The word ‘Controversial’ is somewhat controversial to me. It has the power to dismiss an argument or idea outright, but to me, engaging with various ideas is akin to mental gymnastics. In this article, I present a few arguments often labeled as ‘controversial.’ I find them not only interesting but also enjoyable, and I believe they are worth considering.
The pursuit of knowledge is a way of being open-minded to unexpected destinites. Learning we do by being open-minded to controversional arguements that challange our paradigms.
I am immortal
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics offers a purely logical, mathematical, and reasonable resolution to the wave-particle dilemma. Within this framework, the Quantum Immortality theory emerges as a significant implication. Advocates of quantum immortality posit that if consciousness stems from the physical processes in the brain and if every conceivable outcome of a quantum event manifests in a distinct universe, then an individual’s conscious experience should persist solely in the universes where they continue to live. From the individual’s perspective, they would only be aware of the branches of reality where their existence endures, while the branches where they cease to exist would fall beyond the realm of their conscious experience.
The Quantum Multiverse theory posits the existence of a multiverse, where multiple branches or universes coexist. In quantum mechanics, every conceivable outcome of a quantum event materializes in a new universe. This implies that there is a probability associated with both my continued existence and demise in the current universe (CU). Moreover, in universes beyond the CU (i.e., CU + 1 to n), the probability of my survival or death persists.
Considering the probabilities involved, there exists at least one universe where I do not die. This opens up the possibility of my living for an extended duration, potentially making me immortal.
In essence, this argument, grounded in quantum multiverse theory, suggests that one is ‘probably’ immortal, as there are conceivable futures where I continue to exist and I have at this moment still live. To simplify, my experience of the present implies my ‘potential’ immortality.
Santa Claus Exists
Here, I venture into the realms of ontology, questioning the very nature of reality. Is there a distinction between what is real and what is not? Can something truly be labeled as ‘unreal’? I posit that the concept of the ‘unreal’ is non-sensical. Everything, in its essence, possesses a form of reality. This reality, however, extends beyond the confines of the physical realm; it encompasses the conceptual as well.
Take Santa Claus, for instance. He may not exist as a tangible, chimney-traveling figure delivering presents. However, the thought, the concept through which I perceive Santa Claus, is undeniably real. What, after all, is not a thought experienced by the self? As René Descartes demonstrated, the experience itself is always less provable than the experiencer.
The famous statement “I think, therefore I am” establishes that the only certainty I possess is my subjective experience. Every experience, in its essence, is conveyed to the experiencer — I — via the medium of thoughts.
Consider the thought of Santa Claus. While he may not exist in the tangible world, the very idea of Santa Claus is an experience that unfolds within my consciousness. Within the realm of my subjective reality, the thought of Santa Claus holds a genuine existence. It is ‘as real’ to me as any other thought or experience I encounter, for both are processed and communicated through my consciousness.
In this context, Santa Claus is as real to me as any other entity I perceive and experience.
The Quantum Observer
This topic is undeniably controversial, and its implications are truly mind-boggling. At the heart of the matter is the question: is matter subjective to the observer? According to current understanding, matter exists in a wave-like state when unobserved (not measured), transitioning into a particle-like behavior upon observation. The fascinating part is the diverse range of what constitutes an observer. It can be a measuring device, another quantum system, or even a conscious being.
Quantum mechanics introduces the intriguing concept of quantum superposition, where particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously. Or probabilistic state I must say. However, the act of measurement or observation forces the particle’s wave function to collapse into a definite state, leading to a single observable outcome.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, any interaction that can be observed causes the collapse of the wave function. This includes measurements made by conscious observers as well as those made by automated devices. On the other hand, the many-worlds interpretation suggests that all possible outcomes are realized in parallel universes.
The crux of the matter lies in the act of observation, which appears to play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of a quantum system. This act of observation applies universally, extending even to the observers themselves.
Intriguingly, the observer is not exempt from this process; it observes itself — an observation in its own right.
I don’t present a definitive conclusion or argument here, but I find this line of thought fascinating. In discussions about the fundamental nature of reality, people often debate whether the brain or the mind holds primacy. This debate raises intriguing questions, particularly when considering the concept that ‘the brain is observed,’ suggesting that matter is subjective to observation.
A fundamental question arises: even when we make an observation using a scientific device, where does this observation truly occur? Does it happen within the wires of the device, in the photons, in the sensors, or in the intricate processes of our brains, all of the before? This query delves into the very nature of consciousness, perception, and the relationship between the observer and the observed. For me its not off the table that I the conscious agent influence the states of matter. It would mean that the mind is not simply a passive observer of the world, but rather an active participant in its creation. It sounds inspiring to be creative!
Only I exist
This idea delves into the philosophical concepts of solipsism, Advaita Vedanta, and the ‘quantum observer’ too. I include it here because it presents a controversial notion that, despite its controversy, appears logically plausible and carries significant implications.
