if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

transition said:

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

maybe that space contained a zillion tonnes of unobtainium

transition said:

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

Maybe

>maybe that space contained a zillion tonnes of unobtainium

Imagine you’re making your morning coffee. It’s straighforward enough to explain how you went about that from steps regards what is at different points in the making, but I ask does anything that is not be of necessity to that what is.

transition said:

>maybe that space contained a zillion tonnes of unobtainium

Imagine you’re making your morning coffee. It’s straighforward enough to explain how you went about that from steps regards what is at different points in the making, but I ask does anything that is not be of necessity to that what is.

I could deliberately NOT make coffee and end up making coffee

transition said:

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

Id feel ok about it, like multiple universes are possible

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

No, and No

Its good to see that NASA are not rushing to the damp areas on Mars for fears of contamination

In that sense its good to err on the caution side, and I would use this ideology in “possibility space”

A lot of thinking would be required in how to observe a possibility space without destroying it

>I could deliberately NOT make coffee and end up making coffee

try it this way

if you did make a coffee (intentionally for the moment) is it at all determined by all the other things you didn’t do.

transition said:

>I could deliberately NOT make coffee and end up making coffee

try it this way

if you did make a coffee (intentionally for the moment) is it at all determined by all the other things you didn’t do.

all the other things you didn’t do become irrelevant because the number of things you didn’t do approach infinity

further, if all the other things you didn’t do suddenly stopped existing in possibility space, would the coffee vanish.

transition said:

further, if all the other things you didn’t do suddenly stopped existing in possibility space, would the coffee vanish.

no because the number of things you never did are infinite as fast as they stop existing they are replaced by other scenarios

the other thing is “existence”

things that never happened never existed

so I didn’t get a cup

and then I didn’t make a coffee

suddenly when all these things that didn’t happen suddenly disappear a cup of coffee appears magically or not

>no because the number of things you never did are infinite as fast as they stop existing they are replaced by other scenarios

Consider a couple of things

there’re (perhaps many) things you are not, and there’re things you try to stay not.

You try to stay alive, or not dead (to highlight an obvious one).

Don’t the categories human minds apply involve exclusions applying is not this and that.

When you see a circle on paper do you see it from the line that curves the same and back to itself, do you see it from that and what’s internal, or do you see it from the outside, or more generally from what a circle is not.

>things that never happened never existed

but every moment of your life you carry ideas (memories/imaginings) of what didn’t happen and hasn’t happened.

transition said:

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

You’re talking many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics here. I personally don’t like it but Sheldon Cooper of BBT does.

The idea of occupying multiple dimensions has appeared in very many science fiction books, the earliest example in Dr Who is “Inferno” with John Pertwee, “Chaos Mode” by Piers Anthony, “The Long Earth” by Pratchett & Baxter, etc.

In most of the Science Fiction books on this topic, the possibility space is already populated in part by some other species or organism. The idea behind that is that in an infinite number of universes the likelihood of present day humans being the first creatures to explore the possibility space is vanishingly small.

> how would you feel about that?
Shrugs, OK.

> would you want to occupy it
Not unless there was no other way, an example in The Long Earth is that the eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano causes survivors to move into possibility space.

> if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it
Destroy? In what way?
If by destroy you mean terraform, then quite possibly. Retaining as much of what is already there as possible of course.
If by destroy you mean say the equivalent of Cortez in Mexico, then no. But obviously some people would.
If by destroy you mean totally eliminate, as if it had never existed, then it wouldn’t bother me too much because it never existed before either.

transition said:

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

I approve of believing six impossible things before breakfast, but doing impossible things is something else.

How could you occupy anything that isn’t, let alone all that isn’t.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

if there’s a possibility space out there – all that isn’t – that isn’t really a space at all, how would you feel about that?

would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it, would you go ahead and destroy it

You’re talking many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics here. I personally don’t like it but Sheldon Cooper of BBT does.

Is he?

I don’t see how other worlds can be described as things that aren’t.

Is there anything in the universe that has an essence without big-brained-humans applying their mind tools to them. I think there are plenty. In fact the universe is mostly made up of things minus human conceptions.

The Q is of all that minus human conceptions (for the moment). Is there something about or at work in the universe of the what is that requires the what isn’t to exist.

Human minds discern all sorts of things, which involves a long list of it isn’t this and that, so why can’t a possibility space of all that isn’t/aren’t contribute to what is of the real world of physical things. Things that happen exclude other things (sort of what time does), but in a sense the excluded must be as real as what happens.

So, does all that excluded somehow communicate with what does happen in this physical world. Is all that happens of the physical world really made possible by what is excluded. That what happens, is in essence a vast exclusion that requires the excluded to exist.

transition said:

Is there anything in the universe that has an essence without big-brained-humans applying their mind tools to them. I think there are plenty. In fact the universe is mostly made up of things minus human conceptions.

