Deep Thoughts
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,099 comments
- 78,935 views
- 5,215
- Nicest part of hell
Recently I dreamed about waking up and going to work doing the daily grind. Absolutely nothing was out of the ordinary, nothing strange or crazy happened that could give away that it as just a dream. I dreamed about waking up, making breakfast, I was in the office doing the usual stuff, making calls, chatting with people, everything super detailed. It was 100% like in ''real life.''
When I woke up I was super confused and for the rest of the day I was not sure if I was still dreaming. And there is no way to be sure.
Makes one think about reality and the possibility of all just being a dream. On the other hand, isn't dream reality in itself? Like a little pocket reality?
Actions sure have consequences in my dreams, they're not pure chaos but have their own laws, own ''inhabitants'' and I can feel just like in what we consider ''reality''.
Sometimes I ponder about the possibility of everything being one large dream - with the difference that its a dream many minds are fabricating at the same time and we -more or less- share with each other in consensus creating what we call reality.
When I woke up I was super confused and for the rest of the day I was not sure if I was still dreaming. And there is no way to be sure.
Makes one think about reality and the possibility of all just being a dream. On the other hand, isn't dream reality in itself? Like a little pocket reality?
Actions sure have consequences in my dreams, they're not pure chaos but have their own laws, own ''inhabitants'' and I can feel just like in what we consider ''reality''.
Sometimes I ponder about the possibility of everything being one large dream - with the difference that its a dream many minds are fabricating at the same time and we -more or less- share with each other in consensus creating what we call reality.
Last edited:
- 11,189
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
I'm not expert in dreams but a theory of mine is that those who have contrary dreams to their reality have more grip on reality than those who don't, or at least during that period. With dreams being absurd or at least not realistic, it helps people differ from what is Reality and what isn't. If you have dreams just about normal life or maybe is real life you are so crazy you see things you see in your dream, you might not have that much grip of reality as it is hard to differ between the 2 or maybe perhaps like what you said, thinking it is all a dream.
Hopefully I didn't offend you by saying this
, I tried my best to write my theory without coming across as rude or offensive .
Danoff
Premium
- 34,057
- Mile High City
I watch sports as though it matters who wins (football, olympics, battlebots...). What's worse, I watch MOVIES about sports as though it matters who wins. Heck I watch movies in general as though it matters who wins. I think it's human nature to pick a side, no matter how insignificantly that side was chosen.
- 2,865
- Australia
That something is human nature disqualifies craziness?
I personally have no blanket issue with giving manufactured meaning to the arbitrary, and think that it can have therapeutic value. Based on your criteria though, barracking for a team when there is nothing actual to gain does smell of the crazies.
- 7,432
- Fort Collins, CO
- Koios1031
- koios1031
@W3HS and @axletramp, you two are absolutely crazy! But you'd make a cute couple.
- 1,817
- Weirs Beach, NH
- RS73private
GTP is now a dating website.
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
Only in this universe though.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
No.
No.
There would need to be an infinite number of what we're calling "universes", despite the definition itself making that kind-of impossible.
You say yourself that "all possibilities are an actuality", that precludes (as would be obvious) things that are impossible. Immediately that goes on to preclude things that are impossible which in turn precludes an infinite set of actualities. The possibilities are finite, massive in number but definitely finite.
That also precludes your paradox; there's no need for a non-infinite universe bracket to exist in that set of finite possible-"universes".
Interesting thought though
- 30,042
- Thailand
I should have worded it better - endless (infinite) multiverse.
So that is to say an infinite set of actualities is impossible? Surely to make that claim one would need certain proof of that the universe or multiverse were finite.
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
So I was trying to come up with a reasonable position to take on stuff being infinite, and multi-verses etc. What kept tripping me up was two things...
Is anything really random? If you took a slice of time (called for example t=1), recorded the state of absolutely every single variable in the universe, and applied the sum of all Physics, Chemistry and Biology to it, is state of all the variables at the outcome (i.e. t=2) not predictable?
What is the resolution of time and matter? Is our universe completely 'analogue', or is it 'digital to a ridiculously detailed level'. Is there a point we can look at something so closely, that we find a subdivision so small, in time or matter, that it has no relevance to the subdivided space and time around it?
Thoughts?
Is anything really random? If you took a slice of time (called for example t=1), recorded the state of absolutely every single variable in the universe, and applied the sum of all Physics, Chemistry and Biology to it, is state of all the variables at the outcome (i.e. t=2) not predictable?
What is the resolution of time and matter? Is our universe completely 'analogue', or is it 'digital to a ridiculously detailed level'. Is there a point we can look at something so closely, that we find a subdivision so small, in time or matter, that it has no relevance to the subdivided space and time around it?
Thoughts?
- 7,173
- Jakarta
I'm not good at explaining some things but in my opinion, i think both randomness and action/reaction like physics, biology and chemistry plays a factor in some things that happened.
I got nothing about your 2nd question though, sorry.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
My suspicion is that everything is random if you dig deep enough, but randomness in the aggregate is very predictable. For instance, there is no way of knowing when a particular uranium-238 nucleus will spontaneously decay but with a sufficiently large sample size we can say with a high degree of precision that half the sample will have decayed after 4.5 billion years.
Then there is the incredibly improbable but certainly possible scenario of putting a pot of water on the stove, turning the heat on, and having the water freeze instead of boil.
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
I think I'm of the opposite opinion.. Nothing is random if you dig deep enough - the more variables that are monitored and replicated, the less random a random event would be. I mean, I'm talking to a level that simply isn't possible by mankind's technology, but rather in principle.
Where I'm going with this thought process, is that if every outcome is inevitable, based on the state of everything the moment before, and we extrapolate that back to the big bang, for example, then alternate realities based on different past events could not exist. The only way an alternate reality could then exist, would be if the start point was, in some way different.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
That's the thing, though -- it's not possible to know precisely enough. The more precisely you establish the location of an electron, say, the less precisely it is possible to simultaneously determine its momentum. That's what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is all about. It's why there was a good bit of resistance to the acceptance of quantum mechanics by "classical" physicists in the early-mid 20th century; the fact that we can't measure everything. Not that we lack the tools or knowhow, it's not possible.
So you're talking a level that not only isn't possible by mankind's technology, its not possible in principle either.
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
It's not so much the idea of mankind having anything to do with it at all. The location of an electron and it's momentum, are variables/numbers that do exist, whether we know them or not, or can observe them or not - they are still things that exist. The laws of the universe exist, whether we know them or not. Therefore, the state of something at t = 2, was determined by its state at t = 1, once the laws of the universe are applied. Of course it's not really possible for mankind to observe everything in this detail... but in principle it would negate the idea of chance, and therefore that there could ever be more than one outcome from any given starting point.
.. unless truly fundamental isolated random interactions exist.
.. that's kind of what I'm wondering.
Another more philosophical way of looking at it, is how can anything happen, without a reason.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
This concept of a deterministic universe, that if we knew the current conditions of everything with sufficient accuracy we could predict what happens next, also known as the "clockwork universe", was very much in vogue in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But quantum theory shows that it really isn't that way.
Things do happen at the subatomic level with no reason. Not "we don 't know the reason", truly no reason. Such as particle pairs spontaneously appearing from literally nothing.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,057
- Mile High City
If someone is referred to as "one of a kind", they're being referred to as unique. In otherwords, they're incomparable, there is no group, or kind, that they can be compared to. "One of a kind" literally means a member of a group. The phrase would be closer to correct if it were "a kind of one".
Similar threads
