Can you die in another Universe? [Archive]

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th December 2008, 19:08

I have a question.

If you were to transport to another Universe, would you die there?

If it's laws were sufficiently divergent from one's native universe to induce catastrophic disruption of coherent function, then yes.

Since this Universe would have different physical laws than ours, what would happen?That would depend entirely on the nature of the physical laws within that universe.

People have said that lifeforms there would be something we can't even imagine (because of the different physical laws) and that we couldn't even use telepathy to communicate because telepathy is considered a universal method of communication with each other and this is in another Universe.Any remotely feasible form of telepathy would not provide a universal method of communication - there would still be a "language" or collectively-agreed set of ideoforms that would vary from population to population like human languages do.

Communication should be possible with extra-universal beings, as any universe stable enough to support intelligent beings is bound to have it's own self-consistent rules that can be described via mathematics.

Unless of course the entities in question have no concept of mathematics... This is incredibly speculative territory.

So can someone please answer this question? If the situation would be as described above, then I can't imagine any worse kind of hell.What situation?

You being dead? You would no longer exist as a personality, so it can hardly be described as "hell" as only personalities can suffer.

Not being able to communicate with extra-universal beings? That would be frustrating for sure, but hell?

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2008, 19:11

One minor detail: how could anyone be 'transported' to 'another universe'?

Even at the speed of light, this would take (but who knows?) scores of billions of years.

This, of course, begs the question whether we have access to such 'universes' (that is, whether we have the energy to leave our own -- what is the escape velocity for this universe?), and where these science fiction objects are.

marxist578

13th December 2008, 19:14

Not being able to communicate with extra-universal beings? That would be frustrating for sure, but hell?

I meant possibly dying due to different physical laws and not being to communicate with anyone or ask anyone for help, and ultimately dying. That is what I meant by hell.

But, please explain more on the language part. If they are in a different Universe, how would we have any chance of even communicating with them?

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2008, 19:20

Look, Marxist578, how on earth would you get there?

Isn't this the modern day equivalent of the old medieval question: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th December 2008, 19:31

Look, Marxist578, how on earth would you get there?

Wormhole?

scarletghoul

13th December 2008, 19:37

The mode of transport really depends on the laws of that universe, and since we dont know what the hypothetical universe is like it is impossible to say how to get there. But that doesnt mean its impossible to get there

marxist578

13th December 2008, 19:45

That is a question I cannot answer. The human mind wonders about these things alot, I'm not just the only one who wonders about this. It was simply just a question about a theory. NoXion mentioned a wormhole. I would link to the direct page with the info, but since I don't have enough posts, I will just copy and paste here something that pertains to what you asked:

A hypothetical "tunnel" connecting two different points in spacetime in such a way that a trip through the wormhole could take much less time than a journey between the same starting and ending points in normal space. The ends of a wormhole could, in theory, be intra-universe (i.e. both exist in the same universe) or inter-universe (exist in different universes, and thus serve as a connecting passage between the two).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th December 2008, 19:47

Can't you just post the URL without hyperlinking it or whatever?

You could try wwwDOTwebsiteDOTcom?

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2008, 21:12

Noxion:

Wormhole?

Since these are theoretical objects that have yet to be shown to exist (which I would claim cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist), this 'option' seems more like a modern-day equivalent of 'divine intervention'.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2008, 21:18

Scaletghoul:

The mode of transport really depends on the laws of that universe, and since we dont know what the hypothetical universe is like it is impossible to say how to get there. But that doesnt mean its impossible to get there

Unfortunately we are dealing with the laws that operate in this world, which suggest that it would require scores of billions of years to escape this universe -- even if we could generate the escape velocity.

In additon, it has yet to be shown that there are other universes, the evidence for which is no more nor no less convincing than the evidence for the existence of heaven.

But, hey, who am I to stop you all debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?

Perhaps we should change the title of this section to 'Science Fiction and the Environment'?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th December 2008, 21:47

Since these are theoretical objects that have yet to be shown to exist (which I would claim cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist), this 'option' seems more like a modern-day equivalent of 'divine intervention'.

It's also entirely irrelevant considering the nature of the hypothetical.

Unfortunately we are dealing with the laws that operate in this world, which suggest that it would require scores of billions of years to escape this universe -- even if we could generate the escape velocity.I was curious about this, and since you mentioned it again I might as well ask; what makes you think our universe has an escape velocity? Where would things escape to, assuming a velocity below C and a trajectory through standard 4-dimensional spacetime?

In additon, it has yet to be shown that there are other universes, the evidence for which is no more nor no less convincing than the evidence for the existence of heaven.

But, hey, who am I to stop you all debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?

Perhaps we should change the title of this section to 'Science Fiction and the Environment'?Just because other universes have not been proven to exist does not mean discussion of them is invalid.

Angels have been ruled out. Other universes? Not so much.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2008, 23:46

Noxion:

It's also entirely irrelevant considering the nature of the hypothetical.

Not really. As I said, this is like the angels on the point of a needle 'puzzle'.

I was curious about this, and since you mentioned it again I might as well ask; what makes you think our universe has an escape velocity? Where would things escape to, assuming a velocity below C and a trajectory through standard 4-dimensional spacetime?

Indeed, and that is the question. If it has an escape velocity, then can we ever attain it? If it hasn't, then can we ever escape it?

Sure, the universe is pictured as a four dimensional manifold, but exacty how that is interpreted is also up for grabs.

