We have an immortal soul through the eternal recurrence

Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
We have an immortal soul through the eternal recurrence

Max Tegmark in Scientific American's May 2003 issue wrote an article on "Parallel Universes" in which he presents the argument that existences identical to our own recur infinitely over infinite space.  He describes a few different levels of universes, but one of the simplest is that our big banged "universe may in fact be a local space-time "bubble", and that an infinite number of other such bubbles exist.   Anyway, the basic premise of the eternal recurrence hypothesis proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is finite. If either time or space are infinite then mathematics tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times.

 

Assuming this is true, then our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence.  What survives over and over, at each moment of our lives, simultaneously throughout the infinite cosmos is the pattern of our life as we lived it and shall always live it.  In short, if the eternal recurrence hypothesis is correct, then we do in fact survive rigor mortis.  

 

Comments?

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I wonder why those people

I wonder why those people like to invoke infinity so much. Firstly, we can't know whether something is infinite or not, secondly, there is a huge but finite amount of dark matter and vacuum energy. It is enough for lots of parallel universes, but not for infinity of them.

Thirdly, why the existences should be identical, or differing in small details? Seems like a great waste of rare material. This whole teory looks to me like someone made a mistake in the code and the university supercomputer froze in infinite recurrence cycle. Even the universe has its limits, despite of what mathemathics says. Maybe it's not limited in space or time, but the matter and energy aren't infinite.

Fourthly, assuming this is true, then it is not our existence that survives in flesh, it is a simultaneous almost identic existence that lives independently.
And many of these universes have just as much unexplained questions as this one, which this hypothesis will not answer either Smiling

I think there are better theories, less crazy, explaining more.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
M-theory?

It sounds a like like brane theory. This is the theory Stephen Hawking writes about in the grand design. It is based on string theory, because if you juggle with some formulas within string theory, you get something that resembles a multiverse.
So basically there are other universes besides ours, which, indeed, will have an infinite amount of doubles if there are an infinite amount of universes.
But to invoke things like immortal souls, because there are clones of us in other universes, and say we will live forever is just silly. If you have twins, does one live on if he dies because the other one is still alive? Those other universes are not connected to ours, and our being isn't dependent on theirs, so neither are our souls.


Gawdzilla
atheist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Something similar to you

Something similar to you might survive elsewhere for a time, but YOU are toast when you die. People think they will live on if they get cloned. The fact is that another being will live on after they die.

So, no "good news" there, either.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:It sounds a

Thunderios wrote:

It sounds a like like brane theory. This is the theory Stephen Hawking writes about in the grand design. It is based on string theory, because if you juggle with some formulas within string theory, you get something that resembles a multiverse.
So basically there are other universes besides ours, which, indeed, will have an infinite amount of doubles if there are an infinite amount of universes.
But to invoke things like immortal souls, because there are clones of us in other universes, and say we will live forever is just silly. If you have twins, does one live on if he dies because the other one is still alive? Those other universes are not connected to ours, and our being isn't dependent on theirs, so neither are our souls.

Honestly, what I first saw about this, was that it does NOT look like the M-theory. I love M-theory. It is neat, it is finite, it has seven "universes" of sorts, which are basically material. These universes are not identic, they may have very different material properties, they may react diferently on the same set of basic natural laws. They are made of the membranes, that are strings vibrating pretty quickly and far. There's no problem with infinite space, as far as these membranes reach, the space itself reaches.

And every single material particle has a set of active/inactive strings within it, that connect it to the appropriate dimensions or "universes". Hell, according to that, dark matter would be a matter of the same dimension like we are, only with larger strings, which has some side-effects on physical properties. Though dark matter is relatively similar to ours, in the build of atom, the matter of higher dimensions is not so similar. On string level it's different and this is why there can NOT be identic parallel universes. The differing physical properties will not allow it. In other universes there may not be live birth and sudden death, sex, hunger and killing, almost no gravity, the thought may be a powerful equivalent of physical force, and so on.

And by the way, M-theory is what Theosophists were claiming all along. Seven dimensions, strings within every particle, explains dark matter.

(OK, I know that M-theory is about 11 dimensions, but time and 3 dimensions of space are implicit )

Now, the ancient idea shared also by Theosophists is, that we indeed live in every or near-every dimension but not as a whole, we have our parts scattered in there, and they are tied together only in space and time, occupying the same space but not dimension. We use our first-dimensional body as our sole means of activity in this first dimension. When we destroy this vehicle or damage it or don't develop it properly, our means of living are limited to other dimensions, less or more. This is why dead people are dead and don't return back, unless they get born in another body. (without memories of course, these did rot with the original brain and only our other vehicles may retain them subconsciously)
So what is the a true human being then? Well, according to some theosophists it is a great, immortal fiery vortex of intelligent energy several dimensions up, that makes use of people being born to use one of them at a time as explorers of earthly 3-dimensional existence. All greater religions are or were some time in history based on that concept.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
not similar. Identical in every respect.

Gawdzilla wrote:

Something similar to you might survive elsewhere for a time, but YOU are toast when you die. People think they will live on if they get cloned. The fact is that another being will live on after they die.

So, no "good news" there, either.

 

You and Luminon make the same error about what Legmark is stating.  It is not similar or similar in most respects like some star trek fiction of an alternate universe.  Again, the probability of an existence identical to our own with exactly the same states as they are at this instant everywhere on this planet is mind bogglingly small, but regardless how small the math tells us that it will be overwhelmed by the brute force of infinity.  

 

Legmark is not describing an existence "similiar" to ours.  It is an identical existence in every respect including the brain states for your emotions as you are experiencing them this instant.  

 

One pattern of molecules may cease to exist in one area of the universe, but an infinite number of others are being born, experiencing their first day of school exactly as you experienced it and so on and so forth.  

 

Whether or not we like the reality of infinity, we must come to accept its implications.  This is just one of many problem atheists have with existence.  I look forward to more substantive reactions to my post.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey, I don't know how about

Hey, I don't know how about you, but I don't see infinite number of molecules around. As far as science can see, matter and energy of the universe are limited. There is not enough of the stuff to try every possible molecule pattern, much less to repeat them identically. If that would be otherwise, the infinite recurrence would be possible, but it isn't. Just like a computer does not have the means to run through infinite loop, the world can't support infinite universes.
By the way, identical universes are superfluous. What for are they? I mean, infinite identical universes seem to me much worse than invisible pink unicorns. How do you know when you see one? What does it explain?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Are all notions of infinite time or space invalid?

Is it true that any hypothesis of infinite time or space is invalid?  If so, kindly point to any juried science article from a respected journal that makes this case.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Is it true

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Is it true that any hypothesis of infinite time or space is invalid?  If so, kindly point to any juried science article from a respected journal that makes this case.

Does infinite space and time also mean infinite matter and energy in it?


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios- let's step through from common ground.

Thunderios wrote:

But to invoke things like immortal souls, because there are clones of us in other universes, and say we will live forever is just silly. If you have twins, does one live on if he dies because the other one is still alive? Those other universes are not connected to ours, and our being isn't dependent on theirs, so neither are our souls.

Let's step through this to understand where the alleged silliness creeps in.  Our common ground is that you admit the possibility that the pattern of our individual existence is replicated infinitely.  Is it improper then to make the claim that that particular pattern is immortal?

 

Luminon- that is an elementary question.  Perhaps you would benefit from considering the notion as described by Tegmark:  Here is a link to the sciam article:  http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Comments?

Evidence?

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Max Tegmark in Scientific American's May 2003 issue wrote an article on "Parallel Universes" in which he presents the argument that existences identical to our own recur infinitely over infinite space.  He describes a few different levels of universes, but one of the simplest is that our big banged "universe may in fact be a local space-time "bubble", and that an infinite number of other such bubbles exist.   Anyway, the basic premise of the eternal recurrence hypothesis proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is finite. If either time or space are infinite then mathematics tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times.

