Explorer
He seldomly knows...
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,620
- Reaction score
- 1,161
Much respect to @USMarine75 for covering the points I immediately thought of. I just went7 back and gave you positive rep in the past, bro!
Much respect to @USMarine75 for covering the points I immediately thought of. I just went7 back and gave you positive rep in the past, bro!
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Even if the multiverse thing were to be proven true somehow (and it sounds more like science fiction than any realistic scenario to me), you would still need a mechanism to move between these universes, and even that wouldn't necessarily move you through time, just through potential versions of the present.
Multiverses would likely have different laws of physics, resulting in incompatibilities with life/existence as we know it.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-possibility-life-universe-weak.html
Multiverses would likely have different laws of physics, resulting in incompatibilities with life/existence as we know it.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-possibility-life-universe-weak.html
By default, multiverses would theoretically contain all possible combinations of all physical laws and possibilities (and, well, impossibilities).
If time travel was possible within our own multiverse, we would already see the repercussions of it right?
Sure, if you start with a premise of infinite multiverses, but my point is the vast majority would be incompatible with complex matter and energy (e.g. humans) from our universe - negating moving between universes.
You change one of the forces, even by a few percent, and life doesn't exist as we know it. You change the elements, or even the very building blocks (e.g. electrons, quarks, atomic structure, probabilities, decay rates, spin, etc...)
As mentioned previously there is the theory that at the speed of light time will bend for those moving at the speed of light, as gravity has an effect on time.
(Sorry for the necro-quote. )We seemingly spend all day distracting ourselves from the only truth which is right now.
(Sorry for the necro-quote to you to. )Sure, if you start with a premise of infinite multiverses, but my point is the vast majority would be incompatible with complex matter and energy (e.g. humans) from our universe - negating moving between universes.
One must free themselves from thought to experience the present. Your scenario tries to predict potential future possibilities and subsequent issues based on past experience and learned thinking behaviors. These are the types of thought that keep you from experiencing right now. Just engage your “sensory input” and brush away any thought that tries to compare it to the past. Don’t allow your mind to wander into endless scenarios. Just see things exactly as they are. Wouldn’t a rose by any other name still smell sweet?(Sorry for the necro-quote. )
Here's the thing though. If our only concept of the past is memory, then similarly, our only concept of the present is our sensory input. Further, if we entertain the premise that our perception of the universe external to our physical forms is both a) limited in scope, and b) just as much of a construct as our perception of memory, then it can't reliably inform us of the nature of objective truth. Doing so would be like trying to observe something through a telescope a) through fog, and b) what we were told is a telescope is actually a hamster. While there is technically a non-zero possibility of correctly perceiving an obscured object in the distance through an rodent that has, shall we say, limited utility as an optical magnification instrument, the odds are stacked.
our only concept of the present is our sensory input
That's not the question you're asking though. You're asking "does a rose smell good if you don't let yourself think far enough to even ask the question in the first place?" Memory and prediction are as much a part of the experience of a given moment as your direct sensory inputs would be. Consider just the concept of being "scared" for example. Most people would describe fear as a very immediate and "in the moment" kind of experience, but fear and surprise are functions of memory, prediction, violation of expectations, etc. This very immediate and present emotion and concept can't exist on the basis of the experience of the present moment being made up of literally only the current state of your physical sensory input. It's not like you can just choose not to consider the thing you're afraid of in the moment.Wouldn’t a rose by any other name still smell sweet?
What you described as fear I’d call startled. That is something that happens and can very much make you present, even if momentarily. Fear usually consists of unrealized events created in the mind that you’ve convinced yourself to be coming.That's not the question you're asking though. You're asking "does a rose smell good if you don't let yourself think far enough to even ask the question in the first place?" Memory and prediction are as much a part of the experience of a given moment as your direct sensory inputs would be. Consider just the concept of being "scared" for example. Most people would describe fear as a very immediate and "in the moment" kind of experience, but fear and surprise are functions of memory, prediction, violation of expectations, etc. This very immediate and present emotion and concept can't exist on the basis of the experience of the present moment being made up of literally only the current state of your physical sensory input. It's not like you can just choose not to consider the thing you're afraid of in the moment.
What about enjoying a sunset? Appreciation of a view doesn't function without the comparison to everything else you've seen in the past and aren't currently looking at. Consider how someone might describe a really awesome view as mundane if they see it every day, but a newcomer would be blown away by it.
Remembering to stop and smell the roses (which I think the is figure of speech you were aiming for) is a nice sentiment, and maybe a good device to keep a sense of perspective, but it's not much more than that. Limiting your experience to just your immediate senses I'm pretty sure is impossible, but even if it was, it would be incredibly impractical - maybe even detrimental. I mean, hey, don't need to put gas in the car -> That's prep for the future and the future isn't reaaaaal maaaaaaaan. Don't need to avoid that guy that I remember hates me. He can't have ever punched me in the face, or be likely to do it again, if the past doesn't exist either, right?