Just because other universes have not been proven to exist does not mean discussion of them is invalid.

But, how is this different from angels and/or heaven, for which there is just as much -- or as little -- evidence?

Dr Mindbender

14th December 2008, 00:07

by 'other universes' are you referring to the theory of paralell universes?

It hasnt been proven these exist, let alone come up with a way of getting there.

The term 'universe' is supposed to refer to everything that exists, meaning all of space there is.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2008, 01:04

Ulster, you may be right, but then, these ideas are no clearer than the Christian Trinity is -- a notion that enjoys an equal amount of empirical support, which arose from the same Platonic stable as this latest crop of reified mathematics has, and which thus makes about the same amount of sense.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th December 2008, 02:34

Not really. As I said, this is like the angels on the point of a needle 'puzzle'.

The question pre-supposed inter-universal for the purposes of the hypothetical, thus it is irrelevant. I believe I answered his initial query in a satisfactory manner.

Indeed, and that is the question. If it has an escape velocity, then can we ever attain it? If it hasn't, then can we ever escape it?That would depend on the exact nature of the universe/multiverse.

But, how is this different from angels and/or heaven, for which there is just as much -- or as little -- evidence?Because universes, unlike angels, have measurable quantities. What is the difference between tweaking our universe's fine structure constant and entering another universe with the desired value, for the purposes of a hypothetical scenario? The second case involves the possibility of communication with intelligent beings that have naturally evolved in that other universe, which was another query of the OP's which I attempted to answer.

Both that and the original query fall within the magisterium of science, and while hypothetical and highly speculative, still serves the purpose of interesting people and encouraging them to learn more.

Consider the question "What would happen if the English Channel froze over?" The fact that such large bodies of water do not suddenly freeze over in real life is irrelevant - one can still predict what would happen, and the answers may serve to educate those with little or no knowledge about climate or geography. I think that's perfectly acceptable on an internet forum, where few people seem to be inclined to plow through a physics paper or two.

Or if you must deconstruct someone's hypothetical, why not do it in a more... I don't know, I guess one could say; engaging manner? For my example above, rather than blowing it off in what I see as a quite frankly stuffy and boring manner, one could point out that energy does not just disappear in such a manner and would have to go somewhere: the Channel freezes over - Siberia bursts into flames. Or if one was in an economics mood, one could point out the economic effects of having one of the world's busiest waterways clogged with billions of tons of drinks coolers.

That sort of approach seems a whole lot more educational and interesting for a format which, let's face it, ain't that formal in the first place. This isn't even Wikipedia, and I wouldn't base a doctoral thesis on the basis of that website's contents if you held a gun to my head.

Damn, this post turned out longer than I thought it would. Now look what you made me do!

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2008, 05:21

Noxion:

The question pre-supposed inter-universal for the purposes of the hypothetical, thus it is irrelevant. I believe I answered his initial query in a satisfactory manner.

Then, in a similar manner, presupposing the existence of angels, we might just as profitably try to figure-out how many can dance on the end of a pin.

Because universes, unlike angels, have measurable quantities. What is the difference between tweaking our universe's fine structure constant and entering another universe with the desired value, for the purposes of a hypothetical scenario? The second case involves the possibility of communication with intelligent beings that have naturally evolved in that other universe, which was another query of the OP's which I attempted to answer.

This universe does, but how do we know that is true of other 'universes'?

Consider the question "What would happen if the English Channel froze over?" The fact that such large bodies of water do not suddenly freeze over in real life is irrelevant - one can still predict what would happen, and the answers may serve to educate those with little or no knowledge about climate or geography. I think that's perfectly acceptable on an internet forum, where few people seem to be inclined to plow through a physics paper or two.

But this body of water, or one near it, did once freeze over.

Sure we can hypothesise about unlikely events, but then we can hypothesise about angels too, and where they can dance, and in what numbers. This is because we have as much proof they exist as we have that other universes exist. And if you are going to waste time musing about the latter, I do not see why you turn your nose up about the former.

In fact, we know far more about angels than we do about other universes.

Or if you must deconstruct someone's hypothetical, why not do it in a more... I don't know, I guess one could say; engaging manner? For my example above, rather than blowing it off in what I see as a quite frankly stuffy and boring manner, one could point out that energy does not just disappear in such a manner and would have to go somewhere: the Channel freezes over - Siberia bursts into flames. Or if one was in an economics mood, one could point out the economic effects of having one of the world's busiest waterways clogged with billions of tons of drinks coolers.

Well, you can turn this into an insult fest if you want, but we know where that will end, don't we? In the trash.

Look, I am not trying to stop you wasting your time on this piece of science fiction (even if I could!); only, if you are going to do it here, then you have no room to criticise the god-botherers, who, it seems to me, have just as much 'proof' that they are not wasting their time, either.

RebelDog

14th December 2008, 06:27

If the theory of multiverses is correct then yes. But paradoxically not as your current self, in address to the OP.

Post-Something

14th December 2008, 07:16

A better question would be "can we live in another universe".

I mean, it all depends on what kind of physical laws are in this universe., there isn't really much to work with there.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th December 2008, 07:22

Then, in a similar manner, presupposing the existence of angels, we might just as profitably try to figure-out how many can dance on the end of a pin.

We have at least one example of a universe. We have no examples of angels.

This universe does, but how do we know that is true of other 'universes'?Because we have one example and it has measurable quantities. Why should our universe be exceptional?