Assuming this is true, then our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence.

Okay, so assuming:

- There an infinite number of universes.

- There are entities in those universes completely identical to myself.

Then, our "existence" never actually ends because those entities in the other universes are alive?  

Mak Thorpe wrote:
What survives over and over, at each moment of our lives, simultaneously throughout the infinite cosmos is the pattern of our life as we lived it and shall always live it.  In short, if the eternal recurrence hypothesis is correct, then we do in fact survive rigor mortis.
 

Eh, this is just going to depend on how you're defining an "individual," "existence," etc. Those entities are not "me," in a sense, although they are identical to me. I am an independent physical entity, and I have my own consciousness. Similarly, I don't view this as "me" surviving rigor mortis. My body will never come back to life; it is merely entities in other universes that continue living.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:But to

Thunderios wrote:

But to invoke things like immortal souls, because there are clones of us in other universes, and say we will live forever is just silly. If you have twins, does one live on if he dies because the other one is still alive? Those other universes are not connected to ours, and our being isn't dependent on theirs, so neither are our souls.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Let's step through this to understand where the alleged silliness creeps in.  Our common ground is that you admit the possibility that the pattern of our individual existence is replicated infinitely.  Is it improper then to make the claim that that particular pattern is immortal?

The way you're describing this is somewhat misleading and ambiguous.

But yes, if there are an infinite number of universes, and there are identical copies of me in all those universes, then I suppose that particular kind of entity is "replicated infinitely." If "immortal" just means that it's never gone, then sure, it's immortal too. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even if there are an

Even if there are an infinite number of universes, it does not mean there must be even one identical copy of this one.

There are an infinite number or different 'size' infinities.

The number of integers (1,2,3,4...) is less than the number of real numbers (1.0, 1.1, 1.11, 1.201 ... etc), with an infinite number of decimal places.

And of course, with quantum uncertainty, even if a Universe started in an identical state to ours, that doesn't mean it would follow exactly the same course.

This is all apart from the basic objections already made that an individual with identical body and brain state to me would be any more consciously 'me' that my identical twin would be.

Since I have no awareness of any previous or parallel existence, and most people do not have such awareness, imaginary or otherwise, it is of no significance to 'me' at all, even if such multiple versions of 'me' existed.

It is meaningless to attribute eternal life in that scenario unless there was continuity of consciousness, which there is no indication of.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Mak

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Comments?

Evidence?

Perhaps you missed the statement in the initial post that Tegmark's idea is a hypothesis.  To be fair, there is also no proof that the universe is finite though by definition the observable universe is.

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, so assuming:

- There an infinite number of universes.

- There are entities in those universes completely identical to myself.

Then, our "existence" never actually ends because those entities in the other universes are alive?  

Not quite.  Rewording point 2, The set of physical states that make up your existence and psychological experiences exactly as you perceive them is the same between the entities.  As a shorthand, I have been referring to this as the "pattern of existence" for each individual.  In mathematics, the number "two" does not go away when a particular set of two entities gains or loses a member.  Now I suppose some might say we can conclude that the number 2 has an eternal character since we can point to the existence of other sets populated by two entities, but it seems like flimsy way of looking at it.   The reality of two-ness exists in a mode independent of those instantiations.  In the same mode as the existence of the number two, our individual pattern of existence is a property of the universe, and is eternal.  Some might conclude this makes this pattern god like.  That is certainly not where I would go with it.

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
What survives over and over, at each moment of our lives, simultaneously throughout the infinite cosmos is the pattern of our life as we lived it and shall always live it.  In short, if the eternal recurrence hypothesis is correct, then we do in fact survive rigor mortis.
 

Eh, this is just going to depend on how you're defining an "individual," "existence," etc. Those entities are not "me," in a sense, although they are identical to me. I am an independent physical entity, and I have my own consciousness. Similarly, I don't view this as "me" surviving rigor mortis. My body will never come back to life; it is merely entities in other universes that continue living.

 

Fair enough.  I am not attempting to get you to feel a sense of ownership for the pattern of existence that this hypothesis asserts you are an instance of.  I requested comments on the implications of the hypothesis, and I appreciate yours.  So far, I have not heard any substantial objections other than the one you stated, that people don't feel these other instantiations of their existence are "them".   I agree that the instances do not have the same molecules,  that the pattern of existence has a perceived end and that the state of mind of the perceiver present at the end of one instance does not magically jump somehow to some earlier state in another existence. 

 

 


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
The objection of quantum uncertainty

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if there are an infinite number of universes, it does not mean there must be even one identical copy of this one.

Tegmark claims to prove mathematically exactly the opposite of what you believe to be so.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
with quantum uncertainty, even if a Universe started in an identical state to ours, that doesn't mean it would follow exactly the same course.

Is is irrelevant that particular states can switch in non deterministic ways to following states.  Whichever way they did switch to get you to where you are now, the particular pattern of states that leads to your particular existence exactly as it is now is could theoretically be expressed as a finite probability.   If this is true,  and either time or space is infinite, then the math says the pattern will recur infinite numbers of times.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since I have no awareness of any previous or parallel existence, and most people do not have such awareness, imaginary or otherwise, it is of no significance to 'me' at all, even if such multiple versions of 'me' existed.

It is meaningless to attribute eternal life in that scenario unless there was continuity of consciousness, which there is no indication of.

Nowhere did I claim that life persisted, only that the pattern was eternal.  If this hypothetical phenomenon means nothing to you, that's fine with me.  It's quite a different thing to claim the concept is meaningless because the instantiations are acknowledged as being mortal.  Correct me if I misunderstand you, but I don't believe that is your point of view.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Mak, I think that you

Well Mak, I think that you did not follow the main point to the argument. Before I get on to that, allow me to poke a fairly basic hole in what you are saying.

 

Assume that there are an infinite number of universes.

 

Assume that there are then an infinite number of universes that are exact copies of our own.

 

Well, this does not produce functional immortality. The events leading up to the moment of my death are exactly the same in all of the infinite identical universes. When I die in one, I die in the whole infinite universe space uniformly.

 

Now, on to the error that you really made:

 

Tegmark is responding to the work of Hugh Everett. Everett's concept of a multiverse is something different categorically that what you have in mind. Let me take a single example and see what comes from that.

 

When I was much younger than today, I almost made it into the USAF. There are Everett universes where I am a career office. There are Everett universes where I was shot down in Soviet air space. Every possible Everett universe that could come from my making it in to the USAF have something like reality attached to them. This is not identical to a prevention of the total ego death of who I am in this universe.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Even if there are an infinite number of universes, it does not mean there must be even one identical copy of this one.

 

Well, I suppose so. Still, if there are an infinite number of universes and a finite number of states that the universe can be in, then there must be an infinite number of universes which are a copy of at least one possible state.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:BobSpence1

Mak Thorpe wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if there are an infinite number of universes, it does not mean there must be even one identical copy of this one.

Tegmark claims to prove mathematically exactly the opposite of what you believe to be so.

The opposite of what I claimed would be "there may be at least one identical copy of this Universe".

And you can't prove it mathematically in any absolute sense, only that IF certain assumptions are true, THEN this would follow.

But the assumptions are only speculative theories at this point.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
with quantum uncertainty, even if a Universe started in an identical state to ours, that doesn't mean it would follow exactly the same course.

Is is irrelevant that particular states can switch in non deterministic ways to following states.  Whichever way they did switch to get you to where you are now, the particular pattern of states that leads to your particular existence exactly as it is now is could theoretically be expressed as a finite probability.   If this is true,  and either time or space is infinite, then the math says the pattern will recur infinite numbers of times.

Time or space would have to several orders of infinity greater once you introduce all those quantum uncertainties. Each identical initial state of a Universe would have an infinite number of possible histories, so there is NOT any guarantee that an infinite number of random universes would encompass our particular history.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since I have no awareness of any previous or parallel existence, and most people do not have such awareness, imaginary or otherwise, it is of no significance to 'me' at all, even if such multiple versions of 'me' existed.