I possess the ability to be aware of any object in my surroundings. Each object, in turn, manifests within my experience. The experiencer, inherently, is entangled within this process of experiencing. Even my brain, a physical entity, is an object that appears within my experiential field.
Therefore, my brain seems to be subjected to my experience, not the other way around. Consequently, I am the experiencer through which everything is perceived and understood. This line of reasoning leads to a profound implication: it becomes impossible to definitively prove the existence of other ‘experiencers.’ This becomes even more interesting when considering the quantum observer effect as described above. Its simple to understand idea when talking about photons and waves but its a whole other thing comparing that to bodies at large such as my or other brains and bodies. It is, therefore, plausible that I am the sole experiencer, often referred to as Brahman in spiritual contexts.
The supernatural is real
Hold onto your beer before jumping ahead! The realm of physics encounters a breakdown before the concept of the Big Bang. Mathematics, on the other hand, can venture into the depths of infinity. The Big Bang marks the starting point for our exploration of space-time, but anything preceding it ventures into what we might term metaphysical or also called supernatural concepts.
This enigma has led physicists to grapple with the idea of multiple origin stories, attempting to avoid the singularity of a single beginning. However, this avoidance brings its own challenges, particularly in the form of the infinite and eternal universes, a concept fraught with profound implications.
The options are intriguing, albeit challenging. One must either confront the supernatural, a concept often unsettling for many, or delve into the complexities of the infinite — an equally perplexing territory. Both domains are rife with fascinating questions, presenting a conundrum that materialists might find uncomfortable, yet undeniably captivating.
If one is open to the supernatural it is plausible to have any metaphysical creation theory so its not unreasonable to assume there is a Creator of any form but also not provable. That is the feature of the supernatural metaphysics, it is hard to put any logic to :)
Human self-awareness is an evolutionary product
While this concept might seem reasonable on the surface, it’s surprising how rarely people discuss it. The self-awareness or consciousness of human beings has evolved, much like other aspects of the world around us. This evolution suggests a gradient, implying that our ancestors grew from being not self-aware to being fully self-aware in the way we are today.
Taking a related tangent, some propose that language is a crucial factor in self-awareness. Julian Jaynes articulates this idea succinctly: consciousness is the ability to reflect on one’s own thoughts and experiences. Reflection, in turn, is facilitated by language. Therefore, the argument follows that consciousness is intricately dependent on language.
Jaynes supported his argument with evidence drawn from a diverse array of sources, including ancient texts, mythology, and neuropsychology. His assertion was that early humans did not possess consciousness as we understand it today; instead, they experienced voices in their minds, interpreting them as the commands of gods. With the evolution of language, humans gained the ability to reflect on these inner voices, paving the way for the development of a sense of identity and agency.
A compelling example from Jaynes’ theory is the case of Osiris in Egyptian mythology. Egyptians brought offerings to Osiris, a practice that seems perplexing to us today. Jaynes proposes that, to the ancient Egyptians, Osiris wasn’t perceived as dead; he continued speaking to them through inner voices, guiding them with his commands.
I find Jaynes’ theory particularly intriguing because it correlates the evolution of self-awareness with the development of religious beliefs and practices. Consider the perspective of a human living 5000 years ago: the constant unknown darkness they faced every night, the celestial bodies rising and setting, and the awareness that their consciousness was evolving. They likely existed in states of partial self-awareness, driven partially by animalistic impulses.
One significant implication of this theory is the concept of self-awareness in animals. While some animals have demonstrated self-recognition in mirror tests, suggesting a degree of self-awareness, most animals operate seemingly like robots, driven purely by instincts without a concept of self. Similarly, one could argue that a baby lacks self-awareness in the early stages of development and could conclude it is quite similar to robotic animals or robots in general.
The implication of this is that it's perfectly reasonable to question with this theory if animals can experience suffering as that requires awareness of pain over time and mental being impacted by that. That question is most relevant to people arguing about Animal rights. While I celebrate people going full vegan this particular point I rarely hear being addressed. Anyhow, the idea of involving consciousness is a fascinating subject to me.
Fully Deterministic Fully Freewill
The many-worlds interpretation does not allow for any randomness or uncertainty in the universe. Instead, it posits that the universe splits into a separate universe for every possible outcome of every quantum event. This means that there is a vast multiverse of universes, each with its own unique history.
Every time you make a choice, the universe splits into a separate universe for each possible choice you could have made. This means that there are infinitely many versions of you, each living a different life in a different universe with outcomes created by the choices. You are still the only one who made the choice in the universe you are living in at the moment. This means that you are still responsible for your choices and the consequences of your choices and walk a chosen predictable destiny.
It seems this interpretation allows us to have free will and a deterministic universe.
Conclusion
So we concluded that we're probably immortal as we are not dead, reasonably the only experiencer in existence, the supernatural is quite natural, Santa Claus exists, you have the power of influencing the particle-wave-duality, that self-awareness is pretty strange, and you have deterministic freewill.
Now back to work!
