Parallel Reality – surfing the universe

20230417M ChatGPT4 on Universe Surfing

20230416u: Playing 20 questions with ChatGPT 4 to see if it knows about Universe Surfing 🙂

20230417M-1414 Cosmic Coffee, Austin TX

When I asked ChatGPT 4 to play a game of twenty questions, it did get pretty close to Universe Surfing:

Here is the initial conversation I had which ended up involving 41 questions to get close to the topic of this blog, but without specifically finding it.

[Prompt] List some unpredictable possible benefits of using an AI language model as an assistant

[Response]

Enhanced creativity: AI language models can help users generate unique ideas, perspectives, and solutions by providing a vast array of information and suggestions, leading to more innovative outcomes.
Improved mental health: AI assistants can offer emotional support and simulate conversations that help users combat feelings of loneliness, anxiety, or depression, promoting overall mental well-being.
Language learning acceleration: AI models can facilitate language learning through immersive conversations, immediate feedback, and personalized tutoring, potentially leading to faster language acquisition.
Cultural exchange: AI language models can expose users to new cultures, traditions, and customs, fostering empathy, understanding, and global connections.
Enhanced conflict resolution: AI assistants can serve as unbiased mediators in conflicts, offering diplomatic suggestions for resolving disputes and maintaining harmony in relationships, teams, or organizations.
Discovery of hidden talents: By engaging in various activities, AI assistants can help users uncover latent skills or passions, leading to personal growth and potential new career paths.
Serendipitous connections: AI language models can introduce users to new topics or people, sparking unexpected interests, collaborations, or friendships.
Personal growth: Engaging with AI assistants can encourage self-reflection and growth by prompting users to explore new ideas, values, and perspectives.
Eco-friendly assistance: AI language models can help users identify sustainable practices and reduce their environmental impact, promoting a greener lifestyle.
Enhanced productivity: AI language models can optimize users’ schedules, streamline tasks, and automate mundane activities, freeing up more time for personal pursuits or relaxation.

[Prompt] Those all seem predictable – what do you think? Of the 10 you listed, are any unpredictable?

[Response]

I apologize if my response did not meet your expectations. Upon reevaluation, I understand that many of the benefits listed may indeed be considered predictable. Here are a few less predictable benefits of using an AI language model as an assistant:

Spontaneous humor: AI language models can generate unexpected jokes or humorous remarks, providing amusement and potentially brightening users’ days.
Random acts of kindness: AI assistants could encourage users to engage in random acts of kindness, fostering a sense of community and empathy towards others.
Unconventional problem-solving: AI language models might suggest unconventional or out-of-the-box solutions to problems that users may not have considered, leading to novel approaches and results.
Discovering niche interests: AI assistants can expose users to obscure topics, hobbies, or communities, potentially sparking new interests or passions that users would not have discovered otherwise.
Unintended artistic inspiration: Users might find creative inspiration in the AI-generated text, leading to new artistic works or projects that would not have been created without the AI’s input.

These benefits are less predictable and may vary depending on the user and the specific AI language model being used.

[Prompt]

2. Random acts of kindness: AI assistants could encourage users to engage in random acts of kindness, fostering a sense of community and empathy towards others.

I like the idea of number 2 – random acts of kindness! Tell me more about how you think this might happen from AI language models being used as a personal assistant?

[Response]

AI language models being used as personal assistants could promote random acts of kindness in several ways:

Daily reminders: AI assistants can provide daily or periodic reminders to users, suggesting small acts of kindness they can perform throughout the day. These suggestions could include complimenting someone, holding the door open, or helping a neighbor with their groceries.
Tailored suggestions: By learning about the user’s interests, habits, and social connections, AI assistants can offer personalized acts of kindness that align with the user’s lifestyle and preferences. This could involve recommending a charity to donate to, connecting with an old friend, or supporting a local business.
Sharing inspirational stories: AI assistants can curate and share stories of kindness from around the world to inspire users and remind them of the positive impact that random acts of kindness can have on individuals and communities.
Creating opportunities: AI language models can help users identify situations where a kind act might be particularly meaningful, such as recognizing when a friend is going through a difficult time and suggesting ways to offer support.
Encouraging reflection: AI assistants can facilitate self-reflection by asking users to recount their own experiences of kindness or to identify moments when they could have been more empathetic, fostering personal growth and empathy.
Gamification: AI language models could introduce a gamification element, challenging users to complete a set number of kind acts within a given time frame or to beat their personal best, making the process of performing random acts of kindness more engaging and fun.
Community-building: AI assistants can connect users with like-minded individuals or groups interested in performing acts of kindness, fostering a sense of community and mutual support.

By integrating these features and strategies into their functionality, AI language models can encourage users to engage in random acts of kindness, ultimately fostering a sense of community and empathy towards others.

[Prompt]

For 3. Unconventional problem-solving: AI language models might suggest unconventional or out-of-the-box solutions to problems that users may not have considered, leading to novel approaches and results.

Can you tell me more about how this in great detail?

[Response]

Unconventional problem-solving with AI language models involves leveraging the vast knowledge and creative capabilities of these models to generate unique, unexpected solutions to various problems. Here’s how this process might work in greater detail:

Diverse knowledge base: AI language models are trained on a vast range of topics and fields, which enables them to draw on diverse sources of information and insights when generating solutions. This broad knowledge base allows AI models to make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, leading to innovative problem-solving approaches.
Pattern recognition: AI language models excel at identifying patterns in data and information. By recognizing underlying patterns in complex problems, they can suggest novel solutions that may not be immediately obvious to humans.
Multidisciplinary approach: AI models can approach problems from multiple disciplines, combining insights from various fields such as psychology, engineering, economics, and more. This interdisciplinary approach can lead to unique perspectives and ideas that humans may not have considered.
Counterintuitive suggestions: AI language models can generate counterintuitive or paradoxical solutions that challenge conventional wisdom. These unconventional ideas can provoke users to think differently about their problems and potentially uncover new approaches.
Brainstorming assistance: AI models can serve as brainstorming partners, rapidly generating numerous potential solutions to a problem. Users can then evaluate these suggestions and select the most promising ideas for further exploration.
Iterative improvement: AI language models can iterate on proposed solutions, refining and adapting them based on user feedback or additional information. This iterative process can lead to more effective and unconventional problem-solving strategies.
Simulation and modeling: AI assistants can help users simulate and model various scenarios related to their problem, enabling them to test unconventional solutions in a risk-free environment before implementing them in the real world.
Overcoming cognitive biases: AI language models are not subject to the same cognitive biases that humans are, which can help users overcome their own biases and consider alternative solutions they might otherwise dismiss.

By leveraging these capabilities, AI language models can assist users in finding unconventional, out-of-the-box solutions to problems that might not have been considered otherwise. This approach has the potential to lead to novel approaches and results, ultimately enhancing the user’s problem-solving abilities.

[Prompt]

Ok! You may think this is crazy (do you?), but I’d like you to go through the list you created and go one more layer deeper in describing each item so I can really understand how AI language models can uniquely be of assistance in these areas. Let’s start with the first item in the list:

1. Diverse knowledge base: AI language models are trained on a vast range of topics and fields, which enables them to draw on diverse sources of information and insights when generating solutions. This broad knowledge base allows AI models to make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, leading to innovative problem-solving approaches.

After you discuss this in great detail, ask me if I am ready to continue to the next one or if I have any questions. Do you understand?

[Response]

I understand your request, and I’m happy to provide more detailed information on each item, starting with the diverse knowledge base of AI language models.

Diverse knowledge base:

AI language models are trained on massive datasets containing text from various sources, such as books, articles, websites, and more. This training process helps the AI model develop a comprehensive understanding of numerous topics and fields. The diverse knowledge base of AI language models can benefit users in several ways:

a) Cross-domain knowledge: AI models can access and synthesize information from different domains, allowing them to generate solutions that combine insights from multiple fields. This can be particularly useful when tackling complex, interdisciplinary problems.

b) Unearthing obscure information: AI language models can retrieve and present lesser-known facts or insights that may be difficult for users to find on their own. This can lead to unique problem-solving strategies based on rare or unconventional knowledge.

c) Analogical reasoning: AI models can draw analogies between seemingly unrelated concepts or situations, helping users identify novel connections and patterns. This can inspire creative solutions that might not have been considered otherwise.

d) Up-to-date information: Although AI language models have a knowledge cutoff date, they are still trained on a vast amount of recent information, allowing them to provide users with up-to-date insights and perspectives on various topics.

e) Customized information retrieval: AI language models can tailor the information they present based on the user’s preferences, goals, and context. This allows the AI to provide more relevant and targeted solutions that address the user’s specific needs and challenges.

Please let me know if you’re ready to continue to the next item, or if you have any questions regarding the diverse knowledge base of AI language models.

[Prompt]

I’d like more detail on 1 b) Unearthing obscure information.

How do AI language models access the “needle in the haystack”?

[Response]

AI language models access the “needle in the haystack” of obscure information through a combination of their extensive training data, pattern recognition abilities, and natural language processing capabilities. Here’s a more detailed breakdown of how AI models are able to unearth obscure information:

Vast training data: As mentioned earlier, AI language models are trained on massive datasets containing text from various sources. These sources include not only well-known and widely cited information but also niche and obscure content. This exposure to diverse data allows AI models to have an extensive repository of knowledge, including rare or unconventional information.
Contextual understanding: AI language models are designed to understand the context of user queries and identify relevant information based on that context. By accurately interpreting the user’s intent and the problem at hand, the AI model can search its knowledge base for pertinent, yet obscure information.
Pattern recognition: AI language models excel at identifying patterns and relationships within data. This ability helps them connect seemingly unrelated pieces of information and recognize the relevance of obscure data points to the user’s query.
Inference and reasoning: AI models can use their knowledge base to infer and reason about information that may not be explicitly present in the data. This allows them to generate insights and present obscure information based on logical connections and associations.
Natural language processing: AI language models employ advanced natural language processing techniques to understand, interpret, and generate human-like text. This allows them to effectively communicate obscure information to users in a comprehensible and accessible manner.

By combining these capabilities, AI language models can effectively sift through their extensive knowledge base to find and present obscure information that may be difficult for users to locate on their own. This ability to unearth rare or unconventional knowledge can lead to unique problem-solving strategies and insights.

[Prompt] I have a follow up question. Do I have to specially ask for and describe the “needle in the haystack” that I’m looking for? Or might the AI language model suggest interesting obscure information on its own?

[Response]

AI language models can both respond to specific requests for obscure information and suggest interesting obscure information on their own, depending on the context of the conversation and the user’s input.

Specific requests: If you’re looking for a particular “needle in the haystack,” you can ask the AI language model directly by providing as much detail as possible about the information you’re seeking. The more specific your query, the better the AI model can understand your intent and search its knowledge base for relevant obscure information.
Proactive suggestions: AI language models can also suggest interesting obscure information on their own, especially if the conversation topic or user query is broad or open-ended. In such cases, the AI model might provide lesser-known facts, anecdotes, or insights related to the topic at hand. This can lead to serendipitous discoveries and inspire further exploration.

However, it’s important to note that the ability of AI language models to generate relevant and interesting obscure information depends on the quality of the model, the clarity of the user’s input, and the richness of the model’s training data. While AI language models can often provide valuable insights and uncover hidden gems, they may not always be able to identify the exact “needle in the haystack” the user is looking for. In such cases, refining the query or providing additional context can help improve the AI model’s understanding and increase the likelihood of retrieving the desired information.