It is meaningless to attribute eternal life in that scenario unless there was continuity of consciousness, which there is no indication of.

Nowhere did I claim that life persisted, only that the pattern was eternal.  If this hypothetical phenomenon means nothing to you, that's fine with me.  It's quite a different thing to claim the concept is meaningless because the instantiations are acknowledged as being mortal.  Correct me if I misunderstand you, but I don't believe that is your point of view.

The pattern is NOT eternal, except in some abstract Platonic sense, which applies regardless of physical replication of this sort.

I said nothing about the mortality of any possible identical instantiation, just that it would be no more me than my identical twin in this universe would be me in any sense.

Of course the fact that any particular instantiation would still be mortal, ie temporary, means that 'eternal' makes no sense.

To be meaningful to me, there would have to be some continuity of consciousness, requiring memory at the very least.

Even within the one body, if I lose all trace of memory of life earlier than some point, I would not be sure it would be meaningful to say the life before and after that point was the same individual.

Even without such trauma, I would not be the first thinker to regard the child that grew to become 'me' as not really me, as I am now, rather as another, but closely related entity.

You are clutching at straws to make an empty point.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Perhaps you

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Perhaps you missed the statement in the initial post that Tegmark's idea is a hypothesis.  To be fair, there is also no proof that the universe is finite though by definition the observable universe is.

Okay, sure.

butterbattle wrote:

- There are entities in those universes completely identical to myself.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Rewording point 2, The set of physical states that make up your existence and psychological experiences exactly as you perceive them is the same between the entities.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I stated; maybe it elaborates on it a bit. Emphasizing that all physical states and experiences are the same between the entities is just a more detailed way of saying they're absolutely identical.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
As a shorthand, I have been referring to this as the "pattern of existence" for each individual.  In mathematics, the number "two" does not go away when a particular set of two entities gains or loses a member.  Now I suppose some might say we can conclude that the number 2 has an eternal character since we can point to the existence of other sets populated by two entities, but it seems like flimsy way of looking at it.   The reality of two-ness exists in a mode independent of those instantiations.  In the same mode as the existence of the number two, our individual pattern of existence is a property of the universe, and is eternal.  Some might conclude this makes this pattern god like.  That is certainly not where I would go with it.

But there is not an actual "thing" of any substance that exists eternally. In reality, you only have individual entities residing in separate universes; there is nothing here which transcends the universes. At most, you have a concept of these entities, the idea of their characteristics and what they consist of.

I'm not sure I like the analogy to the number 2. I would think that a much better comparison would be with the concept of a species in biology since that is an abstraction for describing a group of entities. I don't really like the phrase, "pattern of existence," either. It's quite unnecessary and sounds like something from a New Age group. Lol, how about a function of existence?

Edit: The term "immortal" is rather misused too, I think. It generally refers to a single organism that cannot die. You're talking about many different organisms, and each of those individuals organisms are indisputably mortal. So, what exactly is it that's "immortal" here? Their souls? What the hell is that?

   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Existence of variants invalidates the immortality of others?

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well Mak, I think that you did not follow the main point to the argument. Before I get on to that, allow me to poke a fairly basic hole in what you are saying.

 

Assume that there are an infinite number of universes.

 

Assume that there are then an infinite number of universes that are exact copies of our own.

 

Well, this does not produce functional immortality. The events leading up to the moment of my death are exactly the same in all of the infinite identical universes. When I die in one, I die in the whole infinite universe space uniformly.

 

Perhaps you should reread my response above to butterbattle.  The mortality of each instantiation is heartily acknowledged.  It is the pattern of our life as we will live it out that is eternal.  Everett's point about there being multiple and innumerable variants does not invalidate the infinite replication of the one particular existence that you shall live out in your life, whichever variant it may be.  One will exist in eternal repetition of the hell of lies made to loved ones.  Another will participate in a more positive heavenly pattern of behavior.  On the contrary, the variants do not weaken the theological position, it emphasizes moral message of the role of your human choices in determining the whether your existence will fall into to naughty or nice/ heaven or hell sides of the ledger.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Now, on to the error that you really made:

 

Tegmark is responding to the work of Hugh Everett. Everett's concept of a multiverse is something different categorically that what you have in mind. Let me take a single example and see what comes from that.

 

 When I was much younger than today, I almost made it into the USAF. There are Everett universes where I am a career office. There are Everett universes where I was shot down in Soviet air space. Every possible Everett universe that could come from my making it in to the USAF have something like reality attached to them. This is not identical to a prevention of the total ego death of who I am in this universe.

 

Again as I stated in my concluding remarks to BobSpence and butterbattle above, no claim was made that there is any prevention of the ego death of any particular instantiation.  Whichever variant your life takes, it is the particular pattern of your existence as exactly you will live it to the day you die that is eternal.

 

If you have shown that the existence of other variants disproves the eternal and infinite repetition of the single pattern that you will live, I have missed the connection of those dots.  If you could kindly walk me through that proof, I would be much obliged to you.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Similarly, does the number 2 have no eternal existence?

butterbattle wrote:

But there is not an actual "thing" of any substance that exists eternally. In reality, you only have individual entities residing in separate universes; there is nothing here which transcends the universes. At most, you have a concept of these entities, the idea of their characteristics and what they consist of.

Using the same logic then, the number 2 has no substance and therefore no reality that transcends the fate of this particular universe simply because there is no such "thing" as the number 2, that I can point to and kick like other substances.   At most, all we have is a concept of the number 2.  Similarly, if the cosmological constants are configured in such a way, gravity exists, but it is only a concept with no reality.   On the contrary I would say that gravity as we know it is a reality that will recur infinite numbers of times since the particular configuration of constants that result in it is finite.  

If I am misapplying the principle you are shooting for, where have I erred? 

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not sure I like the analogy to the number 2. I would think that a much better comparison would be with the concept of a species in biology since that is an abstraction for describing a group of entities. I don't really like the phrase, "pattern of existence," either. It's quite unnecessary and sounds like something from a New Age group. Lol, how about a function of existence?

Edit: The term "immortal" is rather misused too, I think. It generally refers to a single organism that cannot die. You're talking about many different organisms, and each of those individuals organisms are indisputably mortal. So, what exactly is it that's "immortal" here? Their souls? What the hell is that?

I did not mean to imply anything new age about this and have no problem with referring to it as a function.  In fact Legmark advances exactly that concept in another paper.  If you are interested, I will find the url for it.

 

Again, what is asserted as being immortal is the pattern, or if you prefer, the function whose instantiation is your existence exactly as you simultaneously are, will and always haved lived it.


roseweeed
Superfan
roseweeed's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Assuming

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Assuming this is true, then our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence.  What survives over and over, at each moment of our lives, simultaneously throughout the infinite cosmos is the pattern of our life as we lived it and shall always live it.  In short, if the eternal recurrence hypothesis is correct, then we do in fact survive rigor mortis.   

 

If there are an infinite number of universes, then there must be one in which the recurrence hypothesis is proven to be incorrect -- and, in which the question of what continues beyond the death of a living organism can be accurately determined by observing a corpse over time and noting that nothing survived.  I think that universe may be the one we live in.

roseweed

_______________________________________________

Everything that happens, happens somehow.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum, Mak.

 

Could some kind soul inform me if it's possible for us to establish whether or not the mathematical formula in question would function not only outside of this space time, but in the multifarious realities of a metaverse?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The opposite of what I claimed would be "there may be at least one identical copy of this Universe".

And you can't prove it mathematically in any absolute sense, only that IF certain assumptions are true, THEN this would follow.

But the assumptions are only speculative theories at this point.