But this body of water, or one near it, did once freeze over.Due to entirely natural forces. No natural force that I am aware of could spontaneously freeze the Channel or transport one to another universe.

Sure we can hypothesise about unlikely events, but then we can hypothesise about angels too, and where they can dance, and in what numbers. This is because we have as much proof they exist as we have that other universes exist. And if you are going to waste time musing about the latter, I do not see why you turn your nose up about the former.

In fact, we know far more about angels than we do about other universes.Yes, knowing, self-righteous drivel by theologians on one hand and tentative hypotheses by cosmologists and physicists on the other.

You'll have to forgive me giving the time of day to people with more measureable successes than the pious dolts whose favoured zombie is over 2000 years late a-rising.

Well, you can turn this into an insult fest if you want, but we know where that will end, don't we? In the trash.I was criticising your style, not your person. I find it reminds me of the teachers I hated, rather than the teachers I believe everyone sincerely seeking knowledge deserves.

Look, I am not trying to stop you wasting your time on this piece of science fiction (even if I could!); only, if you are going to do it here, then you have no room to criticise the god-botherers, who, it seems to me, have just as much 'proof' that they are not wasting their time, either.If God-botherers want to talk about angels dancing on pins or whatever, that's entirely their prerogative. That's not why I criticise them.

I'm not pushing for my personal cosmological model to be taught in schools, unlike "Intelligent Design". I'm not calling people evil, immoral scum who can only be redeemed by accepting unfounded hypotheses as fact.

That's what Christians do, and I ain't a Christian.

Drace

14th December 2008, 07:47

Who said the concept of dying would even exist?

Its completely unimaginative.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2008, 13:08

Noxion:

We have at least one example of a universe. We have no examples of angels.

But, we have no experience of this entire universe, or indeed of other 'universes'. Moreover, we have no experience of worm holes, or how we travel to other 'universes', but you were quite happy to consider these.

Why should our universe be exceptional?

Why shouldn't it?

Due to entirely natural forces. No natural force that I am aware of could spontaneously freeze the Channel or transport one to another universe.

I agree, but then that torpedoes your hypothesis.

Yes, knowing, self-righteous drivel by theologians on one hand and tentative hypotheses by cosmologists and physicists on the other.

You'll have to forgive me giving the time of day to people with more measureable successes than the pious dolts whose favoured zombie is over 2000 years late a-rising.

Their motives are irrelevant; there is as much evidence for the one as there is for the other.

I find it reminds me of the teachers I hated, rather than the teachers I believe everyone sincerely seeking knowledge deserves.

No offence meant, but you sound like god-botherers I used to know who speculated about the properties of far way objects (in heaven) in the absence of any evidence that these exist.

If God-botherers want to talk about angels dancing on pins or whatever, that's entirely their prerogative. That's not why I criticise them.

Maybe not, and if you want to spend time on something just as time-wasting, that's your privelege, too.

I'm not pushing for my personal cosmological model to be taught in schools, unlike "Intelligent Design". I'm not calling people evil, immoral scum who can only be redeemed by accepting unfounded hypotheses as fact.

Calling them 'self-righteous' etc. sounds a little like moral condemantion -- but even so, the motives and character of god-botherers is irrelevant to the waste of time involved. So, if you want to emulate god-botherers in this one respect (i.e., time wasted over speculation about objects that share the same null set of supporting evidence), so be it.

Who am I to cavil?

That's what Christians do, and I ain't a Christian

Maybe not, but you seem especially keen to defend your one area of common interest: speculation about objects which share zero supporting evidence that they exist.

Demogorgon

14th December 2008, 14:11

This is an immensely pointless question. Given that the Universe is by definition all that we can conceivably know (plus a fair bit more of course, given there is no possible way to see it all given its size age and the speed of light) any discussion of anything else is as meaningless as asking if there were watches before time or how long dead people live for.

The question of other universes is entirely devoid of meaning. Indeed Angels are in some way less absurd as they can at least be claimed to manifest themselves in this Universe. They may not exist but at least the concept means something. Talking about other Universes doesn't mean anything at all. I think people imagine the idea sort of like there being different Universes next to one another in some way, just as there are different galaxies, but it doesn't work some way.

Even if in some esoteric manner this Universe is not the only one as can be perceived by some divine being we cannot possibly know, it still has no bearing whatsoever on us.

I find certain forms of belief in God to be very odd sometimes because it posits a God outside the Universe, a meaningless concept. Belief in other Universes is exactly the same thing, rather ironic to see it coming from certain people who dismiss belief in God as ittational.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th December 2008, 15:39

But, we have no experience of this entire universe, or indeed of other 'universes'. Moreover, we have no experience of worm holes, or how we travel to other 'universes', but you were quite happy to consider these.

For the purposes of a hypothetical, yes. That's not the same as saying they actually exist.

Why shouldn't it?The Copernican principle, really. Our planet turned out to be orbiting a small star of unremarkable proportions, which turned out form part of larger galaxy which is itself an unexceptional member of an equally nondescript cluster of same. What makes our observable universe so special in that regard?

I agree, but then that torpedoes your hypothesis.I'd better withdraw those theses on Multi-Domain Cosmology and Radical Climatology which I didn't submit then, shouldn't I?

Their motives are irrelevant; there is as much evidence for the one as there is for the other.I think the distinct lack of any angelic presence for past millennia or so is pretty much conclusive, don't you?

