nor less rigorous than “God is limitless” or “God cannot violate logic”.
You have not developed this idea of omnipotence concretely enough for me to agree or disagree.
But not, recall, in violation of consistency. Which means it really doesn’t cross that much off the list after all.
Simulpost. Cool.
True.
And if you had simply avoided the use of the word “prove” then I might have passed by without commenting [sub](well, maybe ;))[/sub] I’m afraid that over far too many years and far too many absurd discussions with folks who wouldn’t recognize a Feinman Diagram if I coated it with cream cheese and served it to them on a bagel* I have grown impatient with people using bad logic and inaccurate understandings to claim that quantum mechanics “proves” whatever worldview they feel attracted to at the time.
Nothing personal, you just stumbled upon a pet peev of mine.
*[sub]I am not implying you are a member of said group.[/sub]
Does that mean we are the same person? Or did I telepathically divine the instant you were about to “submit”.
Spiritus:
Well taken. You will recall that I shot down Salma Hayek on the grounds that I couldn’t make her out of anything but hydrogen, and that Planck time basically screwed the pooch as far as infinite universes go.
While I’d read about Planck time and space before, I never realized it was a real limit to the reducibility of time.
I’m under the impression that you might have learned something about virtual particles as well, and we got to call Fermilab!
My claim for the Nobel prize in the OP might have been a clue that I wasn’t too terribly sure of my “proof.”
I think I defined omnipotence pretty well. Can do Anything. Conditional omnipotence would be to do anything possible. I’d like to go for the former, but will settle fgor the latter.
If “can do anything” includes violating laws of physics then you need more than the above axioms.
If “can do anything” includes violating logic then you need an entirely nwe way to talk about it.
In fact, I have a hard time deriving a being who “can do anything” from the agreed upon axioms in any way. It seems to me you must first posit that it is possible for such a being to exist.
On the whole, I do not see that this thread has developed any real ideas on omnipotence.
On virtual particles, though, I have to agree. I did learn something about them, and the conditions which must be met for a virtual particle pair to result in a real particle manifestation. I also got to talk to a real nice guy at Fermi labs. Thanks for the phone number.
I’m not sure it’s that cut and dry.
Consider a being (let’s call him Fred to avoid any confusion with an actual supernatural deity.)
Fred had a horrible accident with an atomic replicator a particle accelerator a black hole, and a few other things I can’t think of.
Fred now manifests in each of the many Worlds implied by Quantum physics. His wormhole connections allow him to pass information across these universes as well as forward and back through time.
There is no reason to assume that the anthropic principle must hold in all these alternate universes. The laws of physics may be different. I think it might be unreasonable to assume otherwise. Under such circumstances who’s to say what Fred can and can’t do? Let’s assume that the laws of physics vary enough across the universes that Fred can do pretty much everything (but only in universes which allow it.) I don’t think we can assume that Fred will find anything in any other universe that allows him to break the laws of physics in any other.
Fred might not be omnipotent, but he’s pretty much within shouting distance.
What’s it like to be him?
I don’t think Fred is involved with time anymore. For him it’s a static thing, since he is continuously existing in all times and in all places. Since Fred is continuously doing all things he doesn’t have free will.
Paradoxically, by continuously doing everything, Fred actually does nothing, since for him there is no net change.
Now picture Fred’s brain at the center of the wormholes in hyperspace or something. If Fred can selectively tune out all universes but one, if he can select one and exclude the others as far as his consciousness is concerned. If he can switch his awareness back and forth between universes so that it seems continuous, it seems not only does he have omnipotence (pretty much,) but also free will.
Both of these of course are only from his perspective. Fred might pass through our universe once or twice in pursuit of whatever it is Fred likes, but with a gazillion other universes to choose from, Fred probably won’t be around all that often.
If time is static for Fred, then he can be in each universe long enough to learn everything about it. He is therefore omniscient (for all practical purposes) as well.
Hmmm…in eternity (not subject to time), omnipotent and omniscient by any good working definition, able to manifest himself at will… does this sound like anybody we know?