3 ms·

If you're going to try to convince someone that our universe has multiple parallel futures, you should be ready to explain how that relates to our lives. Isn't

If you're going to try to convince someone that our universe has multiple parallel futures, you should be ready to explain how that relates to our lives. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to demand that any theoretical truth about the nature of the entire universe should be relatable to the life of a human?

stephth 15y ago
I think you missed my point. Saying that it doesn't relate at all - as unlikely as that would be - would at least be a response to the question.
omarchowdhury 15y ago
It is not presumptuous. The very human is the one pondering about this 'truth': it very well relates to him as the 'nature' of the Universe contains man within it, does it not? So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does man. If it were the case that there are multiple parallel futures, then we ask ourselves: How do I navigate myself to the best-possible future for me and those who surround me? It is your very actions day by day that determine where it is that you go.
- ugh 15y ago
  So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does man. Sure, but that doesn’t mean that humans are able to understand nature in a way that relates to them, at least not on all levels. We weren’t built for large and small scales, our brain is only intuitively familiar with human scales. A second to a century. One millimeter to 100 kilometer. A few centimeters per day to a few dozen kilometers per hour. I don’t think intuitiveness should be a deciding factor when it comes to describing nature.
  - omarchowdhury 15y ago
    "Doesn't mean that humans are able to understand.." I guess all of the work in physics, chemistry and other sciences of the past thousands years was all in delusion? Nothing was learned, nothing.
    - ugh 15y ago
      You are missing half a sentence there. It looks like humans are very capable of understanding non-human-scale nature, just not intuitively.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

stephth 15y ago

I think you missed my point. Saying that it doesn't relate at all - as unlikely as that would be - would at least be a response to the question.

omarchowdhury 15y ago

It is not presumptuous. The very human is the one pondering about this 'truth': it very well relates to him as the 'nature' of the Universe contains man within it, does it not? So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does man. If it were the case that there are multiple parallel futures, then we ask ourselves: How do I navigate myself to the best-possible future for me and those who surround me? It is your very actions day by day that determine where it is that you go.

ugh 15y ago
So whatever nature the Universe follows, so does man. Sure, but that doesn’t mean that humans are able to understand nature in a way that relates to them, at least not on all levels. We weren’t built for large and small scales, our brain is only intuitively familiar with human scales. A second to a century. One millimeter to 100 kilometer. A few centimeters per day to a few dozen kilometers per hour. I don’t think intuitiveness should be a deciding factor when it comes to describing nature.
- omarchowdhury 15y ago
  "Doesn't mean that humans are able to understand.." I guess all of the work in physics, chemistry and other sciences of the past thousands years was all in delusion? Nothing was learned, nothing.
  - ugh 15y ago
    You are missing half a sentence there. It looks like humans are very capable of understanding non-human-scale nature, just not intuitively.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]