No offence meant, but you sound like god-botherers I used to know who speculated about the properties of far way objects (in heaven) in the absence of any evidence that these exist.Hmm, did I try to convert you to a religion? I don't remember doing so, if I did I apologise unreservedly.

Maybe not, and if you want to spend time on something just as time-wasting, that's your privelege, too.We all have our different ways of killing time. The tragic dénouement of that fact is that time ends up killing us.

Sad but true.

Calling them 'self-righteous' etc. sounds a little like moral condemantion -- but even so, the motives and character of god-botherers is irrelevant to the waste of time involved. So, if you want to emulate god-botherers in this one respect (i.e., time wasted over speculation about objects that share the same null set of supporting evidence), so be it.

Who am I to cavil?Motives are more important than you seem to think. Who do you trust more, the person who does good for goodness' sake, or the person who does good because they're told?

Likewise the motivations for speculation on the unknown - is it done out of a genuine desire to know the facts, or is it done because of the empty promises of a better life after death? Maybe I give our pre-modern forebears too much credit for attributing foolishness to their wonderings, how could they possibly have known any better?

But aside from that, I just can't help it. :laugh:

Maybe not, but you seem especially keen to defend your one area of common interest: speculation about objects which share zero supporting evidence that they exist.I have an active imagination, and I like to exercise it. Like all games, it's much more stimulating when it's multiplayer.

I find certain forms of belief in God to be very odd sometimes because it posits a God outside the Universe, a meaningless concept. Belief in other Universes is exactly the same thing, rather ironic to see it coming from certain people who dismiss belief in God as ittational.

I don't believe in other universes. I accept the possibility of other universes from my frankly limited understanding of cosmology and physics. If that possibility is either confirmed by experiment or reduced by lack of evidence over time, or somehow refuted if that's possible, then I'll continue on my merry way. It's not like I hang anything personally significant upon the matter.

After all, in space nobody can hear you scream.

marxist578

14th December 2008, 17:34

Ulster Socialist: Yes, I guess I could be referring to that in a sense, if that's what another Universe is. However, my question was about a physical presence in that other Universe.

For the record, I am not a Christian. Christianity is a flawed religion made up to control the masses. I was simply asking about the possibility of other Universes existing, and if we could travel there, what physical conditions we would have to face.

But ultimately, no matter how philosophical you get, no matter how much "facts" you have, no matter how much education you have, I guess it's just something that we don't know the answer to - at least for now.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2008, 18:21

Noxion:

For the purposes of a hypothetical, yes. That's not the same as saying they actually exist.

Same with angels, and just as pointless.

The Copernican principle, really. Our planet turned out to be orbiting a small star of unremarkable proportions, which turned out form part of larger galaxy which is itself an unexceptional member of an equally nondescript cluster of same. What makes our observable universe so special in that regard?

Well, we can suppose what we like, it seems, in such a fantasy world. So, why not ask if an angel can come to dinner in such a world? Or, if 'God' can prove 'he' exists in one? With no rules to guide us, we may imagine what we like.

That, of course, is the point of aimless time-wasting like this.

I'd better withdraw those theses on Multi-Domain Cosmology and Radical Climatology which I didn't submit then, shouldn't I?

Maybe so; especially if they are as evidentially-challenged as this.

I think the distinct lack of any angelic presence for past millennia or so is pretty much conclusive, don't you?

Christians claim otherwise. Indeed, the evidence from testimony makes belief in angels far more rational than belief in 'other universes'. [Even if I reject both.]

Hmm, did I try to convert you to a religion? I don't remember doing so, if I did I apologise unreservedly.

About the same time as you converted me to belief in these equally unlikely objects, 'other universes'.

We all have our different ways of killing time. The tragic dénouement of that fact is that time ends up killing us.

Sad but true.

But the problem is that this 'waste of time' on objects in relation to which we have not the slightest evidence that they exist, undermines your otherwise commendable defence of atheism. All a theist has to do is look at the specualtion here, and retort that none of you now has a leg to stand on in your opposition to their belief system on the grounds that there is no evidence for the existence of 'god.

Motives are more important than you seem to think. Who do you trust more, the person who does good for goodness' sake, or the person who does good because they're told?

The majority of christians I know (or used to know) also know that if they do good for just that reason, and not because they are convinced it is right, then it will be a waste of time, for their impure motives will give them away on judgement day.

So, they are in the same boat as us atheists.

Likewise the motivations for speculation on the unknown - is it done out of a genuine desire to know the facts, or is it done because of the empty promises of a better life after death? Maybe I give our pre-modern forebears too much credit for attributing foolishness to their wonderings, how could they possibly have known any better?

But aside from that, I just can't help it.

Yes, this irrational compulsion has worryingly religious overtones to it...

It also comes across in this sort of irrelevant answer to my serious objections:

I have an active imagination, and I like to exercise it. Like all games, it's much more stimulating when it's multiplayer.

How is this different from their 'opiate'?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th December 2008, 20:46

Same with angels, and just as pointless.

Yet you have seen fit to discuss the matter with a self-confessed non-expert in spite of it.

Pointless? On the contrary, it has been an education.

Well, we can suppose what we like, it seems, in such a fantasy world. So, why not ask if an angel can come to dinner in such a world? Or, if 'God' can prove 'he' exists in one? With no rules to guide us, we may imagine what we like.Who said anything about there being no rules? That's an assumption on your part. If the physical laws of a given universe are sufficiently divergent from our own, then life as we know it is impossible. What's so hard to grasp about that?