Of course.  This hypothesis is dependent on the notion that time is not finite, or that space is not finite.  It may turn out that that the classic Einsteinian model of a single big banged finite (though very large) time-space universe is the final word and that is all there is forever and there is no anywhere elses.  If that is the case, then sure, the hypothesis is relegated to the dustbin along with the earth centered universe model.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Time or space would have to several orders of infinity greater once you introduce all those quantum uncertainties. Each identical initial state of a Universe would have an infinite number of possible histories, so there is NOT any guarantee that an infinite number of random universes would encompass our particular history.

I don't understand what an "order of infinity" is.  I am talking about the infinite infinity.  If there is some other infinity we need to know about, please provide a citation.  I suspect you misspoke and instead meant "order of magnitude".  If so, again I repeat that the math says it is irrelevant how small the probability is.  So on the contrary, if the probability is finite,  then there is in fact a guarantee as Legmark shows.  Of course there are assertions the probability is not finite.  Biblical literalists claim that creation is a single unique event that only occurred once because if the book doesn't mention that God decided to do it before or in other places, then it must not have happened.  I presume you would base your beliefs on something more substantial.   

BobSpence1 wrote:
To be meaningful to me, there would have to be some continuity of consciousness, requiring memory at the very least.

Then I regret to repeat that I am not asserting anything that would be meaningful to you.  I also repeat that nothing you have said so far has been successful in invalidating the hypothesis.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
roseweeed wrote:If there are

roseweeed wrote:

If there are an infinite number of universes, then there must be one in which the recurrence hypothesis is proven to be incorrect -- and, in which the question of what continues beyond the death of a living organism can be accurately determined by observing a corpse over time and noting that nothing survived.  I think that universe may be the one we live in.

A humorous remark, but it violates the finite probability requirement.  Similarly, if there is no probability of a universe where 1=3, then it doesn't matter how many times you flip the coin, that outcome will never occur.  What is crucial is whether the proposition is true or not.  Whether or not there are serious thinkers here who can show that Legmark is nuts, I think I may not be lucky enough to live in that universe.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Could some kind soul inform me if it's possible for us to establish whether or not the mathematical formula in question would function not only outside of this space time, but in the multifarious realities of a metaverse?

Not sure what you mean by multifarious, but as I understand it, your question applies to the level 2, 3 and 4 universes.  Level 2 for example is predicted by the currently popular chaotic inflation theory,  which says there will be an infinite set of distinct Level I multiverses, some perhaps with different spacetime dimensionality and different  physical constants.  Naturally, gross attributes like the cosmological constants will have to be exactly identical.  However I would think that exact duplication or all minute details of the function would probably not be necessary, as is the case described for replication in the type I universe. That is, I would guess that Tegmark would claim that a function which results in an Andromeda galaxy slightly different than the one in existence today would not matter so long as our local state (probably limited to the current solar system) is the same.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Other places I would go with this concept

 Folks wondering what theistic places I would go with this proposition might be interested in this thread.  Basically,  if we admit of the patterns of individuals are eternal/ immortal / whatever-outside-the-arrow-of-time term you prefer, then it is not much of a stretch to posit other immortal entities.  I kind of jammed it into a horribly simplistic nutshell that covered too much ground for the words to adequately explicate, and I expect many of you expect you really ought not give any ground on this first proposition because you intuit that there would then be a jumping off point for a horrifying number of theistic tangents.  

 

This intuition would be correct.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:BobSpence1

Mak Thorpe wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The opposite of what I claimed would be "there may be at least one identical copy of this Universe".

And you can't prove it mathematically in any absolute sense, only that IF certain assumptions are true, THEN this would follow.

But the assumptions are only speculative theories at this point.

Of course.  This hypothesis is dependent on the notion that time is not finite, or that space is not finite.  It may turn out that that the classic Einsteinian model of a single big banged finite (though very large) time-space universe is the final word and that is all there is forever and there is no anywhere elses.  If that is the case, then sure, the hypothesis is relegated to the dustbin along with the earth centered universe model.

Einstein's model is particularly restricted to assuming just one BB type Universe - that is confusing separate issues.

But that is not a real issue here, we understand you are invoking a multiverse theory.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Time or space would have to several orders of infinity greater once you introduce all those quantum uncertainties. Each identical initial state of a Universe would have an infinite number of possible histories, so there is NOT any guarantee that an infinite number of random universes would encompass our particular history.

I don't understand what an "order of infinity" is.  I am talking about the infinite infinity.  If there is some other infinity we need to know about, please provide a citation.  I suspect you misspoke and instead meant "order of magnitude".  If so, again I repeat that the math says it is irrelevant how small the probability is.  So on the contrary, if the probability is finite,  then there is in fact a guarantee as Legmark shows.  Of course there are assertions the probability is not finite.  Biblical literalists claim that creation is a single unique event that only occurred once because if the book doesn't mention that God decided to do it before or in other places, then it must not have happened.  I presume you would base your beliefs on something more substantial.   

I figured you weren't familiar with the work of Georg Cantor. Perhaps you should look it up, before you start trying to assert anything involving infinite quantities.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
To be meaningful to me, there would have to be some continuity of consciousness, requiring memory at the very least.

Then I regret to repeat that I am not asserting anything that would be meaningful to you.  I also repeat that nothing you have said so far has been successful in invalidating the hypothesis.

You do abuse the sense of 'eternal/immortal', and are hung up on Platonic Idealism, which I regard as a fundamental error. The number '2' is a reference to a possible attribute of collection of real or imagined entities. It is not a 'thing', and neither is a perfect circle or other form - they are descriptions of ideas, which exist only within the minds of individuals, not as 'eternal' things.

'I' am an attribute of a particular continuing process associated with a complex, discrete material object. It may amuse or intrigue me to contemplate other beings virtually identical to me pursuing their own course in other universes, or it may not.

Don't be so sure you have a valid hypothesis until you have a better understanding of Cantorian transfinite numbers.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


roseweeed
Superfan
roseweeed's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote: Folks

Mak Thorpe wrote:

 Folks wondering what theistic places I would go with this proposition might be interested in this thread.  Basically,  if we admit of the patterns of individuals are eternal/ immortal / whatever-outside-the-arrow-of-time term you prefer, then it is not much of a stretch to posit other immortal entities.  I kind of jammed it into a horribly simplistic nutshell that covered too much ground for the words to adequately explicate, and I expect many of you expect you really ought not give any ground on this first proposition because you intuit that there would then be a jumping off point for a horrifying number of theistic tangents.  

 

This intuition would be correct.

 

Mak, I think your connections are shy a few dots  . . .

You appear to presume that if multiverse theory is correct, the "existences identical to our own" it generates will operate in the realm of repetitive outcomes -- like playing the same film over and over and over, ad infinitum.  But there is no more reason to believe that twin universes would behave identically, than there is to believe that twin brothers will behave identically or are, in fact, the same person.  An infinite number of universes very similar but slightly different is just as legitimate a conclusion to draw, and even more likely, given what we know of the powerful role evolutiion plays.  Your central premise, that "our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence," does not follow from Tegmark's argument, and is in fact the first theistic tangent of your posting -- a rather typical manhandling of logic.   You use existence as a substitute for spirit -- perhaps you could show where in the Scientific American article you cite, there is reference to organic life possessing a spirit.  I always wonder why it is that theists who are so derisive of science when it undermines their beliefs, nonetheless seem to yearn so dearly for its imprimatur -- to be able to prove their desire for immortality rather than just accepting it as an article of faith -- which most religious doctrines exalt as a greater kind of knowledge of the immortal anyway.  Not to mention, a prerequisite thereof.   Proving immortality would spell the end of theism, not its epic validation, and certainly not by some mere mortal who read a magazine article.  Proving immortality is supposed the be the job of Jesus, when he returns -- it's like His number-one occupation, that was the whole point.  If Tegmark's hypothesis does in fact mean what you want it to mean, Jesus is going to be pissed off big time . . . God doesn't like being upstaged.

 

roseweed

_______________________________________________

Everything that happens, happens somehow.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Using the

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Using the same logic then, the number 2 has no substance and therefore no reality that transcends the fate of this particular universe simply because there is no such "thing" as the number 2, that I can point to and kick like other substances.   At most, all we have is a concept of the number 2.

