Bas C. van Fraassen - What are Possible Worlds?

[@archaeologistify]

This has slowly but surely become my favorite channel. You are a great interviewer with a lot of insight into the topics and capable of understanding and therefore asking in-depth on topic questions.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Reality is absolutely infinite ♾

[@andrewphillips6783]

You are talking about ideas that are tough to articulate with only words.

[@sk8shred]

Awesome guy this Bas van Fraassen (and Dutch like me too!). I've tried to read his 'Scientific Representation' and it's crazy difficult without a philosophy (of science) background, but damn interesting nonetheless. I really don't know whether to be an empiricist or a scientific realist, there's always so much to learn.

[@bobcabot]

we cant wrap our heads around the human tragedy: but we still live in the best of all possible worlds...

[@robertsaget9697]

a world where millions die from natural disasters, disease, starvation, etc is the "best of all possible worlds". wow. how depressing that you think that is the BEST things can be.

[@bobcabot]

@@robertsaget9697 It is a famous quote from Leibniz...

[@Akswan]

You and Robert are bouth right..🤗

[@evanjameson5437]

Robert--you are a skilled interviewer!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could awareness and understanding of universe and mind be a basis for the reality of consciousness?

[@ibperson7765]

Yes. And the ancients understood this better than we do. They just used terms like soul instead of consciousness and spirit instead of awareness.

[@ibperson7765]

Dude the universe can't just be matter. Otherwise there would be no subjective side. It would all just be happening in the dark, no awareness, no knowing. Increasing complexity doesnt make a whole separate reality spring from this side. (Goedels theorem there must be mind, not apparent mind. Thats a different angle to it though. Consider this: information theory has advanced to the point appearing to be absolute laws, but no one can rigorously define information; it takes a mind. No one can say rigorously what makes some configuration (matter or charge etc) a bit, as opposed to just a physical configuration. It requires mind, not just apparent mind.)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can a possible world observe mathematics describe a particular set of physical laws? And would the description of a set of physical laws by mathematics be enough for physical reality, if the set of physical laws are complete for a physical reality?

[@Bill..N]

Great interview,, and alot to agree with.. One issue though, It's so common to hear the disparaging meme that MW says that countless worlds are continuously being created or splitting off, etc..Perhaps a better alternative picture would be a PREEXISTING highway system with countless exits to other such highways..In some respects we are the "Travelers" of that existant road system.. A humble opinion..

[@Bill..N]

Ps: We INTUITIVELY understand how this works..Obviously a consequential decision now, will in SOME fashion change your future path from what it otherwise WOULD have been..Peace friends.

[@litafbobpompeani7711]

Yeah it showed that philosopher knew very little about the interpretation other than what he may have heard in pop culture. But I guess part of the problem is the title of the interpretation itself. It should've stayed called the Everett interpretation or relative state function so laymen would not be confused. People fail to realize the Many "worlds" interpretation is a misnomer. It should not be called many "worlds" because it gets people to think about the interpretation in the wrong way. It is more like "The Many Timelines Interpretation" but folks hear many "worlds" and start to think of a cosmological multiverse in actual space or something to deal with inflation or even string theory stuff. These are not the same at all, yet people act as if Everett proponents are talking about these and then on top of that badly equate "branching/splitting" as physical duplicates in ACTUAL space dealing with some aspects of those other types of multiverse models. That is NOT what the Everett interpretation says at all. It isn't about duplication of universes and splitting/branching isn't happening. In fact the Everett interpretation it is not technically actually a multiple universe theory with how it defines "universe". There is only 1 universe under the Everett interpretation that is 1 giant superposition state. All it supposes is that what the actual universe is a universal wavefunction and that subatomic behavior applies to macroscale systems as well. 1 universe, in every possible STATE it can be in, with no wavefunction collapse. Again I say calling it the many timelines interpretation might be better for them to understand better because this is ultimately what it is about. The distinction is very important.

[@Bill..N]

@@litafbobpompeani7711 Well elaborated friend..Thanks for that excellent reply..!

[@kaffeephilosophy]

@@litafbobpompeani7711 “Many Worlds” and “Possible Worlds Semantics” are two different things. It seems that you dont know what Fraassen is talking about here. I recommend you go check out Kripke’s book “Naming and Necessity”.