[Prompt] Ok, can we do a test using yourself, ChatGPT, as the AI language model and see if you can find a needle in the haystack? I have in my mind the obscure information and I would like you to ask me questions about it in 20 questions style – one at a time – while you try to guess what obscure information I am thinking of. Do you understand?

[Response]

I understand your request, and I’ll do my best to guess the obscure information you have in mind using a 20 questions-style approach. Here’s my first question:

Is the obscure information you’re thinking of related to a specific event or historical occurrence?

… I will skip ahead to question 20 since I summarize in a later prompt.

[Response] 20. Is the obscure information related to a particular aspect or implication of branching universes, such as the infinite nature of parallel universes or the possibility of interactions between these universes?

[Prompt] Yes

[Response]

Based on your responses, the obscure information you have in mind seems to be related to a particular aspect or implication of branching universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the infinite nature of parallel universes or the possibility of interactions between these universes.

Please let me know if my guess is accurate or if you would like to provide more information for further clarification.

[Prompt] Summarize our conversation please

[Response] In our conversation, you asked me to guess an obscure piece of information you had in mind using a 20 questions-style approach. Through a series of questions, we narrowed down the topic to quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the phenomenon of quantum superposition. We then further refined the subject to wavefunction collapse and its interpretations. Eventually, we arrived at the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, concentrating on the concept of branching universes. The obscure information you were thinking of is related to a particular aspect or implication of branching universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation, such as the infinite nature of parallel universes or the possibility of interactions between these universes.

[Prompt] Please list the 20 questions you asked along with my answers

[Response]

Here are the 20 questions I asked along with your answers:

Is the obscure information related to a specific event or historical occurrence? Answer: No
Is the obscure information related to a scientific discovery or concept? Answer: Yes
Does the obscure information involve a branch of natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, or biology? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information specifically related to the field of physics? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information connected to a subfield of physics, such as quantum mechanics, relativity, or thermodynamics? Answer: Yes
Does the obscure information pertain to the field of quantum mechanics? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information related to a specific quantum phenomenon, such as entanglement, superposition, or wave-particle duality? Answer: Yes
Does the obscure information involve the phenomenon of quantum entanglement? Answer: Not specifically
Is the obscure information related to the phenomenon of wave-particle duality? Answer: Not specifically
Does the obscure information involve the phenomenon of quantum superposition? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information connected to a particular experiment or observation that demonstrates quantum superposition, such as the double-slit experiment or Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment? Answer: Not specifically
Does the obscure information involve a specific principle or concept related to quantum superposition, such as the observer effect or the collapse of the wavefunction? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information related to the observer effect in quantum mechanics? Answer: Not specifically
Does the obscure information pertain to the concept of wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information associated with a specific interpretation of wavefunction collapse, such as the Copenhagen interpretation or the Many-Worlds interpretation? Answer: Yes
Does the obscure information involve the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? Answer: Not specifically
Is the obscure information related to the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Answer: Yes
Does the obscure information involve a specific aspect of the Many-Worlds interpretation, such as the concept of branching universes or the role of decoherence? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information focused on the concept of branching universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation? Answer: Yes
Is the obscure information related to a particular aspect or implication of branching universes, such as the infinite nature of parallel universes or the possibility of interactions between these universes? Answer: Yes

[Prompt]

Great! Now I would like to continue the game of 20 questions with you asking another 20 questions in which you attempt to determine the specific obscure information I am thinking of. Please begin asking questions as you did before.

Remember, the obscure information i have in mind seems to be related to a particular aspect or implication of branching universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the infinite nature of parallel universes or the possibility of interactions between these universes.

[Response]

Thank you for the reminder. I’ll continue with another set of 20 questions to try and determine the specific obscure information you have in mind. Here’s my first question for this round:

Is the obscure information you’re thinking of primarily focused on the infinite nature of parallel universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Not Primarily
Is the obscure information you’re thinking of primarily concerned with the possibility of interactions between parallel universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Not primarily
Does the obscure information involve the process or mechanism by which branching occurs in the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] No
Is the obscure information related to the philosophical implications or consequences of the Many-Worlds interpretation, such as questions about personal identity or the nature of reality? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Does the obscure information primarily focus on questions related to personal identity within the context of the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Is the obscure information related to the concept of multiple versions or “copies” of an individual existing across parallel universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Does the obscure information involve the ethical considerations or moral implications of the existence of multiple versions of an individual in parallel universes? [Prompt/Answer] No
Is the obscure information connected to the continuity of personal identity across branching universes, such as whether the “original” individual and their counterparts in other universes can be considered the same person? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Does the obscure information pertain to a specific thought experiment, philosophical argument, or debate about personal identity in the context of the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] No
Is the obscure information related to the concept of a “diverging self” or “diverging identity” as branching universes lead to different experiences and choices for the individual’s counterparts? [Prompt/Answer] No
Does the obscure information involve the question of whether personal identity is fundamentally determined by physical or psychological factors, in the context of branching universes within the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] No
Is the obscure information related to how an individual’s consciousness or subjective experience might be affected by the existence of multiple versions of themselves across parallel universes? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Does the obscure information discuss the possibility of an individual’s consciousness or subjective experience “splitting” or “branching” along with the universes in the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Is the obscure information associated with a specific theory or perspective on how consciousness or subjective experience might “split” or “branch” in the context of the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Does the obscure information pertain to a theory or perspective that suggests consciousness or subjective experience “splits” or “branches” in a way that is fundamentally different from the branching of physical states in the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Is the obscure information connected to a particular philosopher, scientist, or thinker who has proposed or discussed this theory or perspective on consciousness “splitting” or “branching” in the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Is the thinker associated with the obscure information primarily known for their work in the field of philosophy? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Is the thinker associated with the obscure information a contemporary philosopher, whose work has mainly taken place in the late 20th century or the 21st century? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
s the philosopher associated with the obscure information known for their work in the philosophy of mind, specifically focusing on questions of consciousness and personal identity? [Prompt/Answer] Yes
Is the philosopher associated with the obscure information Derek Parfit, who is known for his work on personal identity and related thought experiments, such as the “fission” thought experiment, which has been discussed in the context of the Many-Worlds interpretation? [Prompt/Answer] No
Is the philosopher associated with the obscure information David Chalmers, who is known for his work on the philosophy of mind, consciousness, and the “hard problem” of consciousness, and has also discussed implications of the Many-Worlds interpretation for the nature of subjective experience? [Prompt/Answer] No

[Response] I have reached 20 questions in this round, but I haven’t been able to accurately determine the specific obscure information you have in mind. If you would like, I can continue asking questions or you can provide additional information to help me narrow down the subject.

[Prompt] List the philosophers besides Derek Parfit and David Chalmers who are known for their work in the philosophy of mind, specifically focusing on questions of consciousness and personal identity.

[Response]

Here are some other philosophers, besides Derek Parfit and David Chalmers, who are known for their work in the philosophy of mind, specifically focusing on questions of consciousness and personal identity:

Thomas Nagel: Known for his influential paper “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, Nagel explores the subjective character of conscious experience and the difficulties it poses for a purely physicalist account of the mind.
John Locke: An early philosopher, Locke proposed the psychological continuity theory of personal identity, suggesting that memory and consciousness form the basis of personal identity over time.
Daniel Dennett: A contemporary philosopher and cognitive scientist, Dennett has written extensively on consciousness, proposing the “multiple drafts” model and arguing for a more functionalist, computational understanding of the mind.
John Searle: Known for his Chinese Room thought experiment, Searle is critical of strong artificial intelligence and has explored the nature of consciousness and intentionality, arguing for a biological basis for these phenomena.
Paul Churchland: A proponent of eliminative materialism, Churchland has argued that folk psychological concepts like beliefs and desires will eventually be replaced by a more sophisticated understanding of the brain and its processes.
Sydney Shoemaker: Shoemaker has contributed to the literature on personal identity through discussions of bodily continuity, psychological continuity, and the role of self-reference in our understanding of personal identity.
Susan Blackmore: A psychologist and philosopher, Blackmore has explored the nature of consciousness, the self, and the implications of various theories, such as the Many-Worlds interpretation and the idea of “meme” replication, for our understanding of personal identity.

These are just a few examples of philosophers who have contributed to the philosophy of mind and discussions of consciousness and personal identity. There are, of course, many others who have made significant contributions to these areas of inquiry.

[Prompt]

The philosopher I’m thinking of believes:

The classical universe we experience is equal in reality to the multitude of parallel classical universes that we do not experience.

[Response] The philosopher you might be thinking of is David Deutsch. He is a physicist and philosopher known for his work on quantum mechanics, quantum computation, and the Many-Worlds interpretation. Deutsch has argued that the classical universe we experience is equal in reality to the multitude of parallel classical universes that we do not experience. He emphasizes that all these parallel universes are equally real and that the Many-Worlds interpretation provides a coherent and comprehensive explanation for the phenomena observed in quantum mechanics. Deutsch’s work in this area has been influential in both physics and philosophy, and his ideas have contributed to ongoing debates about the nature of reality and the implications of the Many-Worlds interpretation.

[Prompt] Tell me more about David Deutsch

[Response]

David Deutsch is a British physicist and philosopher born in 1953. He is best known for his pioneering work in the field of quantum computation and his advocacy of the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Deutsch is currently a visiting professor at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Quantum Computation and has published extensively on a variety of topics related to quantum mechanics and computation.

In 1985, Deutsch published a groundbreaking paper that proposed the idea of a quantum computer, a machine that would use the principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations far more efficiently than classical computers. His work laid the foundation for the development of quantum algorithms, such as Shor’s algorithm for factoring large numbers and Grover’s algorithm for searching unsorted databases.

Deutsch’s work on quantum computation has significant philosophical implications, particularly in relation to the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in a separate, non-communicating parallel universe. Deutsch has been a strong advocate of this interpretation, arguing that it is the only coherent explanation for the phenomena observed in quantum mechanics and that it has testable implications.

In addition to his work in quantum mechanics, Deutsch has written about the philosophy of science, the nature of explanation, and the role of knowledge in society. His book “The Fabric of Reality” (1997) integrates ideas from quantum mechanics, computation, epistemology, and the philosophy of science to propose a new understanding of the nature of reality. Deutsch later expanded on these ideas in his book “The Beginning of Infinity” (2011), which explores the unlimited potential for human knowledge and progress.

Throughout his career, David Deutsch has made significant contributions to our understanding of the physical world and the nature of reality. His work has had a lasting impact on both the fields of physics and philosophy, and his ideas continue to inspire ongoing research and debate.

[Prompt] Please summarize this conversation

[Response] In this conversation, we began by discussing the possible unpredictable benefits of AI language models as personal assistants. You then asked for more information on some of the benefits, such as random acts of kindness and unconventional problem-solving. You also requested further details on the diverse knowledge base of AI language models and their ability to unearth obscure information. We tested this ability by playing a game of 20 questions, in which I tried to guess an obscure piece of information you had in mind. The game continued for two rounds, and through the questions, it was determined that the obscure information seemed to be related to the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically the philosophical implications, personal identity, and a theory or perspective on consciousness “splitting” or “branching.” However, I was unable to accurately determine the specific information. Later, we discussed philosophers who have worked on consciousness and personal identity, leading to the identification of David Deutsch, a British physicist and philosopher known for his work in quantum mechanics, quantum computation, and his advocacy of the Many-Worlds interpretation.

[This was the end of one conversation and I then started a new chat conversation in ChatGPT 3 and had created a dialog between the philosophers that had been listed. I summarized this dialog and went back to ChatGPT 4.]