Right. It's just an abstraction that helps us describe actual "things."

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Similarly, if the cosmological constants are configured in such a way, gravity exists, but it is only a concept with no reality.   On the contrary I would say that gravity as we know it is a reality that will recur infinite numbers of times since the particular configuration of constants that result in it is finite.  

If I am misapplying the principle you are shooting for, where have I erred?

Well, I never used gravity as an example. It is not a substance, but it is a force in reality, whereas both "2" and "species" are purely abstractions.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Again, what is asserted as being immortal is the pattern, or if you prefer, the function whose instantiation is your existence exactly as you simultaneously are, will and always haved lived it.

For clarification, I and many others felt like you were trying to imply some Platonic form via this multiverse of identical entities. Is this not what you intended?

If you're just taking the fact that all of these individuals are identical and putting a label on it, then that's fine. But then, I feel like it's a rather trivial discussion, isn't it? You're just abstracting the fact that they're all identical and calling that abstraction something. And, I still don't like the terms you're using: soul, immortal, eternal, etc. these are all inept, usually religious words. It's very misleading.

Or, perhaps calling it a "pattern" or "function" will have some practical value?

Mak Thorpe wrote:
I kind of jammed it into a horribly simplistic nutshell that covered too much ground for the words to adequately explicate, and I expect many of you expect you really ought not give any ground on this first proposition because you intuit that there would then be a jumping off point for a horrifying number of theistic tangents.  

This intuition would be correct.

Oh?

So, you are intending to argue Plato's misplacement of reality ad nauseum?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote: Answers

Mak Thorpe wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Now, on to the error that you really made:

 

Tegmark is responding to the work of Hugh Everett. Everett's concept of a multiverse is something different categorically that what you have in mind. Let me take a single example and see what comes from that.

 

 When I was much younger than today, I almost made it into the USAF. There are Everett universes where I am a career office. There are Everett universes where I was shot down in Soviet air space. Every possible Everett universe that could come from my making it in to the USAF have something like reality attached to them. This is not identical to a prevention of the total ego death of who I am in this universe.

 

Again as I stated in my concluding remarks to BobSpence and butterbattle above, no claim was made that there is any prevention of the ego death of any particular instantiation.  Whichever variant your life takes, it is the particular pattern of your existence as exactly you will live it to the day you die that is eternal.

 

If you have shown that the existence of other variants disproves the eternal and infinite repetition of the single pattern that you will live, I have missed the connection of those dots.  If you could kindly walk me through that proof, I would be much obliged to you.

 

Hey Mak, Welcome to the forum.

Looks like you still missed the point AIG was making. The article you linked refers to several different theories that return multiverses as an implication. One of them is  reconciliation of the characteristics of the quantum, atomic sized, objects, of which our word is comprised, with the extremely contrary seeming characteristics of the familiar macroscopic world in which our senses operate. Quantum objects have the capacity to demonstrate their existence in multiple divergent states at once in time, an unfamiliar phenomenon in the terms of human experience. The Many Worlds hypothesis is a rather clever interpretation of what occurs at the intersection between the realm of subatomic particles, and that of the familiar logically individuated order that we're used to. Basically the other states simply play out in a kind of probability space, so that multiple manifestations of what could be at each step in the evolution of the 'wave' exist in parallel to each other, a multiverse. In this scenario there are not merely copies of ourselves respective of considering infinities but, also, alternates of ourselves respective of any number of finite states on could identify in probability.  As AIG points out these alternates would not be egotistically identical to this 'us', rather they would be more like siblings arising from a common parent self existing in our past. 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Time or space would have to several orders of infinity greater once you introduce all those quantum uncertainties. Each identical initial state of a Universe would have an infinite number of possible histories, so there is NOT any guarantee that an infinite number of random universes would encompass our particular history.

I don't understand what an "order of infinity" is.  I am talking about the infinite infinity.  If there is some other infinity we need to know about, please provide a citation.  I suspect you misspoke and instead meant "order of magnitude".  If so, again I repeat that the math says it is irrelevant how small the probability is.  So on the contrary, if the probability is finite,  then there is in fact a guarantee as Legmark shows.  Of course there are assertions the probability is not finite.  Biblical literalists claim that creation is a single unique event that only occurred once because if the book doesn't mention that God decided to do it before or in other places, then it must not have happened.  I presume you would base your beliefs on something more substantial.   

I figured you weren't familiar with the work of Georg Cantor. Perhaps you should look it up, before you start trying to assert anything involving infinite quantities.

Thanks for the clarification.  It would have been clearer if you stated that you believed the number of multiverses was a transfinite number, not an absolute infinite as Tegmark is asserting.  As Cantor himself has cautioned, it is an abuse to associate the term transfinite with what he calls absolute inifinity.  In any case, you appear to believe Tegmark has made elementary errors in his mathematical formulation.  Is that correct?  Is it the half that assumes each universe has finite computational complexity, or is it the part that assumes absolute infinity of the multiverse?  In either case those are axiomatic objections.

 


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
roseweeed wrote: Mak, I

roseweeed wrote:

 

Mak, I think your connections are shy a few dots  . . .

You appear to presume that if multiverse theory is correct, the "existences identical to our own" it generates will operate in the realm of repetitive outcomes -- like playing the same film over and over and over, ad infinitum.

Yes, that is nutshell view of what Tegmark believes he has shown mathematically.  Did you take a look at the sci-am article?

roseweeed wrote:
 But there is no more reason to believe that twin universes would behave identically, than there is to believe that twin brothers will behave identically or are, in fact, the same person.  

Oh, I think Tegmark's hypothesis takes this phenomenon into consideration.  To be more explicit about what you are saying, there are well studied cases where one identical twin was autistic whereas the other was completely normal.  All your "objection" illustrates is how primitive science currently is in the field of neurology.  The dominant bones and rattles theory is that DNA is the determinant, and that is all the state that requires replication.  The explanation for the difference between the twins is currently not understood, but I believe that simply because science does not currently understand the mechanism, that the it will not one day be known, placing it squarely in the world of finite probabilities.  Really what you are doing is generic.  You can point to any number of phenomenon not well understood by science and say see- mysterious phenomenon- not replicable.  That is fallacious 

roseweeed wrote:
An infinite number of universes very similar but slightly different is just as legitimate a conclusion to draw, and even more likely, given what we know of the powerful role evolutiion plays.

Without a doubt.  This was the point AIG made and Eloise reiterated.  The existence of variants does not invalidate the existence of the one distinct pathway that will end with the death you experience.  The ones that do not exactly follow the states you will experience are outside the set I am discussing.  The pattern of existence I am discussing will occur an infinite number of times.

 

roseweeed wrote:
Your central premise, that "our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence," does not follow from Tegmark's argument, and is in fact the first theistic tangent of your posting -- a rather typical manhandling of logic. 

Not what I said.  It was the pattern of existence which some here take comfort in knowing could be expressed as a function, which survives the death of one of its instantiations.   Now where people seem to have a real problem is in assigning the possessive "your" to this phenomenon.  Folks don't want to take ownership of this pattern when in fact they have an ultimate responsibility in influencing to the best of their abilities.  

 

roseweeed wrote:
You use existence as a substitute for spirit -- perhaps you could show where in the Scientific American article you cite, there is reference to organic life possessing a spirit.  

Fine.  If you are allegic to theological terms, call it a function that if the hypothesis is correct means that your feeling and perceptions exactly as you are feeling them, your actions, exactly as you have taken and will take them, will occur infinitely everywhere and always.  Call the engine that makes that happen whatever you will, if the hypothesis is correct, the phenomenon survives your individual death.  Immortal soul or spirit does it for me.  If "function" floats your boat, you will get no quarrel from me.

