Will matters and your will is free.
Everyone familiar with platonic forms?
Yes, “ideal” forms… Well, the term “ideal” tends to be a bit of a stumbling block. Plato distinguished between form and manifestation. A platonic form is more akin to Sheldrake’s morphic fields than some idolized material object.
By way of further explanation, you take the form of a human being because of your Form, but the matter of your being re-configures freely throughout your life, and thus you appear to change though your fundamental reality remains unchanged. Should I continue with Plato’s ideas more or bring it up to a more modern era?
I will just go with the flow. As abstract and airy as Plato’s ideas once seemed, more and more our science is finding evidence to back them up. Physics is looking more like a group of ideals emerging through a haze of probability then the concrete strictly mechanistic view that was once so commonly accepted. The term ideal, as I said earlier, is a bit of a sticking point. It has nothing to do with preferences of any being, nor does it have anything to do with optimization necessarily.
Yes, I should probably have said “Idea forms” rather than “ideal.” Our word idea came from the Greek word eidos which meant vision. So it seems the ancient Greek philosophers intuited the observer effect well ahead of it’s time. Forms can and do change over time, but the basis or substrate of form is conserved. My basis for saying this, well… The anthropomorphic principle would be a strong element of it. Everyone familiar with that principle? Whatever rhyme or reason governs the universe’s behaviour, it seems incredibly fine tuned to allow for life in the universe.
Man being the measure of all things? Yes, the common name of the principle I feel is a bit off, but yes, just little shifts in the behaviour of energy in our universe and life would be entirely impossible. Honestly, a similarly simple shift in the universe’s energy and matter itself would be impossible. The universe would just be a big fog of radiation.
Now to add the next part of the formula. Energy flow left to a “dumb” universe would not be well conserved. Again, systems would have disappeared in a great entropic sink hole. A universal heat death.
I feel there is a nearly infinite series of universes out there that just didn’t get it right until we came along. Hawking would agree with you, and it makes the math make more sense I guess. It isn’t my personal view.
I would agree that there are infinite universes, but they are not discrete. They are embedded in our universe, or we are embedded in those, but the discrete elements of our spatial field produce the dynamic of the life principle, if you prefer, collectively. I believe that our own dimension by itself would be insufficient to support the emergence of life. This is why it seems too improbable looking at most of the behaviour of our physical universe. Does this sound unreasonable?
What would be more reasonable? Does math really justify a vast collection of universal blank slates? Even for those dead universes to exist it would require conservation of information. Observable structures that would apparently exclude life as we know it, and with the innate inconsistency of space, black holes and what have you, these blank universes would not continuously function as closed systems.
There is even a rather credible theory that our own universe resides along the event horizon of a four dimensional black hole thus explaining both the apparent expansion of the universe and also its fine tuned stability. But back to forms…
So our black hole universe is constantly sucking in matter. That’s why it’s always expanding? Actually, the temporal exchange itself is not smooth, so in fact no actual motion would be taking place. But no, we would be in the information field or firewall of the black hole. No information being lost though matter itself would seem to lack energy it might otherwise be expected to have, thus the rarity of visible matter in our universe.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.