[@litafbobpompeani7711]

@@kaffeephilosophy We already know MWI and possible worlds semantics are different, that wasn't what we were talking about. How about actually watching the video? We are referring to @7:37 where Robert incorrectly presents MWI as if the interpretation says there is splitting and a copying of universes and then Fraassen goes on to say he finds the interpretation ridiculous. We are saying his claim of it being "ridiculous" is due to that misnomer and those common misconceptions about the interpretation. He knows very little about the actual Everett interpretation if he is saying it is "ridiculous."

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is mathematics necessary in a possible world, and can describe physical reality? While a particular set of physical laws might not be necessary in a possible world, is some set of physical laws necessary in a possible world?

[@MrSanford65]

I don’t see how the structure of any “world “can exist beyond subjective human sensations. Therefore writing a blueprint for a building then building it, or remembering the past and reliving the emotions , all should qualify for possible worlds

[@shannon7002]

As you say “we can’t see” probably we aren’t designed to see. Most living things have brains with variations of intelligence. Some planets are much older than our perhaps their inhabitants have evolved more.

[@MrSanford65]

@@shannon7002 that’s an interesting perspective but I don’t think it’s limited to different planets, the various living things on this planet are all living in different types of “worlds” . And perhaps the people in our past who are no longer with us still exist in the world of the past that never goes away within the memories we have which , rather than being something we assume is abstract and empty may actually be the result of this still existing world of the past impacting our brains in the present. Our different states of consciousness represent different possible worlds . For what is the world right now for any of us , but a very localized experience…..

[@TheRealAirhead]

Whoever disliked this within 30 seconds of it posting are a spirt of negative energy

[@Mastermindyoung14]

Fat fingers, maybe.

[@TheRealAirhead]

Possibly

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Possible worlds observe abstraction, like mathematics and language, to help better describe reality?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What could measure a possible world into physical reality? Are possible worlds themselves necessary for a physical reality?

[@francesco5581]

it's quite ridiculous to think that each time a human being move a finger or make a step another universe is born ...so there are other 84834575727527527 me each hour since someone in the world (and why not in the universe) make a different move. And what about insects the ? For every fly, ever second 59538438 alternative realities are born ? too silly, for once i agree with Fraassen .

[@homonovus9813]

You have to come up with a alternative if you stick to a certain bias.

[@francesco5581]

@@homonovus9813 the alternative is that there is just 1 material universe. People are got trapped into this multiverses idea because they want deny fine tuning at all costs . So multiverses are cool on a materialistic standpoint with absolutely no evidence except wild hypothesis. Thinking that if a bee turn left or right a new universe is born is borderline idiocy.

[@homonovus9813]

@@francesco5581 Wondering why we live exactly in the fine tuned universe between the multiverses, wondering why there is suddenly a fermi paradox even though we live in a perfect universe, so many coincedences, maybe this is the ultimate proof that mathematics are submissive to a WILL.

[@francesco5581]

@@homonovus9813 i still think that "truth" can be always a mix of both views. But at the end is meaningful and eternal OR meaningless and ephemeral ... such a big difference :)

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

Truth is, modal worlds could be possible, but we simply have to way of currently testing it. The things we know now would have been considered impossible by people 200 years ago. There’s no way, with our 5 limited senses, that we know even the tiniest of fractions of what’s truly possible and what the true nature of reality and existence are.

[@HD.369]

It is not possible to know God as long as there is somuch questions in your mind !! because questioner is always a separate entity .

[@Goldilockkk]

everything you can imagine is real - Someone

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life is Eternal, a Basic Princip ,is 'the Life-Unit-Principle', which means Living Beings 'inside' Living Beings 'inside' Living Beings, inside Living Beings, endless. All Life-Units expose a 'univers', our physical body and so on, all these universes are Worlds for Living Beings. All the Life-Units follow their own Developing-lanes, Developing-Circuits and Developing-Levels in the Developing-Spiral. So this is some basic nature of the World-All, and the Female Princip, and the Masculine Princip is the most basic in the Organism-Structure pf the Living Beings. This means, that there are Female universes and Masculine universes, in all kind of universes.

[@tac6044]

In order for it to be possible for you to be sitting where you are right now you must also be sitting everywhere else.