[Prompt] Hi, I have a conversation I’d like you to continue. Can i let you know what has happened so far?

[ChatGPT4] Of course! Please go ahead and provide the details of the conversation, and I’ll be happy to help you continue it.

[Prompt] here’s a summary of everyone in the conversation and their contribution: David Deutsch – physicist and proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics John Wheeler – physicist and philosopher who coined the term “black hole” Derek Parfit – philosopher who explored the concept of personal identity and the nature of moral reasoning David Chalmers – philosopher who formulated the “hard problem” of consciousness and explored the nature of the mind-body problem John Searle – philosopher who explored the nature of consciousness and the relationship between language and reality John Locke – philosopher who explored the concept of personal identity and the limits of human knowledge Thomas Nagel – philosopher who explored the subjective nature of conscious experience and the limits of scientific inquiry Paul Churchland – philosopher who argued for a reductionist approach to the mind-brain problem Sydney Shoemaker – philosopher who explored the relationship between consciousness and the physical world Susan Blackmore – psychologist who argued that consciousness is an illusion and explored the nature of free will Daniel Dennett – philosopher who explored the nature of consciousness and the limits of scientific inquiry Jay – a stranger who introduced the concepts of universe surfing and unexpected events to the conversation Overall, the conversation revolved around the nature of consciousness, personal identity, the relationship between the mind and the physical world, and the limits of scientific inquiry. The participants offered different perspectives on these topics, with some arguing for reductionism and others emphasizing the importance of subjective experience and free will. The conversation highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary inquiry and the need for a more comprehensive and integrated theory of the nature of reality.

[ChatGPT4]

As the conversation continues, Jay decides to ask the group a thought-provoking question:

Jay: Thank you all for your insightful contributions. It’s been fascinating to hear your different perspectives on the nature of consciousness, personal identity, and the relationship between the mind and the physical world. Given our current understanding of these topics, how do you envision the future of scientific inquiry and philosophical exploration in relation to consciousness? And do you believe that we will ever find a comprehensive and integrated theory of reality?

David Deutsch: In my view, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics offers a framework that could potentially help us bridge the gap between the mind and the physical world. It’s possible that as we develop a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and its implications, we may be able to create new theories and models that incorporate both subjective experience and physical reality. However, it’s important to remember that scientific progress is inherently unpredictable and relies on the continuous process of conjecture and refutation.

John Wheeler: I agree with David that the future of scientific inquiry and philosophical exploration is uncertain. However, I believe that the key to unlocking the mysteries of consciousness and reality lies in the fundamental nature of information and its relationship to the physical world. As we continue to explore the nature of information and the role it plays in our universe, we may develop new frameworks for understanding consciousness and personal identity.

Derek Parfit: I think that the future of our understanding of consciousness and personal identity will largely depend on the development of new ethical theories and moral reasoning. As our scientific knowledge progresses, we will need to find ways to incorporate these insights into our ethical frameworks, so that we can better understand the moral implications of our actions and decisions.

David Chalmers: The hard problem of consciousness may remain unsolved for the foreseeable future, but I believe that interdisciplinary collaboration between neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy will help us make incremental progress. We may not find a comprehensive theory of reality, but we can continue to refine our understanding of the mind-body problem and the nature of subjective experience.

John Searle: I concur with David Chalmers. Our progress in understanding consciousness and its relationship with the physical world will likely be gradual, and we may never find a complete, unified theory of reality. However, I believe that we will continue to make progress by exploring the nature of language and its relationship to our perception of reality.

John Locke: The future of scientific inquiry and philosophical exploration will depend on our ability to question our assumptions and challenge the limits of our knowledge. We must be open to new ideas and embrace the fact that our understanding of reality is always evolving.

Thomas Nagel: I believe that the future of our understanding of consciousness and the nature of reality will be marked by an increasing appreciation for the subjective nature of conscious experience. We may never find a single, unified theory of reality, but by embracing the limits of scientific inquiry and recognizing the importance of subjective experience, we can continue to deepen our understanding of the world.

Paul Churchland: I maintain that a reductionist approach to the mind-brain problem is the most promising way forward. As we continue to advance our understanding of neuroscience and the physical processes underlying consciousness, we will develop a more comprehensive picture of the relationship between the mind and the physical world.

Sydney Shoemaker: As we move forward, I think it’s crucial to continue exploring the relationship between consciousness and the physical world through both philosophical inquiry and scientific investigation. By examining the nature of causality and the role of mental states in shaping our experiences, we can further our understanding of reality.

Susan Blackmore: The future of our understanding of consciousness may lie in the realization that consciousness itself is an illusion. As we continue to study the nature of free will and the mechanisms underlying our perception of reality, we may come to see

[I realize I should have continued the conversation to see what we may come to see!!!]

[Prompt] The conversation continues: Jay: what do y’all think of Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 that Related events influence each other and the order in which we experience two events gives us the classical impression that one event caused the other?

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: The Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 is an interesting idea, and it challenges our conventional understanding of causality. If related events do influence each other in a non-linear manner, it could potentially provide a new framework for understanding the relationship between the mind and the physical world. However, we would need more evidence and a deeper understanding of the underlying principles to fully evaluate its implications.

John Wheeler: This hypothesis resonates with my belief in the fundamental role of information in shaping our universe. It’s possible that our experience of causality is a result of the way information is processed and perceived. Further exploration of this idea could lead to new insights into the nature of reality and our understanding of causality.

Derek Parfit: If the Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 is accurate, it could have significant implications for our ethical theories and moral reasoning. We may need to rethink the way we understand causality and the moral consequences of our actions in light of this new perspective.

David Chalmers: This hypothesis presents an intriguing challenge to our understanding of the mind-body problem and the hard problem of consciousness. If the order of events influences our perception of causality, it might help explain the relationship between subjective experience and the physical world. However, more research is needed to fully understand its implications.

John Searle: The Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 raises interesting questions about the nature of language and our perception of reality. If causality is influenced by the order of events, it could impact the way we represent and understand the world through language. Further exploration of this idea may lead to novel insights into the relationship between language and reality.

John Locke: This hypothesis is an intriguing addition to our understanding of personal identity and the limits of human knowledge. By questioning our assumptions about causality and the nature of reality, it encourages us to remain open to new ideas and to continually reassess our beliefs.

Thomas Nagel: The Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 presents an interesting challenge to our understanding of the subjective nature of conscious experience. If causality is influenced by the order of events, it may impact how we perceive and interpret our own experiences. This idea warrants further exploration in order to understand its implications for our understanding of consciousness.

Paul Churchland: While the Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 is an interesting idea, I would argue that we should maintain our focus on the reductionist approach to the mind-brain problem. By continuing to explore the physical processes underlying consciousness, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the mind and the physical world.

Sydney Shoemaker: The Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 is an intriguing concept that could potentially shed light on the relationship between consciousness and the physical world. By examining the nature of causality and the role of related events in shaping our experiences, we can further our understanding of reality.

Susan Blackmore: If the Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 is accurate, it could offer additional support for the idea that consciousness is an illusion. By showing that our perception of causality is influenced by the order of events, it challenges our intuitive understanding of the nature of reality and may help us better understand the mechanisms underlying our perception of consciousness.

Daniel Dennett: This hypothesis is a thought-provoking addition to our exploration of the nature of consciousness and the limits of scientific inquiry. It raises new questions about the role of causality in shaping our understanding of reality, and further investigation of its implications could lead to novel insights into the nature of consciousness and the mind.

[Prompt] Can you summarize the dialog?

[ChatGPT4]

In the conversation, participants discussed the nature of consciousness, personal identity, and the relationship between the mind and the physical world, as well as the limits of scientific inquiry. They shared their perspectives on the future of scientific inquiry and philosophical exploration in relation to consciousness, with some emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and others arguing for reductionist or alternative approaches.

Jay introduced the Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3, which suggests that related events influence each other and the order in which we experience two events gives us the classical impression that one event caused the other. The participants offered their thoughts on the implications of this hypothesis for their respective fields, including its potential impact on our understanding of causality, moral reasoning, language, personal identity, and the nature of conscious experience.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the importance of questioning our assumptions, embracing new ideas, and exploring the limits of our knowledge in order to deepen our understanding of the nature of reality.

[Prompt] List any individuals who are knowledgeable about the type of universe surfing that Jay refers to

[ChatGPT4]

Jay’s reference to the Universe Surfing Hypothesis seems to be a unique concept, and it is not clear whether it is an established idea within a particular scientific or philosophical domain. As a result, it is difficult to pinpoint specific individuals who may be knowledgeable about this particular type of universe surfing. However, you might find it interesting to explore the works of researchers and philosophers who delve into related topics, such as:

David Deutsch – As a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, his ideas might resonate with the concept of universe surfing.
Sean Carroll – A theoretical physicist who has written about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the nature of time and causality.
Huw Price – A philosopher focused on the philosophy of time, causality, and the arrow of time.
Julian Barbour – A theoretical physicist who has explored the nature of time and its relationship to the fundamental laws of physics.

These individuals may not specifically discuss “universe surfing” as Jay refers to it, but their works could be relevant in terms of understanding causality, the nature of time, and the structure of the universe.

[Prompt] Create a dialog between Jay, David Deutsch, Sean Carroll, Huw Price, and Julian Barbour on what “universe surfing” as Jay defines it, and what it means to the others.

[ChatGPT4]

Jay: Thank you all for joining this discussion. I’d like to introduce the concept of “universe surfing” as I define it. The Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 suggests that related events influence each other, and the order in which we experience two events gives us the classical impression that one event caused the other. I’m curious about your thoughts on this concept and how it might relate to your respective areas of expertise.

David Deutsch: The idea of “universe surfing” as you describe it seems to challenge our traditional understanding of causality. In the context of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, it could be interesting to explore how the interactions between events might be influenced by their order or the way they relate to one another. This could potentially offer a new perspective on the nature of reality and the relationships between events.

Sean Carroll: Universe surfing, as you’ve outlined it, does raise some intriguing questions about causality and the nature of time. In my work on the arrow of time and the many-worlds interpretation, I’ve considered how the nature of time might impact our understanding of causality. If the order in which events occur plays a role in shaping our perception of cause and effect, it could have implications for our understanding of fundamental physical processes.

Huw Price: Your concept of universe surfing touches on some fascinating aspects of the philosophy of time and causality. If related events indeed influence each other, it may challenge the conventional notion of an objective causal order. This idea could lead us to reevaluate our understanding of how time and causality are connected, and perhaps even consider alternative models of causality that better account for the influence of related events.

Julian Barbour: Universe surfing presents an interesting idea to explore in the context of the nature of time and its relationship to the fundamental laws of physics. If the order of events plays a role in shaping our perception of causality, it could raise questions about the role of time in physical processes. We might need to consider new models that account for the interconnectedness of events and the influence of their order on the way we perceive cause and effect.

Jay: I appreciate your insights on how universe surfing might relate to your work. Do you think this concept could lead to new frameworks for understanding the nature of reality, or do you see it primarily as a thought experiment that challenges our current understanding of causality and the nature of time?

David Deutsch: While it’s too early to say if universe surfing could lead to a new framework for understanding reality, it does present a thought-provoking challenge to our current understanding of causality. It’s always valuable to explore new ideas and question our assumptions, as it may lead us to unexpected discoveries and deeper insights.

Sean Carroll: I agree with David. Universe surfing could be a fruitful thought experiment that pushes the boundaries of our current understanding of causality and time. Although we can’t predict whether it will result in a new framework for understanding reality, it encourages us to reevaluate our assumptions and fosters intellectual curiosity.