Almost everything, probably.

transition said:

The Q is of all that minus human conceptions (for the moment). Is there something about or at work in the universe of the what is that requires the what isn’t to exist.

Human minds discern all sorts of things, which involves a long list of it isn’t this and that, so why can’t a possibility space of all that isn’t/aren’t contribute to what is of the real world of physical things. Things that happen exclude other things (sort of what time does), but in a sense the excluded must be as real as what happens.

So, does all that excluded somehow communicate with what does happen in this physical world. Is all that happens of the physical world really made possible by what is excluded. That what happens, is in essence a vast exclusion that requires the excluded to exist.

I’d like to try and work out what you are getting out, but I’d better go and do some work instead.

>I’d like to try and work out what you are getting out, but I’d better go and do some work instead.

likewise work to do.

i’m having an an idea, worse then NFI.

> The Q is of all that minus human conceptions (for the moment). Is there something about or at work in the universe of the what is that requires the what isn’t to exist.

You asked that before. I answered something like, There is nothing in the universe that is that requires a “what isn’t” to exist, but having a “what isn’t” greatly helps to sharpen human perception of what is. The standard philosophical question of “can you have good without evil” leads to the same answer “yes, but having a perception of evil greatly enhances our ability to perceive what good is”. I illustrated my last answer by showing how “infinity” can exist without any need to invoke “not infinity”.

>There is nothing in the universe that is that requires a “what isn’t” to exist, but having a “what isn’t” greatly helps to sharpen human perception of what is.

Ignoring the intellectualizing, your physical existence in time a space displaces other things that might’ve existed in whatever time and space (acts displace other possible actions).

On a more psychological note, didn’t those thoughts you had conjuring your response then submitting it displace other possibilities. Would that what you did do have been possible without what you didn’t do. A blunt example being that the possibility of not posting existed along with the act of posting, and still exists along with your post. And I wouldn’t be writing this, and in my mind there is also a me not attending to this at all (another possibility).

void contemplation

this is an ontological debate methinks

transition said:

>There is nothing in the universe that is that requires a “what isn’t” to exist, but having a “what isn’t” greatly helps to sharpen human perception of what is.

Ignoring the intellectualizing, your physical existence in time a space displaces other things that might’ve existed in whatever time and space (acts displace other possible actions).

On a more psychological note, didn’t those thoughts you had conjuring your response then submitting it displace other possibilities. Would that what you did do have been possible without what you didn’t do. A blunt example being that the possibility of not posting existed along with the act of posting, and still exists along with your post. And I wouldn’t be writing this, and in my mind there is also a me not attending to this at all (another possibility).

So you’re still thinking in the “many worlds” quantum frame of reference. I personally believe that the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a correct interpretation of our universe. Without that assumption, my physical existence displaces nothing, not air, not even vacuum.

Ditto my thoughts. What exists, exists. All else is fodder for science fiction, alternate history fiction, and sophist philosophers.

>So you’re still thinking in the “many worlds” quantum frame of reference. I personally believe that the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a correct interpretation of our universe. Without that assumption, my physical existence displaces nothing, not air, not even vacuum.

I know zip of many worlds and quantum whatevers, i’m a basket weaving goat fucker.

transition said:

>So you’re still thinking in the “many worlds” quantum frame of reference. I personally believe that the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a correct interpretation of our universe. Without that assumption, my physical existence displaces nothing, not air, not even vacuum.

I know zip of many worlds and quantum whatevers, i’m a basket weaving goat fucker.

Refreshingly candid.

I sort of understand the many worlds theory, it it falls down for me where it hypothesis every permutation of the reality I experience. It may be provable mathematically but it seems to me to be rediculous a reality I experience with a fly in my room and another reality exactly the same except without a fly or a fly in a slightly different coordinate.

AwesomeO said:

I sort of understand the many worlds theory, it it falls down for me where it hypothesis every permutation of the reality I experience. It may be provable mathematically but it seems to me to be rediculous a reality I experience with a fly in my room and another reality exactly the same except without a fly or a fly in a slightly different coordinate.

Or the difference between you seeing a fly and thinking you see a fly.

Peak Warming Man said:

transition said:

>So you’re still thinking in the “many worlds” quantum frame of reference. I personally believe that the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a correct interpretation of our universe. Without that assumption, my physical existence displaces nothing, not air, not even vacuum.

I know zip of many worlds and quantum whatevers, i’m a basket weaving goat fucker.

Refreshingly candid.

snickers.

AwesomeO said:

I sort of understand the many worlds theory, it it falls down for me where it hypothesis every permutation of the reality I experience. It may be provable mathematically but it seems to me to be rediculous a reality I experience with a fly in my room and another reality exactly the same except without a fly or a fly in a slightly different coordinate.

If it is just you and a fly in the room then there’s not a lot to think about.

>Or the difference between you seeing a fly and thinking you see a fly.