 

roseweeed wrote:
I always wonder why it is that theists who are so derisive of science when it undermines their beliefs, nonetheless seem to yearn so dearly for its imprimatur -- to be able to prove their desire for immortality rather than just accepting it as an article of faith -- which most religious doctrines exalt as a greater kind of knowledge of the immortal anyway.  Not to mention, a prerequisite thereof.   Proving immortality would spell the end of theism, not its epic validation, and certainly not by some mere mortal who read a magazine article.  Proving immortality is supposed the be the job of Jesus, when he returns -- it's like His number-one occupation, that was the whole point.  If Tegmark's hypothesis does in fact mean what you want it to mean, Jesus is going to be pissed off big time . . . God doesn't like being upstaged.

 

Agreed.  That is the nature of apologetics, as Paul Tillich so rightly pointed out especially concerning the boxes we try to place around God.  His "History of Christian Thought"  series of lectures illustrates how these boxes eventually become a system of idolatry that opposes God.  Ironically, those who rail most vigorously and ardently against these idolators proclaim themselves atheists, when as far as I can see, they believe much more sincerely in an all encompassing truth that follows rational laws.   


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Looks like you

Eloise wrote:

Looks like you still missed the point AIG was making. The article you linked refers to several different theories that return multiverses as an implication. One of them is  reconciliation of the characteristics of the quantum, atomic sized, objects, of which our word is comprised, with the extremely contrary seeming characteristics of the familiar macroscopic world in which our senses operate. Quantum objects have the capacity to demonstrate their existence in multiple divergent states at once in time, an unfamiliar phenomenon in the terms of human experience.

Okay....  And I acknowledged the divergent states- the ones that could lead to a multiplicity of alternate outcomes for AIG's life.  Are we ok up to there?  My following step was: nonetheless, AIG in this universe will experience only one set of states.  Is that step ok?  And that particular set of states will replicate infinitely.  (true or not true?)   This is what I have been referring to as  the "pattern of existence" or if you like eternal function of which this AIG in this forum is an instance of.  Do you follow my language of instantiation?  Now, while it is true there are far more numerous variant pathways and I agree those are not egoistically identical to us, what I am missing is how you and AIG see that the existence of variant patterns is in any way being fatal for the proposition that the pattern of existence for AIG in this universe will not replicate infinitely.

So, when I talk about AIG's pattern of existence, I am excluding the variants.  You may not feel that it is proper to feel any sort of "egoistic identity" with that pattern either.  It is certainly true that more than one individual on this forum has asserted they feel no particular sense of relationship with their eternally replicated pattern of existence.  How they "feel" about the relationship between them and their pattern is their choice.  I do assert that however we characterize it, we cannot dismiss the relationship we have to the single pattern that represents our existence as it has played out up until now, and will terminate in whatever pathway we choose to follow in this particular universe.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Do you really find some

Do you really find some actual comfort in the idea of an 'immortality' which consists of endless repetitions of exactly the same life-course? If that is it, its just as well one would not be aware of it as a re-lived life, that would be a nightmare.

Regarding transfinite numbers - they are still all infinite in every sense, whatever Cantor said. Whether or not they have any 'reality', that could be suggested about any imagined infinite quantity,

They all have mathematical validity, so the difference in mutual enumerability is extremely relevant to the argument you have been presenting.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Regarding

BobSpence1 wrote:

Regarding transfinite numbers - they are still all infinite in every sense, whatever Cantor said. 

Then you not only disagree with Tegmark, you disagree with Cantor.  In any case, the mathematical validity of Tegmark's formulation should be taken up with him.  This thread assumes the mathematical basis for the proposition is sound.  You feel otherwise.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:BobSpence1

Mak Thorpe wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Regarding transfinite numbers - they are still all infinite in every sense, whatever Cantor said. 

Then you not only disagree with Tegmark, you disagree with Cantor.  In any case, the mathematical validity of Tegmark's formulation should be taken up with him.  This thread assumes the mathematical basis for the proposition is sound.  You feel otherwise.

Cantor was quite religious, and seems to have rejected the idea that he was addressing or involving the idea of 'real' or absolute infinity, which he and most theologians identified with God, so obviously I have many disagreements with him. So I think he had an obvious motive for wanting to keep 'transfinite' numbers separate from 'real' infinity.

Once I read the basic idea of the different orders of infinity, and grasped the 1-to-1 correspondence idea as a great insight into comparing non-finite sets, I was happy to run with the fundamental idea, regardless of what else he may have said about it. To me it was a great moment of understanding.

it is ideas I adopt and respect or reject, not necessarily the individuals who made them known to me.

The mathematics may be 'sound', but in this context, if it does not apply the concept of different orders of infinity, it is incomplete.

And you have not responded to the question I asked in the first part of that post, which is extremely relevant to this thread.

The basic point is that OUR existence manifestly does NOT survive OUR death, so your attempt to find some scientific support for some form of 'immortality of the soul' really doesn't work. It might work marginally better if you were coming from a Buddhist perspective, but again, in the absence of a linking thread of memory, it represents no real meaning. And Buddhism envisages each life a s part of a progression, not an endless tape-loop.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Mak

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Similarly, if the cosmological constants are configured in such a way, gravity exists, but it is only a concept with no reality.   On the contrary I would say that gravity as we know it is a reality that will recur infinite numbers of times since the particular configuration of constants that result in it is finite.  

If I am misapplying the principle you are shooting for, where have I erred?

Well, I never used gravity as an example. It is not a substance, but it is a force in reality, whereas both "2" and "species" are purely abstractions.

It is a property of multiverse that a universe will have gravity if certain cosmological constants have particular values.  It is a property of the multiverse that you will exist if a more complex function is instantiated.  The assertion is being made that somehow the two cases are different.  Ok, I guess if gravity had consciousness then the gravity in our universe would complain bitterly that it is not the "same" gravity as that in an identical universe.   Nonetheless it would behave exactly the same.  There has been much stomping of feet about our felt uniqueness- on what grounds are we exempt from consideration as yet another replicable phenomena?  I recognize the religion we have made of man compels folks to attack this as heresy, but perhaps it is time to put aside this hubris?  

 

Certainly something like gravity is a large feature of a universe, and the existence of one particular pattern of an individual's existence is comparatively miniscule, so are we saying that science must consider the prominence of an emergent property of a universe to recognize its reality?  

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Again, what is asserted as being immortal is the pattern, or if you prefer, the function whose instantiation is your existence exactly as you simultaneously are, will and always haved lived it.

For clarification, I and many others felt like you were trying to imply some Platonic form via this multiverse of identical entities. Is this not what you intended?

If you're just taking the fact that all of these individuals are identical and putting a label on it, then that's fine. But then, I feel like it's a rather trivial discussion, isn't it? You're just abstracting the fact that they're all identical and calling that abstraction something. 

The proposition implies that consciousness, and in particular our individual consciousness is a feature of the multiverse. 

If the phenomenon is trivial to you, that's your business.  What is my interpretation of the meaning of the proposition?  Interpretation is off topic and  I proposed an alternate thread for its consideration.  Since there are zero responses there, perhaps the OT nature will not be a distraction here.  Ok, I so I will take a quick gloss of it and see where that goes.

I suppose a Platonist asserting that gravity will manifest itself eternally fits into their metaphysical model that there is some disembodied Platonic form called "Gravity" animating the multiverse.  That is not my way of looking at it.   My personal theory is that we have provisional models about how the metaphysics work, and that we must recognize our epistemological constraints.   I suppose that I could be pigeonholed in somewhere close to the German idealists and prefer to employ language and constructs that Tillich perhaps unfortunately referred to as symbols.  

Certainly, it is fair to point out that many other interpretations could be made of this phenomenon- the Hindu and Buddhist points of view in particular come most quickly to mind.   

 


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:And you

BobSpence1 wrote:

The mathematics may be 'sound', but in this context, if it does not apply the concept of different orders of infinity, it is incomplete.

 

I see.  So what word do we use for a sound but incomplete proof?   I still say that if you think it is horse manure and you have a contribution for Tegmark, you should write him.

