Reductionism

[DBT]

That's presentism. That goes against more widely accepted science.

Aren't we talking about Block Time/Eternalism? It obviously is not accepted science....however this is the thing we happen to talking about.

I thought you were talking about presentism or arguing against a block universe.

Neither. Just describing what a Block Universe would probably look like if taken both as a whole and sectionally. In other words, if you believe block time allows freedom as you conceive that to be, where is this freedom to be found in relation to a Block Time Universe?

 

[ruby sparks]

It's a nice idea (that the past is still there) and fun to consider, and in some ways naturally intuitive (how many stories and movies about time travel assume it? All of them?) but....I don't buy it.

Not all of them. There are some very interesting ones that don't. I can't recall the title, but I seem to remember one such story where traveling in time meant arriving on a lifeless Earth - nothing living at all, but all of the inanimate stuff still there.

The real problem for time travel in a block universe is that if you did it, you already did it. Nothing can change, so whatever the consequences of time travel are, they already happened. SF writers usually get around this by either going with the Many Worlds interpretation, where you travel back to a subtly different past, that is not the same as your previously experienced past; Or they use a McGuffin to make paradoxes prohibited (If you try to go back and change things, the machine stops working ,or drops you too far from your target time/place to be able to change anything), or inconsequential (if you try to assassinate your grandfather, your gun jams, or you drop the knife, or something else foils your plan - the only changes you can make are ones that match recorded history); Or they are smart enough not to try to address the question at all.

Indeed, it's perhaps better to say that in a block universe, you are already doing it - from the external perspective, you exist at all points in time that you exist at, and none are preferred, so if you went back in time to when you were ten years old, you wouldn't notice, and nothing would be different at all. Indeed, you are always back (and forward) in time to every point where you exist, and no other points in space-time are accessible to you at all. Traveling in time just gets you to where you are - its like trying to run away from yourself in one of the space dimensions. Which doesn't make for a thrilling SF novel.

Interesting. Thankyou.

So, is it the case that there is no way of telling whether we are in a block universe or not? No current way, I mean. Nothing to give us a telling clue. Iow, it's a model that can't (currently) be tested in any way, nor involves any contradictions.

If so, then I might leave it to those with a special interest and more knowledge of the model to explore.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, if you want to have that kind of 2D-beings at all, the 2D-slice universe must have physical laws allowing for this to happen. And for this to be at all possible the 3D-world has to have laws that make sure this to be the case. So sure, your 2D-beings may perhaps see things "coming through" but only to the extent that it could be perfectly compatible with the existence and "well-being" of the kind of 2D-beings you're talking about.

Thankyou for your as-ever interesting thoughts.

Is what you are saying a bit like this:

Set aside the matter of dimensions and exchange it (temporarily, hypothetically and only partially by analogy) to colours.

Only being able to experience or understand or know about 2-D in a world which actually has another dimension (in that case the 3rd) is perhaps a bit like only being able to experience monochrome in a world that is actually multi-coloured. As for a dog, apparently, or so I hear.

And as you say, the not being able to experience the 'colour' which is actually 'there' (or 'happening') would not seem to present a hypothetical sentient dog with any major issues, because the colour is 'translated' into or perhaps we could just say experienced as, something which still functions for the dog, namely shades. The putative sentient dog doesn't notice any weird, inexplicable or incompatible colour stuff happening, because as you say, its monochrome world is still regular and predictable and without contradiction.

I am not sure if this analogy would work for the 'limited 2-D understanding in a 3-D world' thing. Colour doesn't 'do' much, of itself. It can't shit from the third dimension onto what I perceive as my little flat head for example. In order for the analogy with colour to apply, we might have to say that I simply would not experience the shit or that if I did it would be explicable, without contradiction or incompatibility, as something I can understand in terms of my (limited) 2-D rules. But how would it be that, because it would seem to involve being utterly unpredictable (to me) as I would have no rules to predict the shitting behaviour of 3-D birds I can't perceive, so we would be back to, 'what the f**k just happened?'. As if, to get back to the analogy with colours, the sky, for a person who can experience colours, suddenly went green and the grass blue, for 30 seconds, at what for them would have to be random intervals.