I’ve imagined the room that has an annoying fly minus a fly a few times today, then killed the fly.

consider the possibility humans inhabit part of a computational system, which maybe extends only to the limits of whatever the physical universe is (expanding as it is too), who knows. By inhabit I mean that quite local, but too the limits of what is apprehendable.

isn’t the state of science regards abiogensis of organic life here on earth (for example) really not much better than life emerged by way of a miracle. Is it a miracle?

If life here on earth were part of a much larger computational system, where would one start looking to verify that.

transition said:

consider the possibility humans inhabit part of a computational system, which maybe extends only to the limits of whatever the physical universe is (expanding as it is too), who knows. By inhabit I mean that quite local, but too the limits of what is apprehendable.

isn’t the state of science regards abiogensis of organic life here on earth (for example) really not much better than life emerged by way of a miracle. Is it a miracle?

If life here on earth were part of a much larger computational system, where would one start looking to verify that.

In the computer?

what is not, Mr Unknown
do you talk with Mr Is So
‘cross other side of town
do you have a telephone

transition said:

>So you’re still thinking in the “many worlds” quantum frame of reference. I personally believe that the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a correct interpretation of our universe. Without that assumption, my physical existence displaces nothing, not air, not even vacuum.

I know zip of many worlds and quantum whatevers, i’m a basket weaving goat fucker.

So was Socrates. IMHO. And Diogenes of course.

There are other problems, what constitutes a “decision”. So many people interpret it as a decision made by a semi-intelligent entity, such as a human, hence the “strong anthropocentric principle”, but this is not what many-worlds quantum mechanics says, not at all.

I’m not explaining this well, but what I am saying is that your
> possibility space
is identical to the many-world view of quantum mechanics. But that doesn’t mean that possibility space is
> anthropogenic
because it isn’t.
> would you want to occupy it, and if you knew that occupying it destroyed it
isn’t the right way to think because mere occupying doesn’t destroy anything.
> does anything that is not be of necessity to that what is?
No.

geez

maybe god exists because its one possibility and if god exists in one scenario then that means he exists in all scenarios because afterall – he is god

>>I’m not explaining this well, but what I am saying is that your

you’re doing alright, it was a bit scrambled eggs the OP, the joy of it is I can unscramble the egg some.

I was thinking at the time that the great mass of busy minds in the world lends to more and more being seen through what human minds do – of the extent (economical maybe) representations themselves become the dominant reality – as if whatever minds do somehow makes up the greater part of the universe, sort of a creeping social constructionism (call it anthropogenicizing). Don’t mind me torturing some words for a moment.

A few things have been banging around in me head for a while related to the awareness I am mostly what I don’t know, which really is to do with attributing a significance to whatever (it’s a significant x) one does not know.

I’m happy that possibility space is likely some artifact of the activity of human minds (my mind here), probably of imagination. I am though entertaining the possibility that the seeds of it are not originated of human minds (or organic life), just as organic life seems to have originated from something that doesn’t qualify as living/alive.

If organic life can emerge from that non-living, and thereafter evolution has proceeded in-great-part courtesy errors, then why not a possibility space somehow generated by a large computational system of which we occupy just a small part of.

Maybe some materials of that system involve chemical computation. Like maybe the mass of the universe previously had structure(pre big bang) and this expansion and following many accretions make some things likely. Make whatever you like of the singularity, the fact is it resulted in a chemical soup somewhere that happened upon life and here you and I are.

The thing is I don’t have any evidence to dismiss the possibility there’s a possibility space at work somewhere in a larger computational system. That every making of an is here in the physics I experience is being crunched away at and made so by a lot of nots. For all I know gravity (or space time) is what we exprience this side of something dis-extending to something else. On the otherside is some other aspect of a computational system.

transition said:

I’m happy that possibility space is likely some artifact of the activity of human minds (my mind here), probably of imagination.

Are you?

Why?

I’m not sure that the word “space” here adds to the meaning, so lets leave it out.

Clearly all things that are possible are possible, by definition.

What does this have to do with human minds?

Anything that is possible that is not the artifact of a human mind (i.e. very nearly everything) was possible before humans, and remained possible after the introduction of humans.

>I’m not sure that the word “space” here adds to the meaning, so lets leave it out.

what happens in minds is contained by minds (constrained maybe)
what happens in this (apparent) universe is contained within and by the physics of this universe

space in the term possibility space refers to the unknown attributes (range) of whatever that may not reside of and within the physics of the universe we see something of.

*artefact

dv said:

*artefact

What about him?

There’s all kinds of stuff out there we’ll never know about because it’s empirically inaccessible.

Bubblecar said:

There’s all kinds of stuff out there we’ll never know about because it’s empirically inaccessible.

Bit random this idea, but how different would your life be if you had to learn the sensation of the colour green (and give it whatever name). Learn all that of the qualia. Could it be done.