Reality May be too strange to "uncover"

[Gary]

New web site from cosmologist Max Tegmark and a host of other scientists:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/138

In recognition of FQXi of Doomsday week, suppose the world ended tomorrow. In particular, suppose that, as discussed in Kate Becker's fun article, we live in a 'false vacuum', that can decay to a lower energy state. The decay would take the form of a bubble of 'true' vacuum that grows at the speed of light, smashing into us with enormous energy without warning, annihilating everything we hold dear (even, perhaps, our beloved local laws of physics).

I wrote an article about a similar idea here:

http://www.starstreamresearch.com/vacuum_reaction.htm

The most interesting idea from the FQxi post:

Unless there is some aspect of awareness completely independent of your instantly-incinerated physical body, I can see no sensible meaning to 'you notice the bubble destroying you.' On the other hand, there are plenty of copies of you in the ensemble -- those with no bubble -- that go merrily along with their lives. Presumably the day after tomorrow 'you' are simply one of those, and 'I' am one of the corresponding surviving Anthonys. In short, how could we say with any confidence that we do *not* live in an unstable false vacuum?

[uberarcanist]

What does this have to do with UFOs?

[Chorlton]

Yeah !!

Right


I think !!

[ryguy]

On the other hand, there are plenty of copies of you in the ensemble -- those with no bubble -- that go merrily along with their lives. Presumably the day after tomorrow 'you' are simply one of those, and 'I' am one of the corresponding surviving Anthonys. In short, how could we say with any confidence that we do *not* live in an unstable false vacuum?[/i]

Better-yet - how can you not say that you most likely are not living outside of the inside of a 3-dimensional vortex consisting of a plethora of synergistic components that co-exist with the dark energy that makes up both the matter that is you and the energy within the vacuum around, within, and throughout which you exist and don't even know it.

And that - ladies and gentlemen - is a lesson on how to say abso-freakin-lutely nothing in one gobblygook-laden paragraph.

Find someone stupid enough - and they may actually think that you know what you're talking about.

-Ry

[uberarcanist]

No, Ryan, it makes sense, at least it did to me, it just seemed like something of no practical consequence that could not be proven or disproven and, as far as I can see, has nothing in particular to do with UFOs.

I could be wrong.

[Gary]

No, Ryan, it makes sense, at least it did to me, it just seemed like something of no practical consequence that could not be proven or disproven and, as far as I can see, has nothing in particular to do with UFOs.

I could be wrong.

Ah, gentlemen: This has everything to do with the UFO phenomena -- whereas the bogus propulsion nonsense does not.

I suggest you read this nice short pop article re: the state of human understanding and the lack thereof with respect to our "best" theory:

http://www.fqxi.org/community-articles/ ... _Still.pdf

[Gary]

On the other hand, there are plenty of copies of you in the ensemble -- those with no bubble -- that go merrily along with their lives. Presumably the day after tomorrow 'you' are simply one of those, and 'I' am one of the corresponding surviving Anthonys. In short, how could we say with any confidence that we do *not* live in an unstable false vacuum?

And that - ladies and gentlemen - is a lesson on how to say abso-freakin-lutely nothing in one gobblygook-laden paragraph.

Find someone stupid enough - and they may actually think that you know what you're talking about.

-Ry

BTW that is EXACTLY what the literal interpretation of our best theory predicts!

[Gary]

On the other hand, there are plenty of copies of you in the ensemble -- those with no bubble -- that go merrily along with their lives. Presumably the day after tomorrow 'you' are simply one of those, and 'I' am one of the corresponding surviving Anthonys. In short, how could we say with any confidence that we do *not* live in an unstable false vacuum?

And that - ladies and gentlemen - is a lesson on how to say abso-freakin-lutely nothing in one gobblygook-laden paragraph.

Find someone stupid enough - and they may actually think that you know what you're talking about.

-Ry

BTW that is EXACTLY what the literal interpretation of our best theory predicts!

And now for something completely related, from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/scien ... ref=slogin

Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”

[uberarcanist]

Gary, that was an interesting argument but you've left us with a lot of unanswered questions, namely, "what does this have to do with UFOs?"
Please be as specific as you can.

[Gary]

Gary, that was an interesting argument but you've left us with a lot of unanswered questions, namely, "what does this have to do with UFOs?"
Please be as specific as you can.

There is no reason not to explore the possibility that UFOs originate as a macroscopic quantum effect.

Indeed , Paul Davies NY Times article emphasizes the faith component upon which physics currently rests:

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opini ... wanted=all

The origin of physical law and UFOs may be one and the same.

[uberarcanist]

Gary, with some UFOs, you may well be correct. However, the revelations from Roswell and the Hill abduction case seem to indicate to me that at least some of the UFO phenomena derive from EBEs.

What method would you propose to test your hypothesis?

[Gary]

Gary, with some UFOs, you may well be correct. However, the revelations from Roswell and the Hill abduction case seem to indicate to me that at least some of the UFO phenomena derive from EBEs.

What method would you propose to test your hypothesis?

Of course I am NOT proposing any such test here (any more than I am suggesting a test for the existence of God!). I am only pointing out the fact that any claim of REALITY based upon scientific principles is a slippery slide into the metaphysical substrate that supports belief, where our best theories predict an infinite number of worlds where anything can and does happen -- given that the fundamental theories upon which all fields stand are faith-based.

[uberarcanist]

I am only pointing out the fact that any claim of REALITY based upon scientific principles is a slippery slide into the metaphysical substrate that supports belief, where our best theories predict an infinite number of worlds where anything can and does happen -- given that the fundamental theories upon which all fields stand are faith-based.

1. How would you define a best theory?

2. Science is not faith-based. It does not propose anything to be true unless can be observed to be so by those with the proper instrumentation.

[Gary]

I am only pointing out the fact that any claim of REALITY based upon scientific principles is a slippery slide into the metaphysical substrate that supports belief, where our best theories predict an infinite number of worlds where anything can and does happen -- given that the fundamental theories upon which all fields stand are faith-based.

1. How would you define a best theory?

2. Science is not faith-based. It does not propose anything to be true unless can be observed to be so by those with the proper instrumentation.

Quantum theory is fundamental AND the best tested theory; stripped of the ad-hoc postulate of wave-function collapse it predicts an infinity of branching worlds.

Science IS faith-based: read the NY Times article by physicist Paul Davies:

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

Reading the article might save me from a lot of typing BTW!

[ryguy]

Science is far from faith based - although how many people incorrectly take part in it is certainly often faith-based.

Pure science strips away the problems generations have had in discerning reality from hallucinogen-induced visions and dreams.

The fact that you call the "many-world" theory the best one only reflects your own personal biases and beliefs, and not which proposed theory in quantum physics is actually the most legitimate.

By the way - calling any of these "theories" proven is laughable - of course we understand that "proof" in Quantum Physics has another meaning all its own.

-Ry