It might be easier to say that I simply wouldn't notice it, like the dog not noticing a colour, but how would I not notice being covered in shit?

Perhaps 3-D shit would not manifest in my infinitessimally thin slice? It would 'pass through' me, unperceived (subjectively, by me) a bit like microwaves or radio waves or whatever it is that mobile phones use, or something (eg the sound of a dog whistle). That would at least reduce my laundry bills.

Yes, I think that's better.

 

[bilby]

It's a nice idea (that the past is still there) and fun to consider, and in some ways naturally intuitive (how many stories and movies about time travel assume it? All of them?) but....I don't buy it.

Not all of them. There are some very interesting ones that don't. I can't recall the title, but I seem to remember one such story where traveling in time meant arriving on a lifeless Earth - nothing living at all, but all of the inanimate stuff still there.

The real problem for time travel in a block universe is that if you did it, you already did it. Nothing can change, so whatever the consequences of time travel are, they already happened. SF writers usually get around this by either going with the Many Worlds interpretation, where you travel back to a subtly different past, that is not the same as your previously experienced past; Or they use a McGuffin to make paradoxes prohibited (If you try to go back and change things, the machine stops working ,or drops you too far from your target time/place to be able to change anything), or inconsequential (if you try to assassinate your grandfather, your gun jams, or you drop the knife, or something else foils your plan - the only changes you can make are ones that match recorded history); Or they are smart enough not to try to address the question at all.

Indeed, it's perhaps better to say that in a block universe, you are already doing it - from the external perspective, you exist at all points in time that you exist at, and none are preferred, so if you went back in time to when you were ten years old, you wouldn't notice, and nothing would be different at all. Indeed, you are always back (and forward) in time to every point where you exist, and no other points in space-time are accessible to you at all. Traveling in time just gets you to where you are - its like trying to run away from yourself in one of the space dimensions. Which doesn't make for a thrilling SF novel.

Interesting. Thankyou.

So, is it the case that there is no way of telling whether we are in a block universe or not? No current way, I mean. Nothing to give us a telling clue. Iow, it's a model that can't (currently) be tested in any way, nor involves any contradictions.

If so, then I might leave it to those with a special interest and more knowledge of the model to explore.

I think that's the case. Of course it may become testable at some future date; Or may already be, but I don't know about it. But right now, as far as I am aware, it's one of several equally unsupported, but not yet disproven, hypothetical models of space-time.

 

[ruby sparks]

And, speakpigeon, to add to my post, as to the 'real' situation (my living in what appears to be a 3-D world) there may be extra dimensions I cannot experience, and so do not notice.

As to whether time is 'next up' (dimension number 4) I do not know. In what ways time is like the other three and in what ways it isn't, is not something I understand.

But to pursue my analogy, does time manifest in my experience (in my infinitessimally thin 3-D slice)? I don't even know the answer to that. Lol.

If it does, it does not seem to be subjectively regular. 10 minutes can feel like an instant, etc. In which case am I merely ignoring/discounting unpredictable anomalies (analagous to mr 2-D-experiencer ignoring 3-D bird shit or, hypothetically, me ignoring the sky going green now and again) rather than not noticing them at all?

And if it's 'at least a bit like' microwaves, in that I cannot subjectively experience them, can it, like microwaves, be nonetheless detected, and detected as being regular, by instruments, and its effects (on me) measured?

Now I'm just getting confused.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And, speakpigeon, to add to my post, as to the 'real' situation (my living in what appears to be a 3-D world) there may be extra dimensions I cannot experience, and so do not notice.

As to whether time is 'next up' (dimension number 4) I do not know. In what ways time is like the other three and in what ways it isn't, is not something I understand.

But to pursue my analogy, does time manifest in my experience (in my infinitessimally thin 3-D slice)? I don't even know the answer to that. Lol.

If it does, it does not seem to be subjectively regular. 10 minutes can feel like an instant, etc. In which case am I merely ignoring/discounting unpredictable anomalies (analagous to mr 2-D-experiencer ignoring 3-D bird shit or, hypothetically, me ignoring the sky going green now and again) rather than not noticing them at all?

And if it's 'at least a bit like' microwaves, in that I cannot subjectively experience them, can it, like microwaves, be nonetheless detected, and detected as being regular, by instruments, and its effects (on me) measured?

Now I'm just getting confused.

Me, I would even try to explain our subjective experience of time...

But, if we assume there's something like objective time out there, whatever it is, we could indeed think of it as a 3D "cut" moving through a 4D-universe. The 4D-universe would be exactly the block time universe we're talking about here but the present would be determined differently. The present would be a function of where the "cut" would be within the 4D-world as it moves through it. So it would be the movement of the 3D-cut that would effect the passage of time.

Then you can decide whether you want just one "cut", say our own now, or just a few, or as many as there are points along a line, which may be equivalent to what some people here are assuming.

So, basically, our objective time would be entirely a function of the moving cut. Perhaps our subjective impression would be the same irrespective of how the cut moves exactly.

I think that even a 3D-cut moving backward, so to speak, i.e. towards our past, wouldn't change our subjective sense of time. We would go toward our past and yet would feel as if we were going towards our future.

And this might "well" be our actual situation. That's at least what the nice angel sitting next to me right now is saying in a language I don't speak.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, if you want to have that kind of 2D-beings at all, the 2D-slice universe must have physical laws allowing for this to happen. And for this to be at all possible the 3D-world has to have laws that make sure this to be the case. So sure, your 2D-beings may perhaps see things "coming through" but only to the extent that it could be perfectly compatible with the existence and "well-being" of the kind of 2D-beings you're talking about.

Thankyou for your as-ever interesting thoughts.

Is what you are saying a bit like this:

Set aside the matter of dimensions and exchange it (temporarily, hypothetically and only partially by analogy) to colours.

Only being able to experience or understand or know about 2-D in a world which actually has another dimension (in that case the 3rd) is perhaps a bit like only being able to experience monochrome in a world that is actually multi-coloured. As for a dog, apparently, or so I hear.

And as you say, the not being able to experience the 'colour' which is actually 'there' (or 'happening') would not seem to present a hypothetical sentient dog with any major issues, because the colour is 'translated' into or perhaps we could just say experienced as, something which still functions for the dog, namely shades. The putative sentient dog doesn't notice any weird, inexplicable or incompatible colour stuff happening, because as you say, its monochrome world is still regular and predictable and without contradiction.

I am not sure if this analogy would work for the 'limited 2-D understanding in a 3-D world' thing. Colour doesn't 'do' much, of itself. It can't shit from the third dimension onto what I perceive as my little flat head for example. In order for the analogy with colour to apply, we might have to say that I simply would not experience the shit or that if I did it would be explicable, without contradiction or incompatibility, as something I can understand in terms of my (limited) 2-D rules. But how would it be that, because it would seem to involve being utterly unpredictable (to me) as I would have no rules to predict the shitting behaviour of 3-D birds I can't perceive, so we would be back to, 'what the f**k just happened?'. As if, to get back to the analogy with colours, the sky, for a person who can experience colours, suddenly went green and the grass blue, for 30 seconds, at what for them would have to be random intervals.

It might be easier to say that I simply wouldn't notice it, like the dog not noticing a colour, but how would I not notice being covered in shit?

Perhaps 3-D shit would not manifest in my infinitessimally thin slice? It would 'pass through' me, unperceived (subjectively, by me) a bit like microwaves or radio waves or whatever it is that mobile phones use, or something (eg the sound of a dog whistle). That would at least reduce my laundry bills.

Yes, I think that's better.

Not quite like that.

If you assume something like intelligent beings intelligent enough to make sense of their 2D-world, you need to assume that the laws of the world they would be in to allow for the existence of such beings. This in turns requires you to assume that the 3D-world has itself laws allowing for this. So your assumption about your 2D-world intelligent beings compels the laws of the 3D-world. And then, if the whole thing is good enough for intelligent beings to exist somehow within this 2D-world then whatnever happens has to be consistent with the existence of these intelligent beings.

I suspect you wouldn't get much in way of intelligent beings in a 2