I wonder why those people like to invoke infinity so much. Firstly, we can't know whether something is infinite or not, secondly, there is a huge but finite amount of dark matter and vacuum energy. It is enough for lots of parallel universes, but not for infinity of them.

Thirdly, why the existences should be identical, or differing in small details? Seems like a great waste of rare material. This whole teory looks to me like someone made a mistake in the code and the university supercomputer froze in infinite recurrence cycle. Even the universe has its limits, despite of what mathemathics says. Maybe it's not limited in space or time, but the matter and energy aren't infinite.

Fourthly, assuming this is true, then it is not our existence that survives in flesh, it is a simultaneous almost identic existence that lives independently.
And many of these universes have just as much unexplained questions as this one, which this hypothesis will not answer either

I think there are better theories, less crazy, explaining more.

Something similar to you might survive elsewhere for a time, but YOU are toast when you die. People think they will live on if they get cloned. The fact is that another being will live on after they die.

So, no "good news" there, either.

You and Luminon make the same error about what Legmark is stating.  It is not similar or similar in most respects like some star trek fiction of an alternate universe.  Again, the probability of an existence identical to our own with exactly the same states as they are at this instant everywhere on this planet is mind bogglingly small, but regardless how small the math tells us that it will be overwhelmed by the brute force of infinity.  

Legmark is not describing an existence "similiar" to ours.  It is an identical existence in every respect including the brain states for your emotions as you are experiencing them this instant.  

One pattern of molecules may cease to exist in one area of the universe, but an infinite number of others are being born, experiencing their first day of school exactly as you experienced it and so on and so forth.  

Whether or not we like the reality of infinity, we must come to accept its implications.  This is just one of many problem atheists have with existence.  I look forward to more substantive reactions to my post.

Is it true that any hypothesis of infinite time or space is invalid?  If so, kindly point to any juried science article from a respected journal that makes this case.

Let's step through this to understand where the alleged silliness creeps in.  Our common ground is that you admit the possibility that the pattern of our individual existence is replicated infinitely.  Is it improper then to make the claim that that particular pattern is immortal?

Luminon- that is an elementary question.  Perhaps you would benefit from considering the notion as described by Tegmark:  Here is a link to the sciam article:  http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

Exactly what I was thinking.

The way you're describing this is somewhat misleading and ambiguous.

But yes, if there are an infinite number of universes, and there are identical copies of me in all those universes, then I suppose that particular kind of entity is "replicated infinitely." If "immortal" just means that it's never gone, then sure, it's immortal too. 

Perhaps you missed the statement in the initial post that Tegmark's idea is a hypothesis.  To be fair, there is also no proof that the universe is finite though by definition the observable universe is.

Not quite.  Rewording point 2, The set of physical states that make up your existence and psychological experiences exactly as you perceive them is the same between the entities.  As a shorthand, I have been referring to this as the "pattern of existence" for each individual.  In mathematics, the number "two" does not go away when a particular set of two entities gains or loses a member.  Now I suppose some might say we can conclude that the number 2 has an eternal character since we can point to the existence of other sets populated by two entities, but it seems like flimsy way of looking at it.   The reality of two-ness exists in a mode independent of those instantiations.  In the same mode as the existence of the number two, our individual pattern of existence is a property of the universe, and is eternal.  Some might conclude this makes this pattern god like.  That is certainly not where I would go with it.

Fair enough.  I am not attempting to get you to feel a sense of ownership for the pattern of existence that this hypothesis asserts you are an instance of.  I requested comments on the implications of the hypothesis, and I appreciate yours.  So far, I have not heard any substantial objections other than the one you stated, that people don't feel these other instantiations of their existence are "them".   I agree that the instances do not have the same molecules,  that the pattern of existence has a perceived end and that the state of mind of the perceiver present at the end of one instance does not magically jump somehow to some earlier state in another existence. 

Well Mak, I think that you did not follow the main point to the argument. Before I get on to that, allow me to poke a fairly basic hole in what you are saying.

Assume that there are an infinite number of universes.

Assume that there are then an infinite number of universes that are exact copies of our own.

Well, this does not produce functional immortality. The events leading up to the moment of my death are exactly the same in all of the infinite identical universes. When I die in one, I die in the whole infinite universe space uniformly.

Now, on to the error that you really made:

Tegmark is responding to the work of Hugh Everett. Everett's concept of a multiverse is something different categorically that what you have in mind. Let me take a single example and see what comes from that.

When I was much younger than today, I almost made it into the USAF. There are Everett universes where I am a career office. There are Everett universes where I was shot down in Soviet air space. Every possible Everett universe that could come from my making it in to the USAF have something like reality attached to them. This is not identical to a prevention of the total ego death of who I am in this universe.

Well, I suppose so. Still, if there are an infinite number of universes and a finite number of states that the universe can be in, then there must be an infinite number of universes which are a copy of at least one possible state.