[@dongshengdi773]

Some compelling evidences suggesting intelligent design: Our universe is made up of these elements : 1. Reality is made up of Information, Mathematics everywhere Symbols everywhere . Meaning is subjective , it requires a choice by a conscious being . 2. Causality Loops , Time is an illusion . (All of time) Every moment in time exists all the time . The universe is like a single DVD movie , the beginning , the middle , and the end of the story are all inside the disk . 3. Non-deterministic universe, We have free will because of our consciousness to decide as proven by the modified double-slit experiment (delayed-choice quantum eraser). 4. Cosmic Consciousness , placebo effect, Mind over matter , double-slit experiment . A conscious entity capable of generating information by observing. Matter doesn't exist until we observe it . (Frank Wilczek) 5. Quantized universe , Pixelation (Werner Heisenberg - Matrix Theory) planck length and planck time . 6. E8 Crystal Lattice shape of the fundamental particles in 8 Dimensions , when projected as 4D becomes 2 shapes in different sizes with a Ratio of 0.618 , 7. Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence existing everywhere in the universe from quantum Scale to Celestial Scale . Conclusion: 1. Universal Collective Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness coined by Dr. Michio Kaku . Our body is a collection of microbes (microbiome) with a single collective consciousness. Electrons and Quarks self-organize into 81 stable atoms to become self-aware into human consciousness . There is no upper limit on the number of atoms and energy to self-organize and become self-aware, therefore the earth could also be conscious (Gaia Hypothesis) 2. Our universe is a code-based Simulation in a super computer in another universe .

[@francesco5581]

it's the ending that feel a bit silly .... I understand the attempt to avoid metaphysical explanation but the simulation of another computer is just low budget sci-fi .

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

Interesting.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What if have blockhead view of reality?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

There might be infinitely many worlds from planck time to second of human time, that person experience without realizing it.

[@philipvincenthilado3688]

Be aware of Coexistence,for the unconscious rulings carries us through other worlds,that subconsciously we can detect,be aware that our dreams represent other worlds,and we are identically or synchronous within the infinitum continuum,from these Point of views,the greatest symbolic example is holding a big mirror facing another mirror,or situated mirrors of barber shops,wherein you can see your back,on the infinite measure,there are crosses on the Universal paths,and there are sizes of inhabitants of different worlds,and but proportionally within the size of their Earths, Milky way to another,we are all represented with one general body,and those who survives,makes the wholeness of all body,within , doppelgangers are truly from these linkage...

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

I suggest that any so-called "possible" world (or universe) that does not - nor ever will - contain life and consciousness, would be utterly useless and have no conceivable reason for existing.

[@bluelotus542]

Our sense perception is not fit to define what is real. For example, our eyes perceive the sun as a small disc while its diameter is 109 times greater than the earth's.

[@soggy7142]

How are there many worlds? Answer: Language… ?

[@mynameismyname9335]

Hummmmmm namaste

[@Zoharargov]

boss

[@shirazbukhari7502]

Empiricist: we can use the metaphysical concepts that make our materialist thinking possible to begin with such as uniformity, proportionality, singularity, Independence.... Empiricist (as an impostor) : But we don't take those phenomenon to be 'real' which are logically intuited from these concepts such the idea of necessary being. 🙃

[@ibperson7765]

No. Dude the universe can't just be matter. Otherwise there would be no subjective side. It would all just be happening in the dark, no awareness, no knowing. Increasing complexity doesnt make a whole separate reality spring from this side. (Goedels theorem there must be mind, not apparent mind. Thats a different angle to it though. Consider this: information theory has advanced to the point appearing to be absolute laws, but no one can rigorously define information; it takes a mind. No one can say rigorously what makes some configuration (matter or charge etc) a bit, as opposed to just a physical configuration. It requires mind, not just apparent mind.)

[@maxwellsimoes238]

He is honest mind . Linguagem Picture real World is impossible. Mult universe model is fallacies.

[@fieldandstream9362]

World peas.

[@mikel4879]

Let's talk more stupidities because we don't have something better to do.

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

Language is not a problem. Different people have different language. Actually nothing work until we can't try. One can't make death body alive. In same way some theory work in truth reality. We see, feel sense but can't innovate of that. Universe is like this only we can describe but can't build self. Opportunity should give one if he/she say something new. When opportunity give to him/her language barriers will end. And truth will come out.

[@matishakabdullah5874]

Without doubt there is multiworld in this universe... AlQuran Chapter 1 - AlFatiha , Verse 1 " All praises and thanks to Allah The Lord God of many worlds". There are Human Kind, Angel Kind and Jinn Kind worlds. Human is created from earthly/ particulate matter (alThin), Angel is created from matter in wavy/wave state( alnuur or light likes matter) and Jinn is created from smokeless fire ( alnaarrussamun - a kind of matter in a hot wavy or wave state; Al naar is always associated with heat/hot ). This is not something extraordinary but very familiar to quantum mechanics study of wave-particle duality (unobserved-observed ) states of matter.