BobSpence1 wrote:

And you have not responded to the question I asked in the first part of that post, which is extremely relevant to this thread.

The basic point is that OUR existence manifestly does NOT survive OUR death, so your attempt to find some scientific support for some form of 'immortality of the soul' really doesn't work. It might work marginally better if you were coming from a Buddhist perspective, but again, in the absence of a linking thread of memory, it represents no real meaning. And Buddhism envisages each life a s part of a progression, not an endless tape-loop.

I thought I very explicitly responded to this, most recently in the closing response of this post.  To reiterate and elaborate, I am of the same view that there is nothing of the existence of one instantiation that is teleported or transferred in any way to another, including memory.  I admitted that if this is the criteria for qualifying as meaningful to you and/or cause for you to dismiss the idea that it is a way of describing immortal souls, then I agree that this proposition has nothing for you.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:It is a

Mak Thorpe wrote:
It is a property of multiverse that a universe will have gravity if certain cosmological constants have particular values.  It is a property of the multiverse that you will exist if a more complex function is instantiated.  The assertion is being made that somehow the two cases are different.  Ok, I guess if gravity had consciousness then the gravity in our universe would complain bitterly that it is not the "same" gravity as that in an identical universe.   Nonetheless it would behave exactly the same. There has been much stomping of feet about our felt uniqueness- on what grounds are we exempt from consideration as yet another replicable phenomena?  I recognize the religion we have made of man compels folks to attack this as heresy, but perhaps it is time to put aside this hubris?

That's precisely it; it would be an identical force, but not the "same" force. Of course this applies for inanimate objects and phenomenon too. I never argued that humans possessed some intangible uniqueness property.

If you perfectly copied a rock, then trivially, your clone rock is identical to the original rock, but it is not THE original rock. The two rocks are not linked in any objective sense.  

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Certainly something like gravity is a large feature of a universe, and the existence of one particular pattern of an individual's existence is comparatively miniscule, so are we saying that science must consider the prominence of an emergent property of a universe to recognize its reality?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I recognize the reality of all things that are demonstrated to be real.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
The proposition implies that consciousness, and in particular our individual consciousness is a feature of the multiverse.

Once again, your language implies something supernatural that is not at all justified by your original premises. If not, then you're proposition is just trivial. 

So, I think this just about ends the discussion for me. Your proposition is either trivial or some Platonic thing, imo.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Thanks

 Thanks for taking the time to respond.  I do believe you assign undue weight as does Bob to whether or not there is some sort of physical linkage between instances.  I would not assume there to be any such physical linkage, nor do I see this as anything but a trivial detail.  You do not dispute that there is a continuity of  identical consciousness throughout time and space, yet if the instances are not the same physically, then the phenomenon is a trivial detail. 

 

To each his own.  I was not attempting to persuade you of the proposition's significance.  


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:You do not

Mak Thorpe wrote:
You do not dispute that there is a continuity of  identical consciousness throughout time and space, yet if the instances are not the same physically, then the phenomenon is a trivial detail.

Well, I don't explicitly dispute it because it's presented as a hypothesis. I simply accepted, for the sake of the discussion, that there was this multiverse, and there would always be entities identical to myself in existence.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
We are physical beings, if

We are physical beings, if there is no physical link then there is no continuity, only duplication.  To use language suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

 

Calling the lack of a physical link, 'trivial' seems to me the very opposite of reality.  The fact that there is no physical link renders the entire hypothesis, 'trivial' in that it has no impact on us, barring science fiction scenarios of visiting alternate realities.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Also, the 'theistic'

Also, the 'theistic' implications of the idea would be everyone is damned and blessed at the same time, but since the universe is still deterministic it doesn't matter either way, at least not to any being currently experiencing said reality.

Essentially, the original idea is navel gazing; it doesn't matter to anyone.

 

I'll leave it up the the math people to argue about the coherence of a infinite repeating set of variables creating infinite copies of the same thing for an infinite time.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


roseweeed
Superfan
roseweeed's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Certainly,

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Certainly, it is fair to point out that many other interpretations could be made of this phenomenon- the Hindu and Buddhist points of view in particular come most quickly to mind.   

 

More quickly to mind comes New Ageism and its attempts to appropriate science, particularly the more malleable theoretical sciences -- re-sculpting them into serving the needs of preexisting theistic beliefs, such as immortality.  Sorry to reduce your thesis to a banality, but your desire to squeeze a drop of comfort from believing an individual's death does not mean the end of their existence, is an urge both ancient and intellectually quaint.  That you are willing to settle for so convoluted and abstract a form of eternal life is somehow even sadder -- streets of gold would be better, and require a leap of faith no greater than your "patterns of individuals."  More bang, and for fewer bucks . . .

roseweed

_______________________________________________

Everything that happens, happens somehow.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
roseweeed wrote:Mak Thorpe

roseweeed wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Certainly, it is fair to point out that many other interpretations could be made of this phenomenon- the Hindu and Buddhist points of view in particular come most quickly to mind.   

 

More quickly to mind comes New Ageism and its attempts to appropriate science, particularly the more malleable theoretical sciences -- re-sculpting them into serving the needs of preexisting theistic beliefs, such as immortality.  Sorry to reduce your thesis to a banality, but your desire to squeeze a drop of comfort from believing an individual's death does not mean the end of their existence, is an urge both ancient and intellectually quaint.  That you are willing to settle for so convoluted and abstract a form of eternal life is somehow even sadder -- streets of gold would be better, and require a leap of faith no greater than your "patterns of individuals."  More bang, and for fewer bucks . . .

Your assumption that I derive comfort from this is mistaken, as are your assumptions of my motivations, or how it fits into my belief system.  These elements were not discussed, but that does not appear to be an impediment.  Perhaps you take comfort in the notion that your response was rational.  On the contrary, it provides clear evidence of its nature.  


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Also, the

mellestad wrote:

Also, the 'theistic' implications of the idea would be everyone is damned and blessed at the same time, but since the universe is still deterministic it doesn't matter either way, at least not to any being currently experiencing said reality.

You mean you feel that because all outcomes have already occurred that you feel no responsibility for making your existence the most righteous variant?  It seems to me that is a morally bankrupt position to take.  

 

On the contrary, eternal repetition of a life filled with morally reprehensible actions is its own hell.  You will face an eternity of experience of the emptiness of such an existence.  


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Mak

butterbattle wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:
You do not dispute that there is a continuity of  identical consciousness throughout time and space, yet if the instances are not the same physically, then the phenomenon is a trivial detail.

Well, I don't explicitly dispute it because it's presented as a hypothesis. I simply accepted, for the sake of the discussion, that there was this multiverse, and there would always be entities identical to myself in existence.

Yes.  Experiencing  the same thoughts, feeling the same emotions  but not feeling the same gravity of the situation. Eye-wink


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:mellestad

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Also, the 'theistic' implications of the idea would be everyone is damned and blessed at the same time, but since the universe is still deterministic it doesn't matter either way, at least not to any being currently experiencing said reality.

You mean you feel that because all outcomes have already occurred that you feel no responsibility for making your existence the most righteous variant?  It seems to me that is a morally bankrupt position to take.  

 

On the contrary, eternal repetition of a life filled with morally reprehensible actions is its own hell.  You will face an eternity of experience of the emptiness of such an existence.  

 

I don't feel anything about this, I'm arguing for the hypothetical position since you requested that we do so in your original post.  This idea would not influence my non-hypothetical morality because any alternate beings have no link to me, essentially they are separate beings totally outside my control or interest, duplicates or not.  You've given me no reason to think any alternate beings should be thought to have continuity with their other selves.

 

If you accept the premise that, 'you' automatically exist in an infinitely variable state for an infinite amount of time and if you accept that means there is some sort of continuity to, 'you', then it doesn't matter what 'you' do, because another you would have done something else.  Essentially, you'd be arguing for some sort of infinite psuedo omnipresence more than anything else.  Why would the 'me' who chose to act a certain way have continuity only with the infinite alternates who acted in the same way?