Okay, sure.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I stated; maybe it elaborates on it a bit. Emphasizing that all physical states and experiences are the same between the entities is just a more detailed way of saying they're absolutely identical.

But there is not an actual "thing" of any substance that exists eternally. In reality, you only have individual entities residing in separate universes; there is nothing here which transcends the universes. At most, you have a concept of these entities, the idea of their characteristics and what they consist of.

I'm not sure I like the analogy to the number 2. I would think that a much better comparison would be with the concept of a species in biology since that is an abstraction for describing a group of entities. I don't really like the phrase, "pattern of existence," either. It's quite unnecessary and sounds like something from a New Age group. Lol, how about a function of existence?

Edit: The term "immortal" is rather misused too, I think. It generally refers to a single organism that cannot die. You're talking about many different organisms, and each of those individuals organisms are indisputably mortal. So, what exactly is it that's "immortal" here? Their souls? What the hell is that?

Using the same logic then, the number 2 has no substance and therefore no reality that transcends the fate of this particular universe simply because there is no such "thing" as the number 2, that I can point to and kick like other substances.   At most, all we have is a concept of the number 2.  Similarly, if the cosmological constants are configured in such a way, gravity exists, but it is only a concept with no reality.   On the contrary I would say that gravity as we know it is a reality that will recur infinite numbers of times since the particular configuration of constants that result in it is finite.  

If I am misapplying the principle you are shooting for, where have I erred? 

I did not mean to imply anything new age about this and have no problem with referring to it as a function.  In fact Legmark advances exactly that concept in another paper.  If you are interested, I will find the url for it.

Again, what is asserted as being immortal is the pattern, or if you prefer, the function whose instantiation is your existence exactly as you simultaneously are, will and always haved lived it.

Could some kind soul inform me if it's possible for us to establish whether or not the mathematical formula in question would function not only outside of this space time, but in the multifarious realities of a metaverse?

A humorous remark, but it violates the finite probability requirement.  Similarly, if there is no probability of a universe where 1=3, then it doesn't matter how many times you flip the coin, that outcome will never occur.  What is crucial is whether the proposition is true or not.  Whether or not there are serious thinkers here who can show that Legmark is nuts, I think I may not be lucky enough to live in that universe.

 Folks wondering what theistic places I would go with this proposition might be interested in this thread.  Basically,  if we admit of the patterns of individuals are eternal/ immortal / whatever-outside-the-arrow-of-time term you prefer, then it is not much of a stretch to posit other immortal entities.  I kind of jammed it into a horribly simplistic nutshell that covered too much ground for the words to adequately explicate, and I expect many of you expect you really ought not give any ground on this first proposition because you intuit that there would then be a jumping off point for a horrifying number of theistic tangents.  

This intuition would be correct.

Mak, I think your connections are shy a few dots  . . .

You appear to presume that if multiverse theory is correct, the "existences identical to our own" it generates will operate in the realm of repetitive outcomes -- like playing the same film over and over and over, ad infinitum.  But there is no more reason to believe that twin universes would behave identically, than there is to believe that twin brothers will behave identically or are, in fact, the same person.  An infinite number of universes very similar but slightly different is just as legitimate a conclusion to draw, and even more likely, given what we know of the powerful role evolutiion plays.  Your central premise, that "our existence survives the death of our flesh in this existence," does not follow from Tegmark's argument, and is in fact the first theistic tangent of your posting -- a rather typical manhandling of logic.   You use existence as a substitute for spirit -- perhaps you could show where in the Scientific American article you cite, there is reference to organic life possessing a spirit.  I always wonder why it is that theists who are so derisive of science when it undermines their beliefs, nonetheless seem to yearn so dearly for its imprimatur -- to be able to prove their desire for immortality rather than just accepting it as an article of faith -- which most religious doctrines exalt as a greater kind of knowledge of the immortal anyway.  Not to mention, a prerequisite thereof.   Proving immortality would spell the end of theism, not its epic validation, and certainly not by some mere mortal who read a magazine article.  Proving immortality is supposed the be the job of Jesus, when he returns -- it's like His number-one occupation, that was the whole point.  If Tegmark's hypothesis does in fact mean what you want it to mean, Jesus is going to be pissed off big time . . . God doesn't like being upstaged.

Hey Mak, Welcome to the forum.

