The birth of the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT):

[Geoff Dann]

Really?

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Listing "potential habitats" is not actually getting us any closer to finding alien life. We've been clutching at straws like this for a very long time now.

 

[Geoff Dann]

And if Musk flies to Mars, then the Earth will no longer be the only planet with the conscious beings. Do you agree?

That is irrelevant though. It will still be the same instance of conscious life. The theory doesn't say humans can't travel to Mars. It says there isn't any life there before we get there.

 

[marcin]

So theoretically humanity could spread across the whole galaxy, inhabit multiple planets, and your theory would still be in agreement with it, yes? Conscious observers would be separated by a tens of light years.

If all these potentially habitable planets are lifeless, then I still wonder why I don't and you have a problem imagining a planet full of life in other galaxy within our observable universe, but also and especially beyond it.

The funnienst thing for me in our conversation and in this theory is that retrocausality based on our consciousness shaping the past could make aliens pop-up out of non-existence and align them with everything that we know so far. Do you agree with it?

Sorry for mixing the forums, but it would be great if you also replied to this comment:

Physics Discussion Forum-New "two phase" cosmology and QM interpretation, solves 15+ foundational problems

What if one simple new suggestion resolves nearly all of the major outstanding problems/paradoxes in cosmology, and doesn't introduce any new ones? Si

physicsdiscussionforum.org

 

[Geoff Dann]

So theoretically humanity could spread across the whole galaxy, inhabit multiple planets, and your theory would still be in agreement with it, yes? Conscious observers would be separated by a tens of light years.

Given enough time, yes. I am not saying there's a laws-of-physics reason why conscious organisms can't spread, only that it can only have evolved once, in one place.

If all these potentially habitable planets are lifeless, then I still wonder why I don't and you have a problem imagining a planet full of life in other galaxy within our observable universe, but also and especially beyond it.

The reason is that I understand my theory and you don't. It explains a whole bunch of stuff which isn't explainable any other way, and it has an implication that conscious life can only evolve once (and almost certainly the same applies to any form of life).

The funnienst thing for me in our conversation and in this theory is that retrocausality based on our consciousness shaping the past could make aliens pop-up out of non-existence and align them with everything that we know so far. Do you agree with it?

No, that doesn't work. Our consciousness can't shape the past in that way -- it can only do so with respect to our own consciousness -- it can't cause consciousness to arise somewhere else. That doesn't fit the theory.

Sorry for mixing the forums, but it would be great if you also replied to this comment:

Physics Discussion Forum-New "two phase" cosmology and QM interpretation, solves 15+ foundational problems

What if one simple new suggestion resolves nearly all of the major outstanding problems/paradoxes in cosmology, and doesn't introduce any new ones? Si

physicsdiscussionforum.org

I hadn't seen that. That is you is it?

 

[marcin]

Given enough time, yes. I am not saying there's a laws-of-physics reason why conscious organisms can't spread, only that it can only have evolved once, in one place.

I see the problem with "one place" even on a single planet. We would all have to evolve from a single, self replicating rna molecule. If there were at least two of them, they were not in one place.

it has an implication that conscious life can only evolve once (and almost certainly the same applies to any form of life).

I'm not an expert in the history of the Earth, but I know that there were a multiple extinctions, and that single cell organisms could have beed eradicated by a cosmic events multiple times, so their evolution could have started from scratch many times.

No, that doesn't work. Our consciousness can't shape the past in that way -- it can only do so with respect to our own consciousness -- it can't cause consciousness to arise somewhere else. That doesn't fit the theory.

We don't have a collective consciousness. One consciousness can certainly affect the others. It can even create a new one - in a traditional way

I hadn't seen that. That is you is it?

No, but I like his objections.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I see the problem with "one place" even on a single planet. We would all have to evolve from a single, self replicating rna molecule. If there were at least two of them, they were not in one place.

We already knew that there have been multiple individual bottlenecks of this sort. Eukaryogenesis is probably the single most improbable event in the whole of phase 1 history -- it happened only once. LUCAS is a special example of this, because it was accompanied by a metaphysical phase shift in reality, but there have been multiple instances of specific critical events only happening once.

I'm not an expert in the history of the Earth, but I know that there were a multiple extinctions, and that single cell organisms could have beed eradicated by a cosmic events multiple times, so their evolution could have started from scratch many times.

Not if it is structurally teleological it can't. Without teleology there would be no abiogenesis -- that's another example of a one-off. The old paradigm says "It happened once, it must be possible it could happen twice." This new proposal turns that on its head and says it almost certainly only happened once, and it only happened at all because of the immense computing power of MWI. It took 8 billion years of every possible outcome occurring to make it happen once. Without MWI loading the quantum dice in this way, it cannot happen again -- not even in a cosmos the size of ours.

 

[marcin]

It took 8 billion years of every possible outcome occurring to make it happen once. Without MWI loading the quantum dice in this way, it cannot happen again -- not even in a cosmos the size of ours.

Did you calculate it?

 

[marcin]

I like your honesty on physicsdiscussionforum.org:

>Could you show me a single example of how you work a practical physics problem out with a wave-function ?

No. But this isn't about practical physics. It is about the philosophical context in which we understand what physics actually is. The only practical purpose is getting rid of what currently look like really horrible problems (such as the measurement problem) by understanding why they currently look so horrible. These sorts of problems, rather than being solved, usually end up being "dissolved" instead. Sometimes they are dissolved by a new paradigm within science, and sometimes it is at least partly philosophical. In this case it is deeply philosophical, which is why such a diverse range of problems are being dissolved (or solved).

 

[Geoff Dann]

Did you calculate it?

I don't have to. If it can only happen once, for structural reasons, no calculation is required.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I like your honesty on physicsdiscussionforum.org:

There is no point in being anything other than honest. I'm a philosopher. We are discussing philosophy. It just happens to be a part of philosophy which is directly connected to cosmology. This should not be that surprising -- the word "cosmology" has a meaning beyond physics anyway. In anthropology it refers to a "worldview" in the broadest sense -- a foundational set of beliefs about what reality is, how it works and what the place of humans is within it.

 

[marcin]

I don't have to. If it can only happen once, for structural reasons, no calculation is required.

So your structural reasons have nothing to do with the calculation of probability ?