That, of course, is the point of aimless time-wasting like this.
If that's how you feel, why did you get involved in the first place? Aren't there some dialecticians you need to scare?

Christians claim otherwise. Indeed, the evidence from testimony makes belief in angels far more rational than belief in 'other universes'. [Even if I reject both.]Human testimony is notoriously unreliable, and such testimony is subject to scientific investigation. So far it has found to be wanting in that regard.

About the same time as you converted me to belief in these equally unlikely objects, 'other universes'.So... never?

I guess that's alright then.

But the problem is that this 'waste of time' on objects in relation to which we have not the slightest evidence that they exist, undermines your otherwise commendable defence of atheism. All a theist has to do is look at the specualtion here, and retort that none of you now has a leg to stand on in your opposition to their belief system on the grounds that there is no evidence for the existence of 'god.And as I stated and will state again, "time-wasting" is not why I am critical of Christianity, or indeed any other religion. I am fully aware that the hypothetical scenarios will not occur within my lifetime, if ever. That is the principle difference between me and the Christian - they think they are talking about things which actually exist, I don't.

The majority of christians I know (or used to know) also know that if they do good for just that reason, and not because they are convinced it is right, then it will be a waste of time, for their impure motives will give them away on judgement day.

So, they are in the same boat as us atheists.Not really. Atheists, I've noticed, generally don't believe they are going to be judged by God.

Yes, this irrational compulsion has worryingly religious overtones to it...Not all human activities have to be rational in and of themselves, don'tcherknow. Why is she playing Tetris? lining up lots of little blocks to make them disappear for no material reward, how ridiculous! They're not even real blocks!

Incidentally, I happen to like playing Tetris.

It also comes across in this sort of irrelevant answer to my serious objections:

How is this different from their 'opiate'?Because, like most sane Tetris players, I don't automatically assume it's for real.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2008, 23:34

Noxion:

Yet you have seen fit to discuss the matter with a self-confessed non-expert in spite of it.

Does this mean that you are an expert on angels, or 'other universes', or both?

Pointless? On the contrary, it has been an education.

And the education has been to reveal that it is indeed pointless.

Who said anything about there being no rules? That's an assumption on your part. If the physical laws of a given universe are sufficiently divergent from our own, then life as we know it is impossible. What's so hard to grasp about that?

Science fiction rules, I admit -- but no other. You can only guess at the 'laws' these universes have, just as the god-botherers can only guess how many angels can waltz on the point of a pin.

If that's how you feel, why did you get involved in the first place? Aren't there some dialecticians you need to scare?

1) I am always concerend when comrades get involved in activities that allow the god-botherers to say: "You see, you lot also believe in things you cannot see, or prove!"

2) Dialecticians? Scared them all; I need fresh victims.

Human testimony is notoriously unreliable, and such testimony is subject to scientific investigation. So far it has found to be wanting in that regard.

In that case, your testimony that testimony is unreliable is equally unreliable, as, too, is the testimony of anyone who studied this scientifically.

If, on the other hand, scientific testimony is reliable, then not all human testimony is unrelaible and those involved in such studies screwed up.

So... never?

I guess that's alright then

Well, not really, because you didn't convert me to religious belief (as you surmised), but you did convince me that your objections to theism are only superficial, since you too believe in stuff for which there is no evidence -- or, at least you are quite happy to mull it over.

And as I stated and will state again, "time-wasting" is not why I am critical of Christianity, or indeed any other religion. I am fully aware that the hypothetical scenarios will not occur within my lifetime, if ever. That is the principle difference between me and the Christian - they think they are talking about things which actually exist, I don't.

Yes, I got that point; but unfortunatley, you are only succeeding in undermining your atheism by wasting time on speculation about unseen entities, the evidence for which is at least as poor as that to which theists appeal.

And it is all the same to me if you so waste your time, but then, your unwise activity simply provides ammunition for the god-botherers who will simply retort: "You have no reason to criticise us for belief in unseen/unproven entities, or our theories about them (our theology), since you too theorise about your own unseen/unproven entities."

Atheists, I've noticed, generally don't believe they are going to be judged by God.

Indeed, but that is not the point: Christians also have to act out of unselfish motives, just like atheists are supposed to do. Indeed, there are Christian non-theists, who do not believe in divine judgement, but who also believe they have to act out of non-selfish motives.

Not all human activities have to be rational in and of themselves, don'tcherknow. Why is she playing Tetris? lining up lots of little blocks to make them disappear for no material reward, how ridiculous! They're not even real blocks!

Indeed, that is why I called this your opiate. But, the more of it you snort, the less room you have for criticising mystics for their need for similar irrationalism.

Incidentally, I happen to like playing Tetris.

Fine; we all have to find some way to relax. Mine is to have a go at comrades who inadvertently undermine the argument for atheism (on my day off from scaring dialecticians, that is).

Because, like most sane Tetris players, I don't automatically assume it's for real.

Well, of course, my point concerned your speculation about 'other universes', so I take it that your irrelevant answer confirms my previous point, which was:

It also comes across in this sort of irrelevant answer to my serious objections:

How is this different from their 'opiate'?

butterfly

15th December 2008, 01:49

Though science that explores unproven hypothesis could have religious connotations in a sense, there are no rules to abide by that restrict individual freedom.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th December 2008, 14:45

Does this mean that you are an expert on angels, or 'other universes', or both?

No on both counts.