Looks like you still missed the point AIG was making. The article you linked refers to several different theories that return multiverses as an implication. One of them is  reconciliation of the characteristics of the quantum, atomic sized, objects, of which our word is comprised, with the extremely contrary seeming characteristics of the familiar macroscopic world in which our senses operate. Quantum objects have the capacity to demonstrate their existence in multiple divergent states at once in time, an unfamiliar phenomenon in the terms of human experience. The Many Worlds hypothesis is a rather clever interpretation of what occurs at the intersection between the realm of subatomic particles, and that of the familiar logically individuated order that we're used to. Basically the other states simply play out in a kind of probability space, so that multiple manifestations of what could be at each step in the evolution of the 'wave' exist in parallel to each other, a multiverse. In this scenario there are not merely copies of ourselves respective of considering infinities but, also, alternates of ourselves respective of any number of finite states on could identify in probability.  As AIG points out these alternates would not be egotistically identical to this 'us', rather they would be more like siblings arising from a common parent self existing in our past. 

Yes, that is nutshell view of what Tegmark believes he has shown mathematically.  Did you take a look at the sci-am article?

Oh, I think Tegmark's hypothesis takes this phenomenon into consideration.  To be more explicit about what you are saying, there are well studied cases where one identical twin was autistic whereas the other was completely normal.  All your "objection" illustrates is how primitive science currently is in the field of neurology.  The dominant bones and rattles theory is that DNA is the determinant, and that is all the state that requires replication.  The explanation for the difference between the twins is currently not understood, but I believe that simply because science does not currently understand the mechanism, that the it will not one day be known, placing it squarely in the world of finite probabilities.  Really what you are doing is generic.  You can point to any number of phenomenon not well understood by science and say see- mysterious phenomenon- not replicable.  That is fallacious 

Without a doubt.  This was the point AIG made and Eloise reiterated.  The existence of variants does not invalidate the existence of the one distinct pathway that will end with the death you experience.  The ones that do not exactly follow the states you will experience are outside the set I am discussing.  The pattern of existence I am discussing will occur an infinite number of times.

Not what I said.  It was the pattern of existence which some here take comfort in knowing could be expressed as a function, which survives the death of one of its instantiations.   Now where people seem to have a real problem is in assigning the possessive "your" to this phenomenon.  Folks don't want to take ownership of this pattern when in fact they have an ultimate responsibility in influencing to the best of their abilities.  

Fine.  If you are allegic to theological terms, call it a function that if the hypothesis is correct means that your feeling and perceptions exactly as you are feeling them, your actions, exactly as you have taken and will take them, will occur infinitely everywhere and always.  Call the engine that makes that happen whatever you will, if the hypothesis is correct, the phenomenon survives your individual death.  Immortal soul or spirit does it for me.  If "function" floats your boat, you will get no quarrel from me.

Do you really find some actual comfort in the idea of an 'immortality' which consists of endless repetitions of exactly the same life-course? If that is it, its just as well one would not be aware of it as a re-lived life, that would be a nightmare.

Regarding transfinite numbers - they are still all infinite in every sense, whatever Cantor said. Whether or not they have any 'reality', that could be suggested about any imagined infinite quantity,

They all have mathematical validity, so the difference in mutual enumerability is extremely relevant to the argument you have been presenting.

Cantor was quite religious, and seems to have rejected the idea that he was addressing or involving the idea of 'real' or absolute infinity, which he and most theologians identified with God, so obviously I have many disagreements with him. So I think he had an obvious motive for wanting to keep 'transfinite' numbers separate from 'real' infinity.

Once I read the basic idea of the different orders of infinity, and grasped the 1-to-1 correspondence idea as a great insight into comparing non-finite sets, I was happy to run with the fundamental idea, regardless of what else he may have said about it. To me it was a great moment of understanding.

it is ideas I adopt and respect or reject, not necessarily the individuals who made them known to me.

The mathematics may be 'sound', but in this context, if it does not apply the concept of different orders of infinity, it is incomplete.

And you have not responded to the question I asked in the first part of that post, which is extremely relevant to this thread.

The basic point is that OUR existence manifestly does NOT survive OUR death, so your attempt to find some scientific support for some form of 'immortality of the soul' really doesn't work. It might work marginally better if you were coming from a Buddhist perspective, but again, in the absence of a linking thread of memory, it represents no real meaning. And Buddhism envisages each life a s part of a progression, not an endless tape-loop.

I see.  So what word do we use for a sound but incomplete proof?   I still say that if you think it is horse manure and you have a contribution for Tegmark, you should write him.

I thought I very explicitly responded to this, most recently in the closing response of this post.  To reiterate and elaborate, I am of the same view that there is nothing of the existence of one instantiation that is teleported or transferred in any way to another, including memory.  I admitted that if this is the criteria for qualifying as meaningful to you and/or cause for you to dismiss the idea that it is a way of describing immortal souls, then I agree that this proposition has nothing for you.

 Thanks for taking the time to respond.  I do believe you assign undue weight as does Bob to whether or not there is some sort of physical linkage between instances.  I would not assume there to be any such physical linkage, nor do I see this as anything but a trivial detail.  You do not dispute that there is a continuity of  identical consciousness throughout time and space, yet if the instances are not the same physically, then the phenomenon is a trivial detail. 