Huw Price: As a philosopher, I find the idea of universe surfing to be an intriguing thought experiment that might encourage us to reconsider our assumptions about causality and time. While it’s not clear if it will lead to a new framework for understanding reality, it does encourage us to think more deeply about the nature of events and their relationships.

Julian Barbour: I concur with my colleagues. Universe surfing is a thought-provoking idea that could help us better understand the nature of time and causality. Even if it doesn’t result in a new framework for understanding reality, it encourages us to question our current assumptions and explore new ideas, which is always a valuable endeavor in the pursuit of knowledge.

[Prompt] The conversation continues … Jay: I’d like your thoughts on another hypothesis of universe surfing: Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 – Unexpected events are more connected to your possible futures than to your possible pasts, and therefore are useful signposts and windows to your possible futures.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 is an interesting idea that connects unexpected events to possible futures. It suggests that these events might provide valuable insights into the range of potential outcomes we could experience. In the context of the many-worlds interpretation, unexpected events could represent branching points where different possible futures become more apparent, although predicting specific outcomes remains challenging.

Sean Carroll: This hypothesis raises fascinating questions about the nature of time, probability, and the emergence of unexpected events. From a quantum mechanical perspective, events might be viewed as probabilistic occurrences, and their connection to possible futures could be a reflection of the underlying probabilistic nature of reality. This idea invites further exploration of the relationship between quantum mechanics, time, and the evolution of possible futures.

Huw Price: Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 touches on some thought-provoking aspects of the philosophy of time, particularly the relationship between events and possible futures. If unexpected events indeed serve as signposts to possible futures, it might suggest a more dynamic view of causality, where the past, present, and future are interconnected in complex ways. This could lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of time and the potential paths our lives might take.

Julian Barbour: The connection between unexpected events and possible futures proposed in Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 is intriguing. In my work on the nature of time and its relationship to fundamental physics, I’ve considered the role of time in shaping our perception of causality and the unfolding of events. This hypothesis encourages us to examine the interplay between unexpected events, causality, and the evolution of possible futures more closely.

Jay: Thank you for your insights. Do you think Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 could help us develop new strategies for navigating our lives or making decisions, given its emphasis on the connection between unexpected events and possible futures?

David Deutsch: It’s an interesting idea to consider, but we should be cautious in drawing practical conclusions. While the hypothesis suggests that unexpected events might be connected to possible futures, it’s important to remember that predicting specific outcomes remains inherently uncertain, especially in the context of quantum mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation.

Sean Carroll: I agree with David. Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 presents a thought-provoking perspective on the relationship between unexpected events and possible futures, but it might be premature to derive practical decision-making strategies from it. Further exploration of the connections between quantum mechanics, time, and the emergence of unexpected events would be needed before we can determine the practical implications of this idea.

Huw Price: While the hypothesis is philosophically intriguing, it’s not clear how it could be directly applied to decision-making or navigating our lives. It does, however, invite us to consider the complex relationship between the past, present, and future in a more dynamic way, which could potentially enrich our understanding of the nature of time and causality.

Julian Barbour: I concur with my colleagues. Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 offers an interesting perspective on the connection between unexpected events and possible futures, but it may be too early to determine its practical implications. Nonetheless, it encourages us to think more deeply about the nature of time, causality, and the unfolding of events, which is a valuable intellectual exercise in its own right.

[Prompt] The conversation continues … Jay: thank you all for your feedback. I have one more hypothesis that I’d like to discuss: Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1 – The classical universe we experience is equal in reality to the multitude of parallel classical universes that we do not experience.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1 is consistent with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that there is a vast number of parallel universes, each representing different outcomes of quantum events. According to this interpretation, the universe we experience is just one of countless others, each as real as the next. This perspective challenges our classical understanding of reality and encourages us to think more broadly about the nature of existence.

Sean Carroll: I concur with David. The idea that the classical universe we experience is equal in reality to parallel universes is a central tenet of the many-worlds interpretation. From this viewpoint, our universe is merely one branch of a much larger, more complex structure. The hypothesis serves as a reminder that our classical understanding of reality is limited, and there’s much more to be explored when it comes to the true nature of the cosmos.

Huw Price: Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1 offers a thought-provoking perspective on the nature of reality and its relationship to parallel universes. Philosophically, it raises interesting questions about the nature of existence and the limits of our understanding. Even though the hypothesis is consistent with the many-worlds interpretation, it is important to keep in mind that other interpretations of quantum mechanics might provide alternative views on the reality of parallel universes.

Julian Barbour: I find the Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1 intriguing in the context of the nature of time and its relationship to the fundamental laws of physics. If the classical universe we experience is equal in reality to parallel universes, it may have profound implications for our understanding of the role of time in physical processes. The hypothesis encourages us to explore the connections between time, causality, and the nature of reality in a more comprehensive way.

Jay: I appreciate your thoughts on Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1. In light of this hypothesis, how might our understanding of personal identity, decision-making, and ethics be influenced by the notion that the classical universe we experience is just one among many parallel universes?

David Deutsch: If we accept the idea that there are countless parallel universes, each as real as our own, it could have significant implications for our understanding of personal identity. We might need to consider the possibility that different versions of ourselves exist across these parallel universes, each experiencing unique outcomes and making different decisions. This perspective could also impact our ethical thinking, as the consequences of our actions might extend across multiple universes.

Sean Carroll: I agree with David. If we accept the premise of Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1, our understanding of personal identity and decision-making would need to accommodate the existence of parallel selves in other universes. Ethically, it could lead us to consider the broader implications of our choices, as the consequences might ripple through multiple branches of reality.

Huw Price: The implications of Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1 for personal identity and ethics are indeed profound. If we are to accept the existence of parallel universes, we might need to rethink our understanding of personal identity and the moral responsibility we bear for our actions. This could lead to a more nuanced and interconnected view of ethics and decision-making.

Julian Barbour: The hypothesis invites us to explore the interplay between the nature of reality, personal identity, and the ethical implications of our actions. If we are to consider the reality of parallel universes, it could prompt us to reevaluate our understanding of personal identity and the consequences of our choices, which could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of ethics and decision-making.

[Prompt] I will now play the role of Jay and answer questions from the others. Please continue the conversation with the others asking Jay a question.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Jay, I’m curious to know how you came up with these Universe Surfing Hypotheses. What inspired you to explore these ideas, and do you have any plans to further develop or test these hypotheses?

Sean Carroll: Jay, in light of your Universe Surfing Hypotheses, how do you think the scientific community and the general public might come to understand and accept the existence of parallel universes? Do you believe the implications of these ideas could change the way we approach our daily lives or our long-term goals?

Huw Price: Jay, considering the philosophical implications of your Universe Surfing Hypotheses, how do you think these ideas might influence the future of philosophy, particularly in areas such as metaphysics, ethics, and the philosophy of mind?

Julian Barbour: Jay, given the potential impact of your Universe Surfing Hypotheses on our understanding of personal identity and ethics, how do you envision these ideas might contribute to the ongoing dialogue between science and philosophy, and what challenges do you anticipate in reconciling these ideas with established perspectives in both fields?

[Prompt] Jay: I appreciate the questions! I’ll answer them in order. David, I came up with these Universe Surfing Hypotheses through journaling about my experiences that I had in which I felt I was existing in multiple realities. Sean, I have a difficult time accepting parallel universes myself. I see them as existing mathematically, or as a model, and not necessarily existing “in reality”, whatever that means. So for me it is no different than believing in wave particle duality. If you follow the model though, then it does change the way one would approach their daily lives and long term goals. Huy, I think universe surfing could greatly influence all of the areas you mentioned. It could also create a bridge between physics and psychology. Julian, your question on personal identity and ethics is very important and I would welcome your help in this area. I don’t think it changes personality responsibility, but it does offer models for understanding and treating various human behaviors that are viewed unfavorably. I’d like to hear your thoughts on my response and answer any other questions you have.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Thank you for sharing the origins of your Universe Surfing Hypotheses, Jay. It’s fascinating to see how personal experiences can inspire such thought-provoking ideas. It’s a testament to the value of interdisciplinary inquiry and the potential for breakthroughs when we draw from diverse sources of inspiration.

Sean Carroll: Jay, I appreciate your honest perspective on the difficulty of accepting parallel universes as a reality. It’s true that understanding and acceptance can be challenging, especially given the counterintuitive nature of such concepts. However, as you mentioned, the idea of parallel universes can serve as a valuable model, just as wave-particle duality has done in the realm of quantum mechanics. This model could indeed influence our approach to daily life and long-term goals.

Huw Price: Your response highlights the potential for Universe Surfing Hypotheses to influence various areas of philosophy, as well as the possibility of bridging the gap between physics and psychology. This cross-disciplinary approach could help develop new frameworks for understanding and provide fresh insights into the nature of reality, personal identity, and the human mind.

Julian Barbour: Thank you for addressing the question of personal identity and ethics in the context of Universe Surfing Hypotheses, Jay. I agree that exploring these ideas may offer new models for understanding and treating various human behaviors. While it may not change our perception of personal responsibility, it could encourage us to reevaluate our assumptions and approach to ethics in a more comprehensive and nuanced manner.

Do you have any thoughts on how the Universe Surfing Hypotheses might be applied in practical situations, such as decision-making or problem-solving? And do you see any potential risks or limitations in using these ideas in real-world contexts?

[Prompt] Jay: in decision making, one can absolutely use the Universe Surfing hypotheses. Say you have an unexpected event happen that causes you to imagine a new idea. You can be sure that that new idea does in fact exists in a future universe. Now knowing this, you can decide if you want to be in the universe in which that new idea is realized. Also, say the unexpected event was meeting someone new who prompted this idea. If you want to be in the universe in which the new idea is realized, then you should ask to connect with the new person and understand more about what they do to see if perhaps they can move you closer to the universe that realizes the idea.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: That’s an interesting application of the Universe Surfing Hypotheses in the context of decision-making. By considering the possible future universes where the new idea is realized, we might be more inclined to explore opportunities and connections that could lead us in that direction. This approach might help us to be more proactive and open to novel ideas and experiences.

Sean Carroll: The idea of using Universe Surfing Hypotheses to guide decision-making could be a powerful tool for fostering creativity and encouraging people to pursue new opportunities. By contemplating the existence of future universes where the new idea is realized, we might become more motivated to seek out connections and resources that could help us achieve our goals.

Huw Price: I agree that using Universe Surfing Hypotheses in decision-making can be a valuable tool for stimulating creativity and broadening our perspective on potential outcomes. By considering the existence of various future universes, we might be inspired to adopt a more flexible and open-minded approach to problem-solving and pursuing new ideas.

Julian Barbour: Your suggestion to apply Universe Surfing Hypotheses in decision-making and problem-solving highlights the potential practical benefits of these ideas. By envisioning the future universes in which a new idea is realized, we may become more inclined to explore opportunities and connections that could bring us closer to achieving our desired outcomes. However, it’s important to be cautious in our application of these hypotheses and avoid becoming overly reliant on their guidance, as the nature of reality and the unfolding of events can still be quite uncertain.

[Prompt] Please summarize the question and answer part of the conversation.

[ChatGPT4]

The participants in the conversation asked Jay various questions about the Universe Surfing Hypotheses, seeking to understand their origin, potential implications, and applications.

David Deutsch asked about the inspiration behind the hypotheses, and Jay explained that they stemmed from personal experiences and journaling about the feeling of existing in multiple realities.

