this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
29 points (96.8% liked)
chapotraphouse
13922 readers
789 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Simultaneity does exist in general relativity, it's just relative. If your clone doesn't exist because they lie beyond the observable horizon, well, you can't observe things in the future either, so what's the point? My point was that there's not an obvious reason to say a clone existing at the same time as you is indeed a clone but a clone existing at a different time is actually "you." To me, it makes more sense to say in both cases they are clones. But you seem to be saying that they are actually both "you"? Even if they exist at the same time? What about in similar locations as well, such as standing next to each other?
Also, I do not believe in "subjective experience" nor do I believe in "consciousness." It's not true that "we know so little about consciousness" because there is nothing to know about "consciousness" as it's largely a mystical buzzword. There are plenty of things we don't understand about the human brain, like intelligence, but we are gradually making progress in these fields. "Consciousness" is largely meaningless, though, and so it cannot be studied as there is nothing to even know about it, as it doesn't refer to anything real.
I have no idea why you are bringing superposition into this despite it having no relevance here.
Simultaneity does exist in general relativity, I didn't say it didn't. I said it doesn't exist for things separated by vast distances in spacetime, and that's true. There is no simultaneity for two entities separated by an event horizon.
I don't know what consciousness, as in qualia and subjective experience are, but they seems pretty real and not a buzzword to me, it's basically all I can know for sure exists.
I brought up superposition to explain why I don't consider two mes to not both be me. Both are experiencing the universe through the processes that go on in my brain, so both are me. My consciousness is the program running in their head (yeah, I get our brains are not similar to computers, I'm just coming up with a metaphor here), why can't it be in a superposition of two locations if two conscious instances of my brain exist in the same area?
Event horizon has to do with black holes which are not relevant here, I am assume you are talking about the cosmological horizon, which nothing in GR prevents you from defining simultaneous events from a particular frame of reference for other events beyond the cosmological horizon. If you do define such events, well, of course you could not perceive something beyond the cosmological horizon, so you might argue it's "metaphysical" so to speak. But, again, this is also true for something that exists in the future, it also not observable.
Qualia is just a category of objects. Redness, loudness, etc. All objects are socially constructed norms used to judge reality to be something. There's nothing special about one set of objects over another, as if objects of qualia require a special explanation that physical objects like trees and cats do not, or mathematical objects like circles and triangles.
Experience is not subjective.
Particles have a wavelength associated with them that depends upon their mass caled the de Broglie wavelength and this represents the statistical spread of the position of particles. A superposition of states is really just a list of probability amplitudes presenting the likelihoods of where the particle may show up. If the statistical spread (determined by the de Broglie wavelength) is too narrow then it would be basically impossible to get the object to be noticeably in a superposition of two different locations, while if the statistical spread is very large then it would be very easy.
The de Broglie wavelength depends upon mass, and gets narrower the more massive an object is. That means for any macroscopic object the statistical spread is just too small to place its position into a superposition of states. Massive objects like a human brain simply cannot be in a superposition of positions with another brain. The closest you could get is to a kind of Schrodinger's cat type scenario whereby the brain is entangled with another event that determines its trajectory, but I see no physical mechanism that would establish something like this between these two copies of "you."
Hey not here to talk about any of the weird consciousness stuff, just science, came back to this thread because I was interested in what you were saying about relativity. Like aren't event horizons as found in black holes and the cosmic horizon the same thing?
It's my understanding that it's not possible to synchronize two clocks without bringing them together. And regardless if two clocks are separated by an event horizon (i.e one of them fell into a black hole) or if they're separated by the cosmic horizon (i.e one is outside the observable universe) they can't ever be brought together. Doesn't that mean you can't meaningfully define a moment in time that is simultaneous for them?
Like in the case of a clock inside a black hole, that's in the infinite future of another clock outside the black hole, right?