To each his own.  I was not attempting to persuade you of the proposition's significance.  

We are physical beings, if there is no physical link then there is no continuity, only duplication.  To use language suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

Calling the lack of a physical link, 'trivial' seems to me the very opposite of reality.  The fact that there is no physical link renders the entire hypothesis, 'trivial' in that it has no impact on us, barring science fiction scenarios of visiting alternate realities.

More quickly to mind comes New Ageism and its attempts to appropriate science, particularly the more malleable theoretical sciences -- re-sculpting them into serving the needs of preexisting theistic beliefs, such as immortality.  Sorry to reduce your thesis to a banality, but your desire to squeeze a drop of comfort from believing an individual's death does not mean the end of their existence, is an urge both ancient and intellectually quaint.  That you are willing to settle for so convoluted and abstract a form of eternal life is somehow even sadder -- streets of gold would be better, and require a leap of faith no greater than your "patterns of individuals."  More bang, and for fewer bucks . . .

You mean you feel that because all outcomes have already occurred that you feel no responsibility for making your existence the most righteous variant?  It seems to me that is a morally bankrupt position to take.  

On the contrary, eternal repetition of a life filled with morally reprehensible actions is its own hell.  You will face an eternity of experience of the emptiness of such an existence.  

I don't feel anything about this, I'm arguing for the hypothetical position since you requested that we do so in your original post.  This idea would not influence my non-hypothetical morality because any alternate beings have no link to me, essentially they are separate beings totally outside my control or interest, duplicates or not.  You've given me no reason to think any alternate beings should be thought to have continuity with their other selves.

If you accept the premise that, 'you' automatically exist in an infinitely variable state for an infinite amount of time and if you accept that means there is some sort of continuity to, 'you', then it doesn't matter what 'you' do, because another you would have done something else.  Essentially, you'd be arguing for some sort of infinite psuedo omnipresence more than anything else.  Why would the 'me' who chose to act a certain way have continuity only with the infinite alternates who acted in the same way?

Which creates an alternate problem, why would 'you' have continuity with 'you' at all?  Why not everyone?  Why not every state of matter in the whole universe?  All we are is matter after all, and in another universe all my matter might be scattered over a galaxy, or in a cat, or in a black hole, or in Jessica Alba (Hmm...maybe I like this now.).

Besides which, the very idea of a multiverse rests on determinism because it is materialistic and the whole thing is based on random quantum fluctuation as the root cause of variation.

You *could* make the continuity argument, but you'd have to posit the existence of something non-material linking the alternate beings somehow, which is a soul, which is just a magical idea without any merit.  It would be silly to include that concept in a discussion hinging on a real hypothesis.  You might as well say we're immortal because after we die, we turn into invisible unicorns who live forever, and the bodies we leave behind are actually unicorn poop left at the moment of our rebirth.  It is just as plausible.

I guess I got thrown off about your meaning due to the bit : "since the universe is still deterministic it doesn't matter either way, at least not to any being currently experiencing said reality."  I took that to mean that you were asserting that it didn't matter if you participated the damned pattern or the blessed pattern.  I am glad to hear that you feel responsible for the morality of your existence.

 The hypothesis says the you in the other universes think the same thoughts, feel the exact same emotions you feel at this moment, experience the same consciousness you are experiencing now in every detail.  They just do not share the same body.  You don't feel a linkage with these other instances of you because the atoms are not the same.  It has been estimated that "there isn't a single bit of any of us, not even a stray molecule- that was part of us nine years  ago"  (Bill Bryson. A short history of nearly everything).  Today, your consciousness is now, literally inhabiting a different body than the body of that called itself mellestad nine years ago, so by your same logic of sharing the same molecules that you Bill and Butter are using, you have no reason to feel any principle of connection with this other individual.

No. You are the third person who make this odd leap. As I have often repeated, I don't accept that the variants are me.  Here's why.  The principle of everyone's identity is defined by their actions.  One variant of us might take a dismissive, holier than thou attitude without consideration of what the person has said or done.  By that variant's actions, they are the same sort of ideological bigot that they pretend to be decrying.   Is that who you are?  Is that who I choose to be by my actions?   The next time we act, there are a new set of variant courses that each variant will take.  Who are you?  The variants are distinct because the character they express is different.  Scripture's expression of the principle is that "By their fruits you shall know them".   

It has a finite, computable complexity.  However, there is a multiplicity of deterministic outcomes at any state, so the limitations of determinism are insubstantial.  That is, if you choose to take an active role in your existence, you determine which variant you express.  Is it the mellestad variant that selflessly saved children from a burning home down the street, or the one that beat his wife when she learned he was cheating on her?  There are insignificant deterministic walls standing in the way of the free will to choose how righteous a pathway of states it shall follow.