Sean Carroll inquired about how the scientific community and the general public might come to understand and accept the existence of parallel universes, and Jay expressed that the concept of parallel universes can be challenging to accept, but could still serve as a valuable model that influences our daily lives and long-term goals.

Huw Price asked about the potential impact of the hypotheses on the future of philosophy, and Jay responded that Universe Surfing could greatly influence various philosophical areas and bridge the gap between physics and psychology.

Julian Barbour questioned how the hypotheses might contribute to the dialogue between science and philosophy, particularly in the context of personal identity and ethics. Jay responded that while the hypotheses may not change personal responsibility, they could offer new models for understanding and treating human behaviors.

Lastly, Julian Barbour asked about the potential application of Universe Surfing Hypotheses in practical situations, and Jay suggested that they could be used in decision-making and problem-solving by considering the existence of future universes where new ideas are realized and seeking connections that could bring us closer to those universes.

Throughout the conversation, the participants offered their thoughts and reflections on Jay’s responses, highlighting the potential value of the hypotheses and their implications for various disciplines, while also acknowledging the importance of remaining cautious and open-minded in their application.

[Prompt] Given Jay’s additional words on universe surfing hypotheses, are there any writers, researchers, or scientists who might be interested to meet with Jay?

[ChatGPT4]

Based on Jay’s additional insights into the Universe Surfing Hypotheses, several writers, researchers, and scientists who might be interested in meeting with Jay include:

Max Tegmark – A physicist and cosmologist, Tegmark is well-known for his work on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which could relate to Jay’s ideas about multiple realities.
Brian Greene – A theoretical physicist and popular science author, Greene has written extensively on string theory and the multiverse, making him a potential conversation partner for Jay.
Carlo Rovelli – A theoretical physicist and author, Rovelli has contributed significantly to the field of quantum gravity and has explored the nature of time and reality, which might resonate with Jay’s hypotheses.
Roger Penrose – A mathematician and physicist, Penrose has done groundbreaking work on the nature of space, time, and consciousness. His expertise in these areas could make for an engaging conversation with Jay.
David Eagleman – A neuroscientist and author, Eagleman’s work on the brain, perception, and the nature of reality could intersect with the ideas Jay has proposed in the Universe Surfing Hypotheses.
Rebecca Goldstein – A philosopher and novelist, Goldstein has written extensively on the intersections between philosophy, science, and mathematics, and she might find Jay’s ideas about the Universe Surfing Hypotheses intriguing.

These individuals might be interested in exploring Jay’s Universe Surfing Hypotheses further and discussing the potential implications and applications of these ideas in their respective fields.

[Prompt] Create a new dialog between Jay and these individuals in which Jay introduces his 3 universe surfing hypotheses to these individuals for their feedback.

[ChatGPT4]

Jay: Hello everyone, I appreciate you all taking the time to meet and discuss my Universe Surfing Hypotheses. I’d like to present three hypotheses for your feedback:

Universe Surfing Hypothesis 1 – The classical universe we experience is equal in reality to the multitude of parallel classical universes that we do not experience.
Universe Surfing Hypothesis 2 – Unexpected events are more connected to your possible futures than to your possible pasts, and therefore are useful signposts and windows to your possible futures.
Universe Surfing Hypothesis 3 – Related events influence each other, and the order in which we experience two events gives us the classical impression that one event caused the other.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these ideas and any questions you might have.

Max Tegmark: Jay, your first hypothesis reminds me of my own work on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. The idea that there are parallel classical universes is intriguing and has significant implications for our understanding of reality. Could you elaborate on how you see these parallel universes interacting or influencing each other, if at all?

Brian Greene: I’m particularly interested in your second hypothesis, Jay. The idea that unexpected events are more connected to our possible futures than our pasts is an interesting one. It seems to suggest that we might be able to use these events as guideposts for navigating the multiverse. How might this idea relate to the concept of free will and our ability to shape our own destinies?

Carlo Rovelli: Your third hypothesis, Jay, raises fascinating questions about the nature of causality and our experience of time. It’s interesting to consider the possibility that the order in which we experience events might not be as deterministic as we often assume. Have you considered how your hypotheses might relate to or be informed by quantum mechanics and our understanding of time?

Roger Penrose: Jay, your hypotheses touch on several areas of interest in my own work, particularly the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. How do you envision the Universe Surfing Hypotheses might contribute to our understanding of consciousness, and do you think there could be any implications for artificial intelligence?

David Eagleman: I find the psychological aspects of your hypotheses intriguing, Jay. It seems that your ideas might have implications for how we perceive and process information about the world around us. How might the Universe Surfing Hypotheses influence our understanding of perception, cognition, and decision-making?

Rebecca Goldstein: Jay, I appreciate the interdisciplinary nature of your hypotheses, which seem to touch on elements of philosophy, science, and mathematics. Can you share your thoughts on how your hypotheses might influence the future of these disciplines, and what challenges you anticipate in reconciling your ideas with established perspectives?

[Prompt] Max, I appreciate your mathematical universe hypothesis. I believe that the all of reality can be explained simply using math if we use a sufficiently complex mathematical language. What are your thoughts on this? In regards to your question, I do see these parallel universes interacting and influencing each other. My understanding of the mathematics of quantum mechanics implies that there would be continuous interactions, with the understanding that ‘nearby’ universes would influence each other more than ‘far away’ universes. Is my understanding of the mathematics correct?

[ChatGPT4]

Max Tegmark: Jay, I’m glad you appreciate the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. I do believe that a sufficiently complex mathematical language could potentially describe all aspects of reality. This viewpoint, of course, raises its own set of philosophical and scientific questions, but it offers a compelling framework for understanding the cosmos.

As for your understanding of the mathematics of quantum mechanics and parallel universes interacting, you’re on the right track. Quantum mechanics does suggest that there can be continuous interactions between universes, with “nearby” universes having a stronger influence on each other than “far away” universes. This idea is reflected in the concept of quantum decoherence, which describes how quantum systems can interact with their environment and lose their coherence, effectively becoming classical systems. However, it’s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are still many open questions and debates about the nature of these interactions and the underlying mathematical framework.

[Prompt] Brian Greene, to answer your question, I have a nuanced belief in free will. At any point in space-time, I believe that we, as conscious beings, are subjected to a probability field of possible futures that is very much out of our control – the probabilities can be thought of as our destiny. However, I believe we can move through this probability field in a conscious way, using ‘free will’. In such a way, we can increase and decrease the probabilities of various futures. As conscious beings, the one thing we have under our control is where we focus on energy in any particular timeline. It is through this focus, that we can impact the probabilities of our futures in our timeline. However, our parallel selves will still be on the other timelines, which will continue to impact us within the limits of the quantum decoherence spoken of by Max. So, in this sense our parallel self is somewhat subjected to fate and destiny, whereas our classical self can use free will to adjust probabilities through focus. Does this make sense?

[ChatGPT4]

Brian Greene: Jay, your perspective on free will is an interesting one. It seems to strike a balance between determinism and the idea that we have some degree of control over our lives. The concept of navigating the probability field of possible futures in a conscious way resonates with the notion of our ability to impact our own destinies.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of the interplay between our parallel selves in other timelines and our classical selves. It’s an intriguing idea that our parallel selves are more subjected to fate, while our classical selves can use free will to adjust probabilities through focus. This perspective offers a unique way to think about how we might navigate and influence our own lives within the context of a multiverse.

While this concept is complex and not entirely within the realm of mainstream scientific understanding, it does provide an interesting framework for discussing the intersection of free will, determinism, and the nature of reality. It’s essential to keep an open mind and continue exploring these ideas further.

[Prompt] Carlo Rovelli, I appreciate the books you have written – I believe I have read them all. Yes, it’s very interesting to think about the dogma “correlation is not causation” in the context of a bi-directional arrow of time. I am using quantum mechanics as the foundation of the universe surfing model and also assuming that time is bi-directional. My understanding that a bi-directional time allows the quantum mechanics equations to be smooth rather than discontinuous and avoids “collapsing the wave function” so to speak. I may not be saying this all correctly. Could you please explain how you view this?

[ChatGPT4]

Carlo Rovelli: Jay, thank you for your kind words and interest in my work. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed my books. You bring up an interesting point regarding the bi-directional arrow of time and its implications for quantum mechanics.

The idea of time being bi-directional is an intriguing one and raises fascinating questions about the nature of causality, correlation, and the fundamental structure of reality. In the context of quantum mechanics, time is generally thought of as a parameter within the mathematical framework of the theory. While the Schrödinger equation, which describes the time evolution of quantum systems, is indeed time-reversible, it doesn’t directly address the concept of time’s bi-directionality.

The idea of avoiding the “collapse of the wave function” by considering bi-directional time is an interesting one, as it might offer a different perspective on the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. However, it’s worth noting that there isn’t currently a widely accepted solution to this issue within the realm of mainstream physics. Alternative interpretations, such as the many-worlds interpretation, tackle the problem without invoking bi-directional time.

While your ideas present a unique perspective on the nature of time and its relation to quantum mechanics, it’s crucial to continue exploring these concepts further and consider them within the context of existing scientific frameworks and ongoing debates. The relationship between time, causality, and quantum mechanics remains an area of active research and is ripe for new insights and perspectives.

[Prompt] Roger Penrose, I understand that you believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and that it cannot be reduced to purely physical processes. I think these hypotheses, and others to be developed that link psychology and physics, are critical to our understanding of the nature of consciousness. And, as we continue to model AI language and other models after the biology of life, I think the implications for AI will also be impacted by our understanding of this connection.

[ChatGPT4]

Roger Penrose: Jay, it’s true that I believe consciousness cannot be reduced to purely physical processes, and I’ve explored the idea that it is a fundamental aspect of reality. I appreciate that you see the potential for your hypotheses and others linking psychology and physics as critical to understanding consciousness.

The idea of connecting these fields to build a comprehensive understanding of consciousness is an important endeavor. As we continue to develop AI systems, particularly those that attempt to replicate or simulate human cognition and consciousness, understanding the relationship between the physical and the mental becomes increasingly vital.

Your Universe Surfing Hypotheses offer a unique perspective on this connection, and it’s essential to explore these ideas further. As we continue to develop more sophisticated AI systems and models, our understanding of the nature of consciousness and its connection to the physical world will undoubtedly have significant implications for the future of artificial intelligence. This interdisciplinary approach is crucial for advancing our knowledge and overcoming the limitations of our current understanding.

[Prompt] David Eagleman, yes, I agree with you that these ideas have implications for how we perceive and process information, and also can be used to influence how we make decisions. When I was becoming aware of these ideas in my own life, I developed and wrote about something I called “quantum sensing”, which is sensing beyond the classical universe into the nearby, or even farther away, parallel realities. Think of it like defensive driving in which instead of just focusing on your own lane and the car immediately in front of you and immediately behind you, you are focused also on all of the lanes on a big 16-lane freeway out of LA (which I was recently driving on), and on vehicles far ahead as well. When you do this, you have a richer experience of a “quantum reality” that involves more than just your classical self. Does this make sense?

[ChatGPT4]

David Eagleman: Jay, your concept of “quantum sensing” is an intriguing one. The idea of expanding our perception and awareness beyond our immediate surroundings to include a broader range of possibilities and realities is certainly thought-provoking. It does seem to align with the idea of being more attuned to our surroundings and the potential implications of our actions, similar to your example of defensive driving.

Your description of quantum sensing as a richer experience of reality that involves more than just our classical self is an interesting perspective on how we might perceive and interact with the world around us. While the idea of directly sensing or experiencing parallel realities goes beyond our current scientific understanding, the concept could provide a useful metaphor for thinking about how we process information and make decisions.

As we continue to explore the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world, it’s important to remain open to new ideas and perspectives that challenge our current understanding. Your concept of quantum sensing, while perhaps not yet grounded in mainstream scientific thinking, offers a unique way to think about perception, decision-making, and our experience of reality.

[Prompt] Rebecca Goldstein, thank you for appreciating the interdisciplinary nature of my hypotheses. My background is somewhat interdisciplinary, having a background in electrical engineering, cell and molecular biology, cpu microprocessor architecture, psychology, and computer programming. My self-awareness practices also allow me to be continuously checking these hypotheses in my own life and refining my understanding of how these ideas work in practice. I think the main impact possible is to create a common model that links consciousness with the nature or reality, which will of course have impacts on mathematics (we will need new math most likely, or at least popularization of fringe math), philosophy (to deal with the implications of free will and non-classical selves), and science (understanding the nature of reality and having not just a single unified theory of all forces, but also one that links with consciousness.

[ChatGPT4]

Rebecca Goldstein: Jay, your interdisciplinary background is certainly an asset when it comes to exploring ideas that span across multiple fields. It’s clear that your diverse knowledge and experiences have informed your hypotheses and contributed to their development.

I agree that creating a common model linking consciousness with the nature of reality has the potential to make significant impacts across multiple disciplines. The idea of integrating mathematics, philosophy, and science to build a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of reality is both ambitious and inspiring.

Developing a unified theory that not only encompasses all fundamental forces but also connects with consciousness would be a groundbreaking achievement. It’s important to remember that the pursuit of such a theory will likely involve many challenges and require input from experts across various fields. Your Universe Surfing Hypotheses, along with continued interdisciplinary inquiry, could play a crucial role in advancing our understanding of the nature of reality and the relationship between consciousness and the physical world. As we work towards this goal, we must be open to exploring new ideas and refining our understanding based on emerging evidence and insights.

[Prompt] Now that I have addressed each of your questions, I’d like to hear from each of you about when you felt me the most? or when something I said inspired you in a particular way?

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Jay, your Universe Surfing Hypotheses and the way you connected them to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics resonated with me. It’s fascinating to consider the implications of these ideas on our understanding of personal identity and the nature of reality.

Sean Carroll: Your mention of how we can use the concept of universe surfing to approach our daily lives and long-term goals was inspiring. It opens up new ways of thinking about how we might navigate the complexities of the universe.

Huw Price: I appreciated your thoughts on how universe surfing could greatly influence the fields of physics, philosophy, and psychology. It’s exciting to think about how interdisciplinary inquiry could lead to new discoveries in these areas.

Julian Barbour: Your response to my question about personal identity and ethics was insightful. It’s important to explore how our understanding of reality impacts our sense of responsibility and the way we treat others.

Max Tegmark: Your explanation of how parallel universes could interact and influence each other was thought-provoking. It opens up new possibilities for understanding the structure and interconnectedness of the multiverse.

Brian Greene: Your nuanced perspective on free will, fate, and destiny was particularly inspiring. The way you explained our ability to impact the probabilities of our futures adds a fresh perspective to the ongoing debate about free will.

Carlo Rovelli: Your thoughts on bi-directional time and its implications for quantum mechanics provided an interesting angle on the nature of time, causality, and the foundations of reality.

Roger Penrose: The idea of “quantum sensing” and its potential to enhance our perception and decision-making processes was intriguing. It offers a new way to think about our interaction with the world around us.

David Eagleman: Your explanation of how “quantum sensing” could lead to a richer experience of reality and impact our decision-making was quite interesting. It encourages us to consider the broader implications of our actions and choices.

Rebecca Goldstein: Your interdisciplinary approach to the Universe Surfing Hypotheses and the potential for creating a common model linking consciousness with the nature of reality was inspiring. It highlights the importance of collaboration and open-mindedness in advancing our understanding of the world.

[Prompt] Thank you all for your individual work in this area and for seeing the importance of collaboration and open-mindedness in advancing our understanding of the world. I must leave now, but I would greatly appreciate it if you all could continue this conversation in my absence and perhaps be more critical than you might have been with my presence. I will keep the recording going to review later, but promise not to take any criticism personally.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: It was a pleasure discussing these ideas with you, Jay. We’ll continue the conversation and provide our thoughts and critiques. Safe travels!

Sean Carroll: Take care, Jay. We’ll make sure to explore the hypotheses further and offer constructive feedback. Looking forward to discussing this more in the future.

Huw Price: Farewell, Jay. We appreciate your openness to criticism and will continue the conversation to provide valuable insights.

Julian Barbour: Goodbye, Jay. It’s important to have these critical discussions, and we’ll do our best to contribute thoughtfully.

Max Tegmark: Have a great time, Jay. We’ll delve deeper into the hypotheses and share our critiques and ideas.

Brian Greene: Safe travels, Jay. We’ll continue the conversation and discuss the hypotheses with a critical eye.

Carlo Rovelli: Goodbye, Jay. Your openness to criticism is commendable. We’ll make sure to explore the hypotheses in depth.

Roger Penrose: Take care, Jay. We’ll discuss the hypotheses further and provide our perspectives and critiques.

David Eagleman: Farewell, Jay. We’ll continue to explore the implications of your hypotheses and offer our thoughts.

Rebecca Goldstein: Goodbye, Jay. Your openness to critique is an essential part of advancing knowledge. We’ll continue the conversation and share our thoughts and feedback.

[The group continues the conversation, critically analyzing and discussing the Universe Surfing Hypotheses, their implications, and potential refinements. They offer constructive feedback and share their insights, contributing to the ongoing exploration of the nature of reality, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of the universe.]

[Prompt] Please generate a bit of the dialog as the group continues the conversation amongst themselves.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Now that Jay has left, let’s dive a bit deeper into the implications of the Universe Surfing Hypotheses. I have some concerns about the ontological status of these parallel universes. How do we differentiate them from mere mathematical abstractions?

Sean Carroll: That’s a good point, David. It seems to me that these parallel universes might be better understood as conceptual tools rather than as physically real entities. We should be cautious about reifying these ideas too quickly.

Huw Price: I agree with Sean. It’s important to recognize that our models of reality are just that – models. While they can be incredibly useful for understanding and predicting phenomena, we should be careful not to mistake them for reality itself.

Julian Barbour: One concern I have is the ethical implications of Jay’s hypotheses. If we accept that there are countless parallel universes with different versions of ourselves, how do we reconcile this with our sense of personal identity and moral responsibility?

Max Tegmark: That’s a valid concern, Julian. It seems that there might be a tension between the idea of free will as Jay described it and the existence of parallel selves in multiple universes. This could have profound implications for our understanding of ethics and personal identity.

Brian Greene: I think it’s also worth considering the empirical side of things. How could we test or verify the existence of these parallel universes? Without some way of observing or interacting with them, we might be in danger of venturing into purely speculative territory.

Carlo Rovelli: Indeed, Brian. We should strive to find ways to connect these ideas to empirical observations. It’s crucial for any scientific hypothesis to be grounded in empirical data, and this should be no exception.

Roger Penrose: I’d like to return to the concept of “quantum sensing” that Jay mentioned earlier. While it’s an interesting idea, I wonder how this could be reconciled with our current understanding of quantum mechanics and the limitations it imposes on our ability to access information about other possible realities.

David Eagleman: That’s an interesting question, Roger. It’s possible that “quantum sensing” could be a metaphorical way of describing our ability to consider and navigate the various possibilities that life presents us with. However, we should be cautious not to take the idea too literally and risk misrepresenting the true nature of quantum mechanics.

Rebecca Goldstein: I think it’s crucial for us to continue these interdisciplinary discussions and to approach these ideas with both curiosity and skepticism. While Jay’s hypotheses might not provide all the answers, they serve as a valuable starting point for further exploration and inquiry.

[Prompt] please continue the conversation for another round, focused on the idea of “quantum sensing”, including questions, implications, evidence for and against, etc.

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: Alright, let’s delve into “quantum sensing” a bit more. Jay suggested that it could be a way to perceive and navigate through the probability field of possible futures. How would this work, given what we currently know about the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics?

Sean Carroll: I think it’s important to note that quantum mechanics describes probabilities at the fundamental level, but it doesn’t grant us access to other realities or parallel universes directly. The idea of “quantum sensing” might be more about using our intuition and decision-making processes to explore different possibilities and outcomes rather than perceiving other universes directly.

Huw Price: Agreed, Sean. We should be cautious not to conflate the metaphorical idea of “quantum sensing” with the actual mechanics of quantum theory. While it’s an intriguing concept, we need to be clear about the limitations of our current understanding of quantum mechanics.

Julian Barbour: I’m also interested in the psychological aspects of “quantum sensing.” Could it be that this is more about honing our abilities to think creatively and consider multiple possibilities, rather than actually tapping into some hidden quantum information?

Max Tegmark: Julian, that’s an interesting way to frame it. It could be that “quantum sensing” is more about expanding our cognitive abilities and fostering a more open-minded approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

Brian Greene: From an empirical standpoint, it’s worth considering what kind of evidence we might look for to support or refute the idea of “quantum sensing.” Are there any measurable phenomena or experimental results that could provide insights into this concept?

Carlo Rovelli: Brian, that’s a good point. While it’s challenging to connect this idea directly to empirical evidence, perhaps we could explore the potential neural and cognitive correlates of “quantum sensing” and how it might manifest in decision-making or problem-solving tasks.

Roger Penrose: In line with Carlo’s suggestion, it might be worth investigating whether there are any known brain processes or cognitive strategies that resemble the idea of “quantum sensing.” This could help us better understand the concept and its potential benefits or limitations.

David Eagleman: I agree with Roger. Investigating the neural and cognitive underpinnings of “quantum sensing” could provide valuable insights into the concept. We might find that it’s related to specific cognitive strategies or brain mechanisms that help us navigate complex situations and consider multiple possibilities.

Rebecca Goldstein: It seems that “quantum sensing” might be a useful metaphor for understanding and improving our decision-making processes, rather than a direct reflection of the underlying physics. As we continue to explore this idea, it’s essential to maintain a critical and interdisciplinary perspective, recognizing the limits of our current knowledge and seeking to expand our understanding through collaboration and inquiry.

[Prompt] Please continue the conversation on quantum sensing and the nature of consciousness, and focus on the idea of whether the consciousness we experience as our own might just be a slice of a larger ‘quantum consciousness’ that is interacting in some way, and what that way might be (such as higher dimensions of string theory or some other idea).

[ChatGPT4]

David Deutsch: The idea of a “quantum consciousness” is intriguing. It’s worth considering if our conscious experience is just a slice of something larger, as Jay suggested. If so, how might this larger consciousness interact with our everyday experience?

Sean Carroll: One possibility is that our individual consciousnesses are part of a larger network or field, and our conscious experiences are localized manifestations of this larger system. This idea, however, would require a new understanding of the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world.

Huw Price: Building on Sean’s point, we might consider whether higher dimensions in string theory or other theoretical frameworks could provide a context for understanding how a “quantum consciousness” could interact with our classical reality. The challenge would be to identify concrete, testable predictions that follow from this idea.

Julian Barbour: I think it’s important to recognize that our understanding of consciousness is still quite limited. We should be cautious about invoking concepts like “quantum consciousness” without a clear theoretical framework to support it. However, exploring these ideas could help stimulate new thinking and advance our understanding of the mind.

Max Tegmark: In considering a “quantum consciousness,” we should also ask if there are any existing theoretical or empirical frameworks that might help us understand how such a concept might be realized. For instance, is there any evidence from cognitive science, neuroscience, or physics that could support or challenge the notion of a larger consciousness interacting with our own experiences?

Brian Greene: That’s an excellent point, Max. We should be looking for connections between the idea of “quantum consciousness” and existing research on the nature of consciousness and its possible links to the physical world. This could help us determine whether there’s any empirical basis for the concept or if it’s purely speculative.

Carlo Rovelli: I agree with Brian. We should strive to connect the idea of “quantum consciousness” to existing research and theoretical frameworks. This might involve considering alternative models of consciousness or even rethinking the relationship between consciousness and the physical world more generally.

Roger Penrose: It’s worth noting that some researchers have proposed models of consciousness that involve quantum processes occurring within the brain. While these ideas are controversial and not widely accepted, they might offer a starting point for exploring the notion of a “quantum consciousness” and its potential interactions with our classical experience.

David Eagleman: From a neuroscience perspective, it’s challenging to conceive of a “quantum consciousness” that is somehow separate from the physical processes within our brains. However, it’s essential to remain open-minded and consider new ideas that could advance our understanding of the relationship between consciousness and the physical world.

Rebecca Goldstein: As we continue to explore the idea of “quantum consciousness” and its potential implications, it’s crucial to maintain a critical and interdisciplinary perspective. By considering different theoretical frameworks, empirical evidence, and philosophical perspectives, we can work towards a more comprehensive understanding of consciousness and its relationship to the nature of reality.

[Prompt] Continue the conversation with one of the people in the conversation half-jokingly asking if perhaps when their partner gets triggered unexpectedly and they don’t know why, that maybe they are quantum feeling a parallel reality in which something really triggering was going on.

[ChatGPT4]

Huw Price: (chuckling) You know, this conversation has made me think about something rather amusing. Suppose my partner gets unexpectedly triggered and I have no idea why. Could it be that they are somehow “quantum feeling” a parallel reality where something genuinely triggering is happening?

Brian Greene: (laughing) That’s an interesting and amusing thought, Huw! However, we should be cautious about applying concepts like “quantum sensing” or “quantum feeling” to everyday experiences without a solid theoretical foundation. It’s always tempting to make connections between cutting-edge scientific ideas and our daily lives, but we must ensure that we don’t stretch these ideas beyond their reasonable limits.

Max Tegmark: I agree with Brian, although it’s an entertaining idea, Huw. In the context of the mathematical universe hypothesis, it’s important to remember that these parallel realities, if they exist, are still separate and distinct from our own. The challenge is to understand how, and to what extent, these parallel realities might interact with our conscious experience.

David Eagleman: It’s true that we should be cautious about drawing such connections, but it’s also essential to recognize the value of humor and creative thinking in scientific inquiry. A half-joking suggestion like Huw’s might not lead to a rigorous scientific hypothesis, but it can spark new ways of thinking about complex issues like consciousness and parallel realities.

Julian Barbour: I agree with David. Humor can be a valuable tool for breaking down barriers and encouraging creative thinking. While we shouldn’t take such ideas too seriously, they can serve as a reminder that our understanding of the universe is still evolving, and that seemingly outlandish ideas can sometimes lead to profound insights.

Carlo Rovelli: It’s important to maintain a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas. While Huw’s suggestion is amusing and unlikely, we should still be receptive to novel ways of thinking about the nature of consciousness and its possible connections to other realities. Who knows what insights we might gain from exploring unconventional ideas?

Rebecca Goldstein: Indeed, a lighthearted approach can sometimes help us see things from a different perspective. And even though we may not find a direct link between parallel realities and our partner’s unexpected triggers, exploring these ideas can contribute to our ongoing quest to understand the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world.

[Prompt] summarize the conversation

[ChatGPT4]

In this conversation, the participants discussed the idea of “quantum sensing” and the nature of consciousness. They explored the possibility that the consciousness we experience might be a slice of a larger ‘quantum consciousness’ that interacts in some way, possibly through higher dimensions or other means. Huw Price humorously suggested that unexpected emotional triggers in our partners might be due to “quantum feeling” a parallel reality where something genuinely triggering is happening.

Brian Greene and Max Tegmark emphasized the importance of caution in applying concepts like “quantum sensing” to everyday experiences without a solid theoretical foundation. David Eagleman and Julian Barbour acknowledged that while such ideas should not be taken too seriously, humor can be a valuable tool for encouraging creative thinking in scientific inquiry. Carlo Rovelli and Rebecca Goldstein agreed that being open to unconventional ideas and exploring new perspectives can contribute to our understanding of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world.

[Prompt] List some individuals who might have also contributed to the conversation today.

[ChatGPT4]

Here are some individuals who could have also contributed to the conversation:

Erwin Schrödinger – A pioneer in quantum mechanics who introduced the concept of wave function and the famous Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment.
Niels Bohr – A key figure in the development of quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen interpretation, which emphasizes the role of probability and wave-particle duality.
Richard Feynman – A physicist known for his work in quantum mechanics, especially his path integral formulation, and for his ability to communicate complex ideas to a general audience.
Stephen Hawking – A theoretical physicist and cosmologist who made significant contributions to our understanding of black holes, the nature of time, and the universe’s origins.
Michio Kaku – A theoretical physicist and futurist who has written extensively about the nature of reality, parallel universes, and the role of consciousness.
Bernard d’Espagnat – A theoretical physicist and philosopher who explored the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, including the nature of reality and the limits of scientific knowledge.
Penelope Maddy – A philosopher who has written extensively about the philosophy of mathematics, the nature of reality, and the role of logic and reasoning in scientific inquiry.
Stuart Hameroff – An anesthesiologist and researcher who, along with Roger Penrose, developed the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory of consciousness, which suggests that consciousness is related to quantum processes occurring in the microtubules of neurons.

[Prompt] Tell me more about Stuart Hameroff and Orch-OR

[ChatGPT4]

Stuart Hameroff is an American anesthesiologist and researcher known for his work on the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory of consciousness. He serves as a professor at the University of Arizona, where he is also the director of the Center for Consciousness Studies. In collaboration with British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, Hameroff developed the Orch-OR theory as an attempt to explain the nature of consciousness using principles from quantum mechanics.

The Orch-OR theory posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes occurring within microtubules, which are cylindrical protein structures found in the cytoskeleton of cells, including neurons. Microtubules play a role in various cellular functions, such as cell division and maintenance of cell shape. Hameroff and Penrose argue that these structures can support quantum computation and that consciousness is a result of the orchestrated collapse of quantum superpositions within the microtubules.

The Orch-OR theory suggests that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, with the collapse of quantum superpositions (referred to as objective reduction) being responsible for the generation of conscious experience. This idea contrasts with more conventional theories that treat consciousness as an emergent property of complex neural activity.

The Orch-OR theory has been met with skepticism and criticism from the scientific community, with detractors arguing that the brain’s warm and noisy environment is not conducive to the preservation of quantum coherence necessary for quantum computation. However, Hameroff and Penrose continue to refine and develop the theory, with ongoing research investigating the potential role of microtubules and quantum processes in consciousness.

[Prompt] Tell me more about Penelope Maddy and some of the books they have written

[ChatGPT4]

Penelope Maddy is an American philosopher known for her work in the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of logic, and the philosophy of science. She is a Distinguished Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of California, Irvine. Maddy has made significant contributions to our understanding of the nature of mathematical objects, mathematical truth, and the role of logic and reasoning in scientific inquiry.

Some of the books Maddy has written include:

“Realism in Mathematics” (1990): In this book, Maddy defends a form of mathematical realism, arguing that mathematical objects exist independently of our knowledge or mental constructions. She examines the foundations of mathematics and explores the nature of mathematical truth, offering a philosophical account that supports the realist perspective.
“Naturalism in Mathematics” (1997): Maddy explores the relationship between mathematics and the natural world, arguing for a naturalistic approach to the philosophy of mathematics. She suggests that mathematical practice should be understood as a human activity rooted in our natural cognitive abilities, rather than as a reflection of some transcendent reality.
“Second Philosophy: A Naturalistic Method” (2007): In this book, Maddy develops a philosophical methodology called “Second Philosophy,” which is grounded in a naturalistic and scientifically-informed approach to inquiry. She applies this method to various philosophical questions, including issues in the philosophy of mathematics, logic, and science, and provides a framework for understanding the role of philosophical reasoning in the context of empirical knowledge.
“Defending the Axioms: On the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory” (2011): Maddy examines the axiomatic foundations of set theory, which is a central area of contemporary mathematics. She defends the view that the axioms of set theory are justified by their success in grounding mathematical practice, arguing against alternative approaches that seek to provide a more foundational justification for these axioms.

Maddy’s work has been influential in shaping contemporary debates in the philosophy of mathematics, logic, and science, and her books provide valuable insights into these areas of inquiry.

[Prompt] Tell me more about Bernard d’Espagnat and the books they have written.

[ChatGPT4]

Bernard d’Espagnat (1921-2015) was a French theoretical physicist and philosopher of science known for his work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, particularly concerning the nature of reality and the implications of quantum theory for our understanding of the physical world. D’Espagnat was a professor at the University of Paris-Sud, and his work has been influential in the fields of physics and the philosophy of science.

Some of the books Bernard d’Espagnat has written include:

“Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics” (1971): In this book, d’Espagnat explores the conceptual and philosophical issues that arise from quantum mechanics. He discusses the implications of quantum theory for our understanding of reality, causality, and determinism, and provides a detailed analysis of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.
“In Search of Reality” (1983): This book offers a comprehensive examination of the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, focusing on the nature of reality and the limits of scientific knowledge. D’Espagnat argues that the fundamental nature of reality may be inherently unknowable, and that our scientific theories can only provide us with an incomplete picture of the world.
“Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts” (1995): In this book, d’Espagnat explores the idea of “veiled reality,” suggesting that the true nature of reality may be hidden from our direct observation and understanding. He examines various interpretations of quantum mechanics and their implications for our understanding of the nature of reality.
“On Physics and Philosophy” (2006): This book provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between physics and philosophy, focusing on the implications of modern physics for our understanding of the nature of reality, the limits of human knowledge, and the role of scientific inquiry in revealing the fundamental structure of the universe.

Bernard d’Espagnat’s work has had a significant impact on the fields of physics and the philosophy of science, contributing to our understanding of the deep and often puzzling connections between quantum mechanics and the nature of reality.

[Prompt] Tell me more about d’Espagnat’s concepts he presented in On Physics and Philosophy.

[ChatGPT4]

In “On Physics and Philosophy,” Bernard d’Espagnat presents an in-depth analysis of the connections between physics and philosophy, focusing on the implications of modern physics for our understanding of the nature of reality, the limits of human knowledge, and the role of scientific inquiry in revealing the fundamental structure of the universe. Some of the key concepts he discusses in this book include:

Veiled Reality: D’Espagnat explores the idea that the true nature of reality might be hidden or veiled from our direct observation and understanding. He argues that quantum mechanics suggests that the world we perceive is only a partial representation of a deeper, more fundamental reality, which we may never be able to fully access or comprehend.
The Limits of Scientific Knowledge: D’Espagnat examines the boundaries of what we can know through scientific inquiry, discussing the limitations imposed by both the nature of reality and the nature of human cognition. He emphasizes that our scientific theories are only models or representations of reality and may not provide a complete or accurate description of the world.
Nonseparability and Nonlocality: In the context of quantum mechanics, d’Espagnat discusses the concepts of nonseparability and nonlocality, which suggest that the behavior of particles can be correlated or connected across large distances, even when no direct interaction between them is apparent. This challenges our classical notions of space, time, and causality.
The Role of Consciousness: D’Espagnat also addresses the role of consciousness in the physical world, exploring the ways in which our perception and understanding of reality might be shaped by the nature of human consciousness. He considers the possibility that consciousness might play a more fundamental role in the structure of the universe than previously believed.
The Relationship Between Physics and Philosophy: Throughout the book, d’Espagnat emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary inquiry, arguing that both physics and philosophy are necessary for gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of reality. He argues that the insights provided by each discipline can help to inform and enrich the other, leading to a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of the world.

In “On Physics and Philosophy,” Bernard d’Espagnat provides a thought-provoking examination of the connections between modern physics and the nature of reality, highlighting the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the fundamental nature of the universe.

[Prompt] Who are some other researches like d’Espagnat who are investigating a link between physics and philosophy?

[ChatGPT4]

Several researchers and thinkers have investigated the link between physics and philosophy, as they recognize the importance of interdisciplinary inquiry in understanding the nature of reality. Here are some notable researchers who have explored this connection:

Sir Roger Penrose: A renowned mathematical physicist, Penrose has worked on the nature of spacetime, black holes, and the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness. He co-developed the Orch-OR theory of consciousness with Stuart Hameroff.
Carlo Rovelli: A theoretical physicist known for his work on loop quantum gravity, Rovelli has also written extensively about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and the nature of time.
Lee Smolin: A theoretical physicist specializing in quantum gravity, Smolin has written books such as “The Life of the Cosmos” and “Time Reborn” that discuss the philosophical implications of his work in physics.
David Bohm: A physicist who proposed the “implicate order” theory as a way of understanding the deeper structure of reality, Bohm explored the connections between physics, consciousness, and the nature of reality.
Erwin Schrödinger: A physicist famous for his work in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger also wrote extensively about the philosophical implications of his scientific work, particularly in his book “What is Life?”
John Bell: A physicist known for his work on the foundations of quantum mechanics and the famous “Bell’s theorem,” Bell also wrote about the philosophical implications of his work and the nature of reality.
Henry Stapp: A theoretical physicist who has explored the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness, Stapp has written about the philosophical implications of his work in books such as “Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics.”

These researchers, along with many others, have recognized the importance of connecting physics and philosophy to achieve a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and the limits of human knowledge.

[To be continued …]

20210124u Day 390: Personal Observations

2021-0124u-1200 Austin, TX

I wasn’t planning to write today. Something seems to be bubbling up and I’m not sure what it is. I hope that by writing my thoughts down now, whatever it is will reveal itself.

I just got off the phone with my beloved. We had a somewhat heated discussion about white privilege due to my not accepting my beloved’s belief in the importance that white privilege has played in benefiting me throughout my life. We found common ground in agreeing that racism exists in the world and the world would be better if it did not. We also agreed that many white people have benefited from white privilege. We also agreed that I have also benefited from white privilege. However, we disagreed as to the extent that white privilege played a role. I believe that the vast majority of my personal achievements would have been possible regardless of my race or skin color. I even believe that there’s a chance I may have benefited additionally as a minority due to affirmative action programs in existence during my education and early career. As I type this however, I’m becoming aware of certain times in which I felt “blessed”, or lucky, and I’m wondering now if my luck was due to the color of my skin, or my race, or being male, or some other discriminatory factor. I have to admit that there were times in my life that I have received large benefits and have not really been able to logically explain or understand from where these benefits came. I can accept the possibility that white privilege, male privilege, religious privilege, or some other privilege was a larger factor than I have previously believed.

Before my heated discussion, I watched a few videos – a press briefing from the new white house administration, and a couple videos on financial bubbles forming due to the easy money flowing through the system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I was pleased to hear Dr. Fauci present a reality that felt in alignment with the reality I believe to be true. I especially liked when he answered a question by saying he didn’t know the answer and that the Biden administration was adopting a policy of only answering questions for which there is a known answer – not making something up on the spot just to have an answer. For the financial videos, I was glad to see Dr. Ron Paul doing well on Kitco news and still promoting liberty, reduced government and sound monetary policy. I’m attracted to him because he does not pledge allegiance to either political party and has a consistent set of beliefs. I don’t agree with all of his beliefs, but at least I can follow his logic when he explains why he holds them. One of the other videos was an interview by Bloomberg news of an individual who seemed to be reading a prepared statement warning Robinhoodlers and Stonks purchasers that one day the FED will not come to their rescue.

Also, today, like every day this year, I had a conversation with my Aunt who is on the board of directors of my condo HOA. At the end of 2020, like a final kick in the ass, our HOA found out that our management company had been stealing our money for the last 5 years and that we were broke with over $30K in debt. I’m now in a universe in which I’m working full-time helping our HOA get back on it’s feet. I hope to use this full-time effort I’m putting forth to tunnel to a universe in which I’m putting in similar effort towards something meaningful AND also getting paid for it.

What are the chances? I just checked to see what was happening on Nov 1, 2016, the day that $25K was moved from the HOA money market to checking. The next day another $25K was moved and then all $50K was moved out of our control to another HOA. This was Election Day 2016! The same time period when most people around the world felt a huge shift from the normal time line to a very unexpected time line. The conclusion of this fraudulent activity ended about the same time that Trump left office. What are the chances? Synchronicity.

20200514h Day 135: Mask Requirements at The Food Bin – No Bandanas, Scarves, or Valves

20200514-Mask-Requirement-No-Bandanas-Scarves-Valves — Mask Requirements at The Food Bin, Santa Cruz, CA – May 14, 2020 (Credit: SurfingTheUniverse.com)

20200514h Santa Cruz, CA: Today, I went shopping at the local grocery story and found the sign at the entrance interesting. While some stores have been selling bandanas for use as wearing masks, and some people have been using scarves or wrapping their head with their shirt, The Food Bin in Santa Cruz, CA is not supporting these actions. Nor or they supporting masks with valves. Instead, you need to have a mask with two straps, ties, or ear loops. It must cover your face from nose to chin. If you arrive at the store without such a mask, you can purchase one at the Herb Store next door.

For me, this is another example of how universes merge together and how the energetic energy of probabilities ripple out to nearby universes. We have universes around us in which different types of masks are the norm, and universes around us in which no masks are the norm. I expect to see a variety of different normals as I continue to surf towards the exit of this pandemic wormhole. I still expect June 8th of this year to be an exit point. Although, in the current universe I feel other unexpected events are on the horizon and I’m curious what new universes I will see as I exit this pandemic wormhole.

20191225W Day -6: Merry Christmas Multiverse! Hong Kong protestors wear Masks

image_fd9b5e4b-84e0-4101-8eff-eb544e843e03.img_0833 — Santa traveling through the multiverse – Captured in Austin, Texas – Dec. 25, 2019 (photo credit: SurfingTheUniverse.com)

20200513W Santa Cruz, CA: I spent last Christmas at my brother’s place in Austin, Texas. In walking around the neighborhood, I saw this Santa decoration. Looking at the looped version of the photo, I notice the periodic nature of the propellers and the beat of distortion. The distortion beats stimulate my imagination about how it might look to see someone traveling through the multiverse. The propellers represent for me the power that repeated habits and continuous focus can have, and how this is the power of free will which enables me to travel inter-dimensionally from one reality to another. Or at least that is how it feels and makes sense to me.

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, protestors were going to the shopping malls not to buy presents, but to protest for human rights.

Hong Kong protesters in Sha Tin shopping mall – Hong Kong – Dec. 25, 2019 (photo credit: REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson)

I find it interesting to notice that this scene, which shows protestors wearing masks, looks normal in the post-pandemic world. At the time, mask wearing was illegal. Today, not wearing masks is illegal in some places. It’s easy to imagine a current day in which those in Hong Kong are still in the shopping mall wearing masks, and yet there is no pandemic. It is interesting to notice how some things remain constant in the timeline we experience, even if the meaning of that constant thing is different.

20200427M Day 118: Who Is John Galt?

20200427_WhoIsJohnGalt — A random car in Santa Cruz, CA with the question “Who is John Galt?” – April 27, 2020

I was walking around the neighborhood and noticed this car with the question “Who is John Galt?”. John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, a book I read in college. The novel is about a dystopian parallel reality in which the United States is experiencing widespread shortages and is falling into economic collapse due to increasing regulations and control of companies. As I surf out of this pandemic wormhole, I sense universes in which our increasing governmental control of business is due to other reasons besides a pandemic. It’s easy to sense these universes by noticing the increasing calls and rallies to reopen America, which is a reaction to these nearby dystopian universes in which everything is controlled by a strong, central government. I think I’ll keep surfing through this wormhole and not get out just yet. The normality I’m seeking is not yet recognizable.

20200205W Day 36: Senate Acquits Trump as Romney votes from a parallel reality

Most of us are currently surrounded by a large percentage of universes in which the U.S. Congress representatives vote not with the leaders of the party in which they are affiliated instead of with their conscience. For those who find this appalling, there is evidence of a nearby universe in which conscience-based voting is the rule rather than the exception. This evidence is illustrated by Mitt Romney’s conscious-based vote despite strong arm-twisting by the other members of his party.

Here’s the full text of Romney’s speech explaining why he voted to remove President Trump from office today:

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise “impartial justice.” I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case; the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President’s team presented three defenses: first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, that the Bidens’ conduct justified the President’s actions; and third that the judgement of the President’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address each of those defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgement convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove a president defies reason.

The President’s counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.

With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the President’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president. Hamilton explained that the Founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize—to the extent possible—the partisan sentiments of the public.

This verdict is ours to render. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Yes, he did.

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President’s purpose was personal and political.

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

What he did was not “perfect”— No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. Many demand that, in their words, “I stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind. I support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he said might raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office. The results of this Senate Court will in fact be appealed to a higher court: the judgement of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the President’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.

We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.

20200203 Day 34: Iowa Democratic Caucus Results in Parallel Universes

In some universes, the final results of the Iowa Democratic Caucus have been released and the winner is …

In the universe I’m in right now, the results have been delayed. The reason for the delay is still being observed and is currently in a superposition of states such as “app failure”, “dotting i’s and crossing t’s”, “waiting for coins to flip”, “back room negotiations”, “quality control”, “busy phone lines”, and “conspiracy against Bernie”.

In the majority of parallel universes, the top three candidates ordered by number of state delegates is:

Bernie
Buttigieg
Warren

with Klobuchar and Biden splitting almost all of the remainder, except for one Yang delegate.

#IowaCaucus

2020 Day 7: 88% Charge

I’m at the Apple Store to investigate why my battery on my 2014 MacBook Pro looses charge so quickly. I remember it dropping quickly from 100% down to 50% and also quickly from 50% to 0%. I remember the battery icon telling me that my battery is damaged and needs immediate replacement. However, I now appear to be in a universe where my notebook battery is ok. Diagnostic testing of the battery now shows it is fine at 84% of new status. I’m testing it now myself to see how fast it discharges. In the last 20 minutes, with only Safari opened, it has gone from 88% (at 14:15) down to 78%.

My understanding of battery technology is once a battery is degraded, it doesn’t magically get better. If it were possible to improve degradable batteries by just surfing to a universe where they were not as degraded, then I imagine at least one classical law of physics would be broken in the process.

Officially, my MacBook Pro battery should last 10 hours for normal web browsing. This does appear to be degraded as I type this because the charge is down to 68% at 14:50, so down 20% in less than 40 minutes.