How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

Tricky said:
I disagree. I believe the copy would share the consciousness of the original for the moment of scanning (and lots of things would be similar afterwards), but it wouldn't keep the same consciousness. If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then a perfect copy of the brain would contain a perfect copy of the consciousness.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. I'm pretty sure he would have the "same" consciousness. What I'm saying is that that consciousness wouldn't be SHARED. They're both identical but they are not the SAME consciousness.
 
Yeah_Right said:
Amazing, twelve pages over a misinterpretation of what Dawkins said.
Click to expand...

What I find amazing, Yeah_Right, is that you've posted only 200 posts in four years, and yet I find posts by you all over the place. What's more, you always find a way to summarize an entire thread with a single thought.

I wish I could do that.
 
Belz... said:
To be fair, however, it seems reasonable to assume that a great number of universes are more likely than a single one.
Click to expand...
That's based on what we know about this one and that we can't find anything that would preclude it. But how do find supporting evidence?


Can't fully agree there, Uruk. I, for one, can't claim to know what kind of universe would spring from ANY change in one of the physical laws... not that I know all of them, also.
Click to expand...
Well, we do know that with the laws just so in our universe, we get planets, stars, glaxaies and soforth. If there are to be the same in the other universes, the laws there have to be at least the same as ours. As far as we know.
What kind of universe can you have without gravity, electro-magnetisim, or thermodynamics? Can you have one? I doubt it.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Complete nonsense. Let's see you demonstrate this.
Click to expand...
Can a universe exist without gravity? I seriously doubt it. How would stars form? how would plantes form or remain in orbit?

Do you know of any universe which exists that does not have the same physical laws as ours? Do you know of any other universe that exists?
Untill we find and observe another universe you can't say otherwise. Only guess. But since there IS one universe that we know of (namely ours) it seems safe to assume if they have stars, plants and soforth the rules have to, at least, be the same.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Yeah, like quantum mechanics violates Newtonian mechanics.

You're talking complete nonsense unless you suppose that the physical laws as we know them completely 100% describe reality.

And don't forget the underdetermination by theory thesis.
Click to expand...

Quantum mechanicis is a more refined view of what has been observed to happen on a subatomic scale. Newtonian physics is a coarse description of what happens on a large scale. (which BTW has been superceeded by relativity.) But Newton is still good enought to get a satelite to orbit Jupiter.
So QM does not violate Newton so much as newton is not sufficient to describe QM.

I don't claim that all is known about the universe, but then show me something that has happened by majic.

I don't care because I reject the notion that current physical laws entirely accurately describe reality.
Click to expand...
Well, they,ve worked to our advantage sofar. We can do quite alot of things with them and new things are being discovered and refined all the time.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure I understand. I'm pretty sure he would have the "same" consciousness. What I'm saying is that that consciousness wouldn't be SHARED. They're both identical but they are not the SAME consciousness.
Click to expand...
They would not be shared from the moment of scanning forward. They would share all of the memories, thoughts, habits etc. from the moment of scanning backwards. Perhaps it is semantical to include those things in "consciousness", but I think your consciousness includes the things that make you "you", which of course, includes your history.

But as Taffer pointed out, it is unlikely that any of this is what Ian had in mind. Perhaps the subject for another thread.
 
Dragon said:
Does anyone else remember the poster Juggler/Undercover Elephant? He did exactly this in his "disproof of materialism" by having as one of his assumptions that mental stuff was immaterial. He, too, just didn't get it when this was pointed out and tended to get angry. Do all idealists suffer from Berkeley's Demon?
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I remember Undercover Elephant. :rolleyes: I spent days arguing with him over the point that Chalmers' "Hard Problem Consciousness" is merely a statement about language and so cannot prove anything about consciousness or anything else. He disagreed, of course.

I don't know if all idealists suffer from Berkeley's Demon, but Berkeley himself did. Uh, hence the name. :)
 
Tricky said:
They would not be shared from the moment of scanning forward. They would share all of the memories, thoughts, habits etc. from the moment of scanning backwards. Perhaps it is semantical to include those things in "consciousness", but I think your consciousness includes the things that make you "you", which of course, includes your history.
Click to expand...
I would not use the word share for this. Their memories would be equal, but not the same (shared).


~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I would not use the word share for this. Their memories would be equal, but not the same (shared).
Click to expand...
I think we split hairs too much here. I speak of "sharing childhood memories" with my siblings, but obviously they are not equal. The memories you "shared" with the copyclone would be a heck of a lot more equal than those you share with your siblings.
 
uruk said:
That's based on what we know about this one and that we can't find anything that would preclude it. But how do find supporting evidence?



Well, we do know that with the laws just so in our universe, we get planets, stars, glaxaies and soforth. If there are to be the same in the other universes, the laws there have to be at least the same as ours. As far as we know.
What kind of universe can you have without gravity, electro-magnetisim, or thermodynamics? Can you have one? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

uruk said:
Can a universe exist without gravity? I seriously doubt it. How would stars form? how would plantes form or remain in orbit?

Do you know of any universe which exists that does not have the same physical laws as ours? Do you know of any other universe that exists?
Untill we find and observe another universe you can't say otherwise. Only guess. But since there IS one universe that we know of (namely ours) it seems safe to assume if they have stars, plants and soforth the rules have to, at least, be the same.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. Well, at least not completely. We know of nothing stopping different physical laws in different universes. In fact, we can imagine some of them right now, such as the mass of an electron being different, or the shape of water not being polar, which would drastically change the universe. I can see no reason why there might be universes where gravity doesn't work, or is reversed (something about universes in quantum foam comes to mind). However, we do not, and possibly cannot, have any direct evidence of other universes. Some quantum theories allow, and sometimes even require, possible alternate universes, but I have doubts over the possibility to reach them.
 
Jon. said:
If you think this is just about Narnia, you're not a critical a thinker as I thought. :D ;)
Click to expand...

I am quite aware that this isn't just about Narnia, but you must admit the misintepretation is the thing that got the whole ball rolling.
 
Belz... said:
What I find amazing, Yeah_Right, is that you've posted only 200 posts in four years, and yet I find posts by you all over the place. What's more, you always find a way to summarize an entire thread with a single thought.

I wish I could do that.
Click to expand...

Sorry for my lack of voluminous posts, but I guess I find the woo stuff so rediculous that any lengthy argument against any of it is a waste of time,
 
And why just 200 posts? Another reason is that I don't come here that often. But that shouldn't stop me from making some sort of comment. Especially on an Interesting Ian thread. I was quite taken aback by the notion that Dawkins statement would be so taken out of context that, intially, all I was going to say is. What the @$%#?? A short but sweet summary of what he's talking about.

Nope, it ain't just about Narnia, it's about wishful thinking. Hoping there's Narnia "like" worlds, which is all well and good, but it'd be nice if there were evidence. One could get into metaphysical philosophy about these things, but that strays quite a distance from physical proof. I guess it makes an interesting intellectual argument to discuss the possibilties of such wonderous places, and Ians threads, at least this one anyway, allows for such an exercise.
 
And another thing, if one were to encounter such a magial world by way of so called mystical means. You'd have to ask if the experience weren't just a product of the sub-conscious. Perhaps there's no way of proving it to be physical or mental, but, I tend toward the latter explanation. That is, until there is proof for a phyisical reality of this world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom