With our thoughts we make the world...

[Brainache]

I heard this phrase on "Monkey" when I was a kid. Usually it was prefaced with "The Buddha says..."

So when I later heard of the many worlds solution to Quantum M theory(If I understand it correctly it says that every choice I make creates a new universe) I couldn't help seeing a similarity.

If the shape of the multiverse(or at least that portion of it which I experience) is influenced by my actions or choices, could it be supposed that by enough people making the right kinds of choices over a long enough span of time, that the end result of the universe can be influenced?
My argument gets a bit religious here. I wonder if by people choosing "good" instead of "evil" this universe could be said to develop in a particular way.

Maybe this has been thrashed to death already here. If so please let me know where I can find it.

I'm not a philosopher as you can probably tell.

[Kopji]

Yeah, linking quantum theory to philosophy can create a textual conflagration around here. I'm not sure where. Might try searching on the word 'copenhagen'.

There is at least one group I know of that tries to find an effect on the universe at exactly midnight on new year's eve. The idea is that since everyone has cheerful thoughts at about the same time, there should be some kind of measurable 'ripple in the force' on New Year's day. - Nada.

The Buddhist saying is more typically interpreted as approaching life with a certain attitude, that right action follows right thoughts.

[Brainache]

The Buddhist saying is more typically interpreted as approaching life with a certain attitude, that right action follows right thoughts.

Thats what I mean too.
Only I don't mean just in any given individual's lifetime or on one specific day when everybody does something.
I'm thinking in terms of whole populations over many generations accumulating the results of lots of little "good" deeds.
Similar to natural selection.
OTOH a whole population doing lots of small "evil" deeds over a long period of time might look different.
I am supposing that if in general people do more good than evil the population as a whole will benefit.

I don't know if this idea is trivial or if it has merit. Or even if it might be the cornerstone of some religion that I am unaware of.

[Krandal2]

Thats what I mean too.
Only I don't mean just in any given individual's lifetime or on one specific day when everybody does something.
I'm thinking in terms of whole populations over many generations accumulating the results of lots of little "good" deeds.
Similar to natural selection.
OTOH a whole population doing lots of small "evil" deeds over a long period of time might look different.
I am supposing that if in general people do more good than evil the population as a whole will benefit.

I don't know if this idea is trivial or if it has merit. Or even if it might be the cornerstone of some religion that I am unaware of.

Its trivial in the sense that it's cliche, but has merit in being fundamentally true.

The idea that constructive decisions and actions are of greater benifit to society and individuals than their destructive alternatives, is the cornerstone of not any one religion, but EVERY religion. They only differ (putting aside their metaphysics) in their opinions on the best way to make these constructive decisions and act on them.

[Loss Leader]

If the shape of the multiverse(or at least that portion of it which I experience) is influenced by my actions or choices, could it be supposed that by enough people making the right kinds of choices over a long enough span of time, that the end result of the universe can be influenced?

Assume you are correct that people can choose "good" over "evil." I still don't see it doing much to shape the universe. There are one billion stars in our galaxy. There are a billion galaxies in the universe (give or take). How much effect can we have?

Now add this: Most of the rules about good and evil have to do with the way humans treat other humans. It all occurs within the social setting. So, how much effect on anything other than people can the behavior of people towards other people have? I mean, would the world notice if alll of the dogs on the planet stopped sniffing each other's butts?

And throw in a dash of: Except for a few very clear cases at the fringes, there is no general agreement on what constitutes "good" or "evil."

[Kopji]

Thats what I mean too.
Only I don't mean just in any given individual's lifetime or on one specific day when everybody does something.
I'm thinking in terms of whole populations over many generations accumulating the results of lots of little "good" deeds.
Similar to natural selection.
OTOH a whole population doing lots of small "evil" deeds over a long period of time might look different.
I am supposing that if in general people do more good than evil the population as a whole will benefit.

I don't know if this idea is trivial or if it has merit. Or even if it might be the cornerstone of some religion that I am unaware of.

Richard Dawkins (among many) has written on this. I think the book is 'The Selfish Gene'. The general idea is that we evolved socially as well as biologically, and the two interact. (I hope I'm not too far off on that.)

The meaning of good and evil are something I don't think about much as I get older. Maybe it is a pastime of the young and philosophy professors. :D

I lean toward the 'eastern' view of good being a nurturing thing like water, and 'western' Aristotle's view of real goods / apparent goods and finding a middle ground we might call 'virtue'. "It's all more or less good".

I've never seen a "Monkey" episode but it is based on an old Buddhist myth. Despite starring Masako Natsume :iloveusign: as Tripitaka it seems rather silly.

[Badger]

Dude, you're in the wrong universe for that.

Try three doors down on the left.

I'm only being half facetious. It could be argued that in fact "you can't get there from here", but such a situation exists in another universe, either where other choices were/are made, or where different physical laws exist.

[Brainache]

Assume you are correct that people can choose "good" over "evil." I still don't see it doing much to shape the universe. There are one billion stars in our galaxy. There are a billion galaxies in the universe (give or take). How much effect can we have?

Now add this: Most of the rules about good and evil have to do with the way humans treat other humans. It all occurs within the social setting. So, how much effect on anything other than people can the behavior of people towards other people have? I mean, would the world notice if alll of the dogs on the planet stopped sniffing each other's butts?

And throw in a dash of: Except for a few very clear cases at the fringes, there is no general agreement on what constitutes "good" or "evil."

OK yes I get it.
I suppose I am assuming intelligent life all over the place.
Well defining good and evil is beyond my power, except to say people generally know the difference. Whether or not they are being honest with themselves about it is another question.

It is a nice idea that has been ruined by all those bloody people running around doing stuff and generally mucking the place up.

"This Hotel would run so much better without all the guests" -Basil Fawlty(loose approximation)

[Marc L]

I heard this phrase on "Monkey" when I was a kid. Usually it was prefaced with "The Buddha says..."

So when I later heard of the many worlds solution to Quantum M theory(If I understand it correctly it says that every choice I make creates a new universe) I couldn't help seeing a similarity.

If the shape of the multiverse(or at least that portion of it which I experience) is influenced by my actions or choices, could it be supposed that by enough people making the right kinds of choices over a long enough span of time, that the end result of the universe can be influenced?
My argument gets a bit religious here. I wonder if by people choosing "good" instead of "evil" this universe could be said to develop in a particular way.

Maybe this has been thrashed to death already here. If so please let me know where I can find it.

I'm not a philosopher as you can probably tell.

I don't know how viable it is, but the problem I have with it is how you get people to always make "good" decisions. Leaving off the argument of how to define "good" or "evil", in order to ensure people always make "good" choices, you'd have to take away their free will. By doing that, you're acting evil, which then negates what you were trying to do in the first place.

Marc

[Dancing David]

I heard this phrase on "Monkey" when I was a kid. Usually it was prefaced with "The Buddha says..."

So when I later heard of the many worlds solution to Quantum M theory(If I understand it correctly it says that every choice I make creates a new universe) I couldn't help seeing a similarity.

If the shape of the multiverse(or at least that portion of it which I experience) is influenced by my actions or choices, could it be supposed that by enough people making the right kinds of choices over a long enough span of time, that the end result of the universe can be influenced?
My argument gets a bit religious here. I wonder if by people choosing "good" instead of "evil" this universe could be said to develop in a particular way.

Maybe this has been thrashed to death already here. If so please let me know where I can find it.

I'm not a philosopher as you can probably tell.

I don't think that you need QM for this to happen, and that is what is called a possibility, anyhoo.

When reality happens, it is based upon the contingent path of what has already occured. The glass may be mended but it can not be made whole after it breaks. A tree may not fall that hasn't grown.

So every choice that is made, every events that happens, contricts the future possibility of what may happen, and opens new branchs for events to occur in.

So as an aggregate, yes we determine the world that exists around us, the choices we make have an impact upon the world around us, but are they the sole determinant, no.

I hope this hasn't already been thrashed out.

[Bikewer]

The idea of a "multiverse" and entire new universes splitting off at each "event" is something that at present is pretty much a thought experiment to get around certain contradictions that arise with quantum mechanics.

Note that this would have to happen at each "event" (essentially, any interaction, even down to the molecular level) which rapidly results in a multiverse so infinite as to be moot.
As to human actions and decisions affecting reality, one has to wonder how reality was affected when there were only one-celled animals about, or when (as during the first 10 billion years or so) none whatever.

[Brainache]

Note that this would have to happen at each "event" (essentially, any interaction, even down to the molecular level) which rapidly results in a multiverse so infinite as to be moot.
As to human actions and decisions affecting reality, one has to wonder how reality was affected when there were only one-celled animals about, or when (as during the first 10 billion years or so) none whatever.

I suppose that has always been my biggest problem with the idea of a multiverse. Too many *verses.
To imagine all the different little yes/no up/down good/evil choices which led to this particular reality is a bit mind boggling.
I always love reading those alternate world SF stories.

[Wudang]

My first thought was of Sartre's idea that every morning we reconstruct our lives from our memories.

[Zombified]

The idea of a "multiverse" and entire new universes splitting off at each "event" is something that at present is pretty much a thought experiment to get around certain contradictions that arise with quantum mechanics.
They're not contradictions. They're just things that make some people uncomfortable, like non-determinism and nonlocal state changes.

I personally have a strong bias against the many world interpretation... I think the "conventional" interpretation works fine.