And the education has been to reveal that it is indeed pointless.I find it interesting, so it's not pointless to me.

Science fiction rules, I admit -- but no other. You can only guess at the 'laws' these universes have, just as the god-botherers can only guess how many angels can waltz on the point of a pin.The ambiguity derives from the failure of the OP to specify just what the laws of this other universe were. Given that, I gave the best answer I could with the knowledge I have to hand.

1) I am always concerend when comrades get involved in activities that allow the god-botherers to say: "You see, you lot also believe in things you cannot see, or prove!"If a god-bother, or anyone else, says that, they have obviously not been paying attention.

In that case, your testimony that testimony is unreliable is equally unreliable, as, too, is the testimony of anyone who studied this scientifically.Don't take my word for it - try and find for yourself evidence that angels exist for beyond "because I said so".

If, on the other hand, scientific testimony is reliable, then not all human testimony is unrelaible and those involved in such studies screwed up.What, every one of them? :lol:

Well, not really, because you didn't convert me to religious belief (as you surmised), but you did convince me that your objections to theism are only superficial, since you too believe in stuff for which there is no evidence -- or, at least you are quite happy to mull it over.You conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. An atheist's willingness to discuss things that have no proven existence has no bearing on their criticisms of religion. Why should it?

Yes, I got that point; but unfortunatley, you are only succeeding in undermining your atheism by wasting time on speculation about unseen entities, the evidence for which is at least as poor as that to which theists appeal.How does being an atheist preclude being able to discuss other universes?

And it is all the same to me if you so waste your time, but then, your unwise activity simply provides ammunition for the god-botherers who will simply retort: "You have no reason to criticise us for belief in unseen/unproven entities, or our theories about them (our theology), since you too theorise about your own unseen/unproven entities."Except that unlike the theist, I don't believe that other universes are real. Why should I let that stop me discussing them? Because someone else might get the wrong idea? Why then discuss communism, since someone could get the wrong idea that I want to put lots of people in gulags?

Indeed, but that is not the point: Christians also have to act out of unselfish motives, just like atheists are supposed to do. Indeed, there are Christian non-theists, who do not believe in divine judgement, but who also believe they have to act out of non-selfish motives.Atheists are not "supposed" to act in any manner, since atheism is a position about the existence of deities, rather than a moral code.

You statement about non-theistic Christians only proves my point - they believe thay have to act non-selfishly, whereas I don't. My "good behaviour" comes out of my own selfish desire not to suffer myself or cause undue suffering in others, since I find that unpleasant.

Indeed, that is why I called this your opiate. But, the more of it you snort, the less room you have for criticising mystics for their need for similar irrationalism.I disagree. And I believe opium is smoked rather than snorted.

Fine; we all have to find some way to relax. Mine is to have a go at comrades who inadvertently undermine the argument for atheism (on my day off from scaring dialecticians, that is).It only undermines the argument for atheism if you think the question of whether deities exist or not hangs on the discussion of other universes, which it doesn't, no more than discussion of Pooh Bear does.

Well, of course, my point concerned your speculation about 'other universes', so I take it that your irrelevant answer confirms my previous point, which was:Because I don't assume that other universes automatically exist. I see no reason why that should prevent me from discussing them. "Because theists might get the wrong idea" is a lame reason because the sort of theist who does that is also the sort of theist unlikely to be convinced by any reasoned argument on the non-existance of gods.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th December 2008, 15:39

Thanks for that Noxion, but I have wasted enough time trying to persuade you that you are giving succour to the god-botherers.

If I have failed to convince you so be it. So, please feel to speculate to your heart's content about your own version of heaven, and your own version of the mysteries of the Holy Trinity untrammelled with awkward reminders from your very own atheists' conscience: moi.

Decolonize The Left

16th December 2008, 06:59

I have a question.

If you were to travel to another Universe, what physical conditions would you face? Since this Universe would have different physical laws than ours, what would happen? People have said that lifeforms there would be something we can't even imagine (because of the different physical laws) and that we couldn't even use telepathy to communicate because telepathy is considered a universal method of communication with each other and this is in another Universe.

So can someone please answer this question? If the situation would be as described above, then I can't imagine any worse kind of hell.

I will answer your question.

1. We don't know if other universes exist.
2. If they do exist, we don't know if cross-universe travel is possible.
3. If it was possible, we don't know how to do it.
4. If we could do it, we couldn't know the framework of the other universe.
5. If the framework was anything other than three-dimensional, we could not enter it as three-dimensional beings hence the question is null.

But,
6. If it was three-dimensional and we could enter it, we could not be certain that life existed within it.
7. If life did exist within it, we could not be certain to find it, or communicate with any life forms.
8. If we could find said life forms, and communicate with them (assuming the are what we would call 'people'), this question is null as by this point the answer to the question would already have been revealed.

- August

DesertShark

16th December 2008, 15:20

Scaletghoul:

Unfortunately we are dealing with the laws that operate in this world, which suggest that it would require scores of billions of years to escape this universe -- even if we could generate the escape velocity.

In additon, it has yet to be shown that there are other universes, the evidence for which is no more nor no less convincing than the evidence for the existence of heaven.

But, hey, who am I to stop you all debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?

Perhaps we should change the title of this section to 'Science Fiction and the Environment'?
You tend to kill the fun out of threads. I'm saying this because I've seen it happen many many times and honestly it gets annoying because it detracts from the thread and diminishes the quality.