Which creates an alternate problem, why would 'you' have continuity with 'you' at all?  Why not everyone?  Why not every state of matter in the whole universe?  All we are is matter after all, and in another universe all my matter might be scattered over a galaxy, or in a cat, or in a black hole, or in Jessica Alba (Hmm...maybe I like this now.).

Besides which, the very idea of a multiverse rests on determinism because it is materialistic and the whole thing is based on random quantum fluctuation as the root cause of variation.

 

You *could* make the continuity argument, but you'd have to posit the existence of something non-material linking the alternate beings somehow, which is a soul, which is just a magical idea without any merit.  It would be silly to include that concept in a discussion hinging on a real hypothesis.  You might as well say we're immortal because after we die, we turn into invisible unicorns who live forever, and the bodies we leave behind are actually unicorn poop left at the moment of our rebirth.  It is just as plausible.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


roseweeed
Superfan
roseweeed's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Your

Mak Thorpe wrote:

Your assumption that I derive comfort from this is mistaken, as are your assumptions of my motivations, or how it fits into my belief system.  These elements were not discussed, but that does not appear to be an impediment.  Perhaps you take comfort in the notion that your response was rational.  On the contrary, it provides clear evidence of its nature.  

 

My assumption derives from your original post heading, in which you preview the apparent conclusion of your thesis -- that "we have an immortal soul..."  These are theistic terms, perhaps intentionally provocative to attract responses, but also an indication of your context.  If I'm wrong, you should not be so coy.

roseweed

_______________________________________________

Everything that happens, happens somehow.


Mak Thorpe
Mak Thorpe's picture
Posts: 74
Joined: 2011-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Mak Thorpe

mellestad wrote:

Mak Thorpe wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Also, the 'theistic' implications of the idea would be everyone is damned and blessed at the same time, but since the universe is still deterministic it doesn't matter either way, at least not to any being currently experiencing said reality.

You mean you feel that because all outcomes have already occurred that you feel no responsibility for making your existence the most righteous variant?  It seems to me that is a morally bankrupt position to take.  

 

On the contrary, eternal repetition of a life filled with morally reprehensible actions is its own hell.  You will face an eternity of experience of the emptiness of such an existence.  

 

I don't feel anything about this, I'm arguing for the hypothetical position since you requested that we do so in your original post.  This idea would not influence my non-hypothetical morality because any alternate beings have no link to me, essentially they are separate beings totally outside my control or interest, duplicates or not.  

 

I guess I got thrown off about your meaning due to the bit : "since the universe is still deterministic it doesn't matter either way, at least not to any being currently experiencing said reality."  I took that to mean that you were asserting that it didn't matter if you participated the damned pattern or the blessed pattern.  I am glad to hear that you feel responsible for the morality of your existence.

 

mellestad wrote:
You've given me no reason to think any alternate beings should be thought to have continuity with their other selves.

 The hypothesis says the you in the other universes think the same thoughts, feel the exact same emotions you feel at this moment, experience the same consciousness you are experiencing now in every detail.  They just do not share the same body.  You don't feel a linkage with these other instances of you because the atoms are not the same.  It has been estimated that "there isn't a single bit of any of us, not even a stray molecule- that was part of us nine years  ago"  (Bill Bryson. A short history of nearly everything).  Today, your consciousness is now, literally inhabiting a different body than the body of that called itself mellestad nine years ago, so by your same logic of sharing the same molecules that you Bill and Butter are using, you have no reason to feel any principle of connection with this other individual.

mellestad wrote:
If you accept the premise that, 'you' automatically exist in an infinitely variable state for an infinite amount of time and if you accept that means there is some sort of continuity to, 'you', then it doesn't matter what 'you' do, because another you would have done something else.  Essentially, you'd be arguing for some sort of infinite psuedo omnipresence more than anything else.  Why would the 'me' who chose to act a certain way have continuity only with the infinite alternates who acted in the same way?

No. You are the third person who make this odd leap. As I have often repeated, I don't accept that the variants are me.  Here's why.  The principle of everyone's identity is defined by their actions.  One variant of us might take a dismissive, holier than thou attitude without consideration of what the person has said or done.  By that variant's actions, they are the same sort of ideological bigot that they pretend to be decrying.   Is that who you are?  Is that who I choose to be by my actions?   The next time we act, there are a new set of variant courses that each variant will take.  Who are you?  The variants are distinct because the character they express is different.  Scripture's expression of the principle is that "By their fruits you shall know them".   

 

mellestad wrote:
Besides which, the very idea of a multiverse rests on determinism because it is materialistic and the whole thing is based on random quantum fluctuation as the root cause of variation.

It has a finite, computable complexity.  However, there is a multiplicity of deterministic outcomes at any state, so the limitations of determinism are insubstantial.  That is, if you choose to take an active role in your existence, you determine which variant you express.  Is it the mellestad variant that selflessly saved children from a burning home down the street, or the one that beat his wife when she learned he was cheating on her?  There are insignificant deterministic walls standing in the way of the free will to choose how righteous a pathway of states it shall follow.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mak Thorpe wrote:Yes.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
Yes.  Experiencing  the same thoughts, feeling the same emotions  but not feeling the same gravity of the situation. Eye-wink

Gravity of the situation? The sarcastic winking face just confuses me more.

Mak Thorpe wrote:
The hypothesis says the you in the other universes think the same thoughts, feel the exact same emotions you feel at this moment, experience the same consciousness you are experiencing now in every detail.  They just do not share the same body.  You don't feel a linkage with these other instances of you because the atoms are not the same.  It has been estimated that "there isn't a single bit of any of us, not even a stray molecule- that was part of us nine years  ago"  (Bill Bryson. A short history of nearly everything).  Today, your consciousness is now, literally inhabiting a different body than the body of that called itself mellestad nine years ago, so by your same logic of sharing the same molecules that you Bill and Butter are using, you have no reason to feel any principle of connection with this other individual.

Ah, but there is a sense in which the "butterbattle" of nine years ago in this universe is much more "me" than the "butterbattle" of another universe, and the explanation of this highlights exactly where your premise fails. It has already been mentioned.

BobSpence1: "It is meaningless to attribute eternal life in that scenario unless there was continuity of consciousness, which there is no indication of."

You hinted at the answer yourself as well.

Mak Thorpe: "Today, your consciousness is now, literally inhabiting a different body than the body of that called itself mellestad nine years ago,"

Even though all the particles have been gradually replaced, the phenomenon produced by the brain, consciousness, is constantly intact. Of course, the personality, wisdom, etc. of this consciousness changes as well, but the important thing is that this consciousness is perpetuated. E.g. I have memories from nine years ago of referring to myself as "butterbattle," but I don't have memories of "butterbattles" in other universes. I refer to the "butterbattle" of this universe nine years ago as "me" nine years ago because it was my consciousness which resided in that body. It does not matter that the particles in brain are not even the "same" particles as before because any of the same type of particle can perpetuate the same consciousness, as elementary particles are indistinguishable. Actually, I recall now that this was where I originally heard the use of the phrase "function of existence," where the particles in our bodies are gradually replaced as time passes; this is a much more useful and less navel gazing application of it than the multiverse thing. 

So, on that note, it's not just the particles of my body that define "me," it's also the phenomenon and effects produced by those particles, most importantly, my consciousness. Ergo, if it were possible to separate my body from my consciousness (which I don't think it is, as I hold that my consciousness emerges from my physical brain), I would regard my consciousness as more "me" than the body. For then, the body would be just a shell, and it is the consciousness which contains everything about me other than my physical appearance. In fact, if you somehow put my consciousness in a mouse in another universe, I would consider the mouse to be more "me" than an identical copy of my physical body because, ditto, the mouse IS me. I would refer the mouse as "I" rather than it.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare