Questions About What Cannot Be Empirically Tested

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@T_aquaticus

If memory serves, the Many-Worlds interpretation does open the door to moving back in time, changing an event, and then moving into one of those parallel universes.

Mathematical kinds of “evidences” for these things may exist in the minds of various savants, but my mind is not one of those. I do tend to think of time travel in a bit of a “so then, where are they” mentality. If it was possible in the future, why has nobody stopped in to say “hi”, so-to-speak? It can’t be some purist “prime-directive” about not messing things up that keeps travelers away, because we have yet to ever see humanity collectively restrain itself from doing something that could be done. Being a bad idea is never enough to keep us from doing something. Can do it >>>implies >>> will do it, at least for any accessible choice for large populations.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

If it was possible in the future, why has nobody stopped in to say “hi”, so-to-speak?

According to the Many-Worlds interpretation (which, again, I don’t necessarily endorse), you can’t travel back in time and change the time line you are in or one that has already happened. If you did travel back in time you would splinter off a new parallel universe. And just to reinforce what I said before, I could have the MWI completely wrong, so don’t quote me on it.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@T_aquaticus

I could have the MWI completely wrong, so don’t quote me on it.

No worries! You and I track pretty closely I think in how we think about this. I realize it is highly speculative (even among the geniuses who know a lot about it --much less me.) It is all fun to think about though.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Relates

Let me try this example. A rock is a physical reality, but it is also rational in that it is created by rational natural laws, and spiritual in that it is part of God’s plan of salvation. 2 + 2 = 4 is rational, but it is also physical in that it works in the physical world, and spiritual in that it help demonstration the relational nature of Reality.

@Relates

If we use Spiritual and and Physical along these lines, then we are going to need 2 other words for what most people meean by “spiritual vs. physical”… or, better,

“supernatural” vs. “natural”.

If we restrict “natural” to mean ordinary events that follow natural law,
we are still left with a remaining, difficult and obscure category:

“ordinary events that are construed to be non-lawful, and not under intelligent direction”

Some might consider the motion of quarks to be non-lawful in some aspects… but unlikely to be under “miraculous” and/or “intelligent” control by Deity.

And I’m content to allow “authentically chaotic” quantum behaviors in under the “Natural” umbrella.

“Supernatural” or “Miraculous” would cover chaotic or non-lawful events under specific control of Diety - - excluding, for the time being, “providential” events that just seem to be lucky or wonderful or important from a human perspective.