Like on this thread, your claims about us not knowing other universes exist and 'how we would get there' is irrelevant if you look at the original question, which starts out with: "If you were to travel to another Universe,(...)" The asker has already posited there are other universes (well at least one) and that you can travel to it; the asker should have probably posited more details about this other universe, but that's another story.

Yea religions suck, almost everyone on here knows that; so why go into the god/religion-shit? Start a thread in OI if you want to get into that with some people. If the asker had posited a universe that was created by a single being that looked like us and this creator had complete control and knowledge of everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen - then yea, totally get into the religious stuff or maybe you could take a few moments of your time and actually think about it. Then realize how much that would suck and be happy our universe isn't that way.

A better question might have been (if you wanted to wax philosophical), 'How would traveling to another universe effect the continuity of self of the person traveling? how can we be sure its the same person? OR Would traveling to this other universe leave the original self in the first universe and create a copy in the next? how would this be reconciled if the copy tries to return to the first universe?' - stuff like that [which if anyone wants to address, do it!]. Or instead of "angels on a pinhead", what about a whole other universe on a pinhead? Or what if our universe was on the head of a pin? That would be crazy!! It also makes me think of Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss.

The fun thing about hypotheticals is that they challenge you to think outside your normal box of thinking, outside your comfort zone and perhaps make you challenge your current ideas/beliefs/etc (which will either strengthen them or cause you to change them). One should always be questioning their own beliefs/ideas to ensure their validity; there's nothing wrong with challenging yourself to think. And if you believe its a waste of time, then don't do it but don't kill a thread along the way either. Have some fun.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th December 2008, 21:13

DS:

You tend to kill the fun out of threads. I'm saying this because I've seen it happen many many times and honestly it gets annoying because it detracts from the thread and diminishes the quality.

How is it possible for me to 'kill the fun out of threads'? The only way, it seems to me, is to point out that certain comrades here are little better than the god-botherers among us who also believe in things for which there is no evidence.

If, therefore, it's 'fun' for you to emulate medieval theologians, trying to do the modern-day equivalent of working out how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, then I apologise -- please feel free to engage in this sort of 'fun'.

But, don't let the theists see this thread or they will just point fingers back at you and say "See, you lot believe in the same sort of entities as we do!"

DesertShark

16th December 2008, 23:51

DS:

How is it possible for me to 'kill the fun out of threads'? The only way, it seems to me, is to point out that certain comrades here are little better than the god-botherers among us who also believe in things for which there is no evidence.

If, therefore, it's 'fun' for you to emulate medieval theologians, trying to do the modern-day equivalent of working out how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, then I apologise -- please feel free to engage in this sort of 'fun'.

But, don't let the theists see this thread or they will just point fingers back at you and say "See, you lot believe in the same sort of entities as we do!"
Yea...when I was talking about the "fun killing," I was referring to the very long argument you and NoXion had going on about things that weren't entirely relevant to original question asked (which is how the quality of the thread deteriorates). Which is why I offered up some questions that would get into the idea of travel across universes aside from the fact that its not possible (yet?).

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 00:27

Noxion:

Since these are theoretical objects that have yet to be shown to exist (which I would claim cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist), this 'option' seems more like a modern-day equivalent of 'divine intervention'.

Things don't suddenly physically exist because one becomes a Platonist. What on Earth are you talking about, you mystic?

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 00:38

Noxion:
2) Dialecticians? Scared them all;

Bored 'em to death, more like. :sleep:

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th December 2008, 00:49

DS:

Yea...when I was talking about the "fun killing," I was referring to the very long argument you and NoXion had going on about things that weren't entirely relevant to original question asked (which is how the quality of the thread deteriorates).

Takes two to 'fun kill' (me and Noxion), and it is relevant to us atheists that we give no advantage to the mystics.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th December 2008, 00:52

BTB:

Things don't suddenly physically exist because one becomes a Platonist. What on Earth are you talking about, you mystic?

Oh dear! Do I have to explain every difficult idea to you? It really is quite tiring.

But, where did I use the word "suddenly"? And we were talking about mathematical objects, you pl*nker. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/ugh.gif

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th December 2008, 00:54

BTB:

Bored 'em to death, more like.

Yes, it seems that words that have more than two syllables tend to switch you mystics off. Low attention span, or something. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/sleeppy.gif

DesertShark

17th December 2008, 01:08

DS:

Takes two to 'fun kill' (me and Noxion), and it is relevant to us atheists that we give no advantage to the mystics.
Yes, but you are the cause on this thread and numerous others. Although, right now I'm the cause of digression...

If you don't bring up religion/religious things, do you think anyone else will? This what I dislike about atheists and why I refuse to call myself one; I'd rather never get into the talk about religion, then argue ridiculous points between dogmatic people. Don't you think you give them an advantage by bringing it up at all? By even acknowledging religion as an intelligible topic for debate on a unrelated thread gives the mystics the advantage.

DesertShark

17th December 2008, 01:10

I digressed too much, my apologies to those viewing this thread.

Back on topic, I have some questions:

How would traveling to another universe effect the continuity of self of the person traveling? How can we be sure its the same person?

OR

Would traveling to this other universe leave the original self in the first universe and create a copy in the next? How would this be reconciled if the copy tries to return to the first universe? Also, if there are copies in these other universes, what would death of a copy mean to the original and vice versa?

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 01:18

BTB:

Oh dear! Do I have to explain every difficult idea to you? It really is quite tiring.

But, where did I use the word "suddenly"? And we were talking about mathematical objects, you pl*nker. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/ugh.gif

No, you clearly stated this:

which I would claim cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonistreferring to things which "physically exist", not "mathematical objects" - unless you want to argue that mathematical objects physically exist.

Moreover your claim suggests that something cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist - as if being a Platonist has the power to summon something into existence when it did not otherwise. "Suddenly" has nothing to do with it.

And don't call me a plonker - I'm not Rodney and you are not Del Boy.
And yes, you do "kill the fun in threads". Everyone except you knows it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th December 2008, 01:40

BTB:

No, you clearly stated this:

which I would claim cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist

referring to things which "physically exist", not "mathematical objects" - unless you want to argue that mathematical objects physically exist.

Moreover your claim suggests that something cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist - as if being a Platonist has the power to summon something into existence when it did not otherwise. "Suddenly" has nothing to do with it.

Read it again, but with your glasses on this time. There is no claim in there about "things which "physically exist"", but about things which "cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist", and that in itself refers to the following exchange with Noxion:

Wormhole?

Since these are theoretical objects that have yet to be shown to exist (which I would claim cannot physically exist unless one is a Platonist), this 'option' seems more like a modern-day equivalent of 'divine intervention'.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1309338&postcount=12

And, as you probably do not know, wormholes, in physics, are mathematical objects.

Now, do you need help in figuring out how to open and close doors, by any chance?

If so, you only have to ask...

And don't call me a plonker - I'm not Rodney and you are not Del Boy.

And yes, you do "kill the fun in threads". Everyone except you knows it.

Ok, can we have the RevLeft survey results (and the thread link) that supports this contention. I am sure they must be to hand, for only a plonker would say this with no evidence to back it up, wouldn't he?

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 01:52

BTB:

And, as you probably do not know, wormholes, in physics, are mathematical objects.

But in order for them to be used to travel from one universe to the other, as Noxion suggested, they would have to be physical objects, no?

Meanwhile your statement that wormholes cannot exist unless one is a Platonist still stands doesn't it?

Even if the wormholes you are referring to are "mathematical objects", are you claiming that they cannot exist mathematically unless one is a Platonist? If so, is it your contention that being a Platonist alters mathematics or that Platonists have a different kind of mathematics?

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 01:55

Ok, can we have the RevLeft survey results (and the thread link) that supports this contention.

If you want to start a poll on how annoying everyone finds you, be my guest. Otherwise you'll just have to take our word for it. :)

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 01:59

But to get back to the OP... I think it is possible to die in another universe. But it would be very impolite. And you shouldn't expect the folks there to meet the costs of your funeral.

Glenn Beck

17th December 2008, 02:49

Who said the concept of dying would even exist?

Its completely unimaginative.

I'm pretty sure death precedes any concept of it. If you are somehow bodily transported to a place where you are unable to physically function or persist as a personality or whatever, you're dead, whether that place is the bottom of a lake, the surface of the sun, or some unspecified hypothetical "other" place with different physical laws. I don't see why we'd want to think that ideas like "death" have some sort of inherent and pre-existing quality, death is just our stand-in term for the class of things that were once what we call alive but aren't anymore (at least thats my view).

But I guess since we're playing with wild hypotheticals here anyway, I suppose its at least conceivable that you could end up in a universe almost identical but just different enough to prevent the biological processes that cause you to age from taking place. Or maybe a universe where your thought processes are somehow disembodied and made timeless in some way that we obviously know nothing about because it doesn't exist (at least not in any way that is meaningful to us). Or probably more plausibly if less pleasant a universe where you keep experiencing the same brief interval of time in a loop thus not giving you the chance to die.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th December 2008, 03:35

BTB:

But in order for them to be used to travel from one universe to the other, as Noxion suggested, they would have to be physical objects, no?

You miss the point again (and unsurprisinlgy so). At present 'wormholes' are mathematical objects, so to suppose they exist in the physical universe is to adopt a Platonic view of mathematics. No mathematical object can physically exist.

Meanwhile your statement that wormholes cannot exist unless one is a Platonist still stands doesn't it?

Even if the wormholes you are referring to are "mathematical objects", are you claiming that they cannot exist mathematically unless one is a Platonist? If so, is it your contention that being a Platonist alters mathematics or that Platonists have a different kind of mathematics?

They do exist mathematically (in that they are the product of some proof or other) -- where have I said otherwise?

The point is that they cannot exist physically, any more than, say, the average family with 2.4 children can exist physically.

Platonists have a different view of the nature of mathematical truth. For them, mathematics is true because of the pre-existence of mathematical objects, which we then discover -- however, where they exist while we are looking for them they are rather vague about. If you want a neat expression of this view, check out Roger Penrose's book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality:_A_Complete_Guide_to_the_Laws_ of_the_Universe

But, why am I having to give you lessons here? Are you really this unaware of the issues? [I often accuse dialectical mystics of being ignorant of modern logic; looks like I was being overly generous!]

If you want to start a poll on how annoying everyone finds you, be my guest. Otherwise you'll just have to take our word for it.

Well, you have been a stranger to the truth here now for well over two years. So, because of your track record, it is reasonably safe to conclude that the opposite of your allegations is true.

Hence, unless you have the required evidence (ha!), we can safely put this latest claim of yours down to the fact that your are acting true to form once more, and making stuff up about me.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_liar.gif

That's Ok. Whatever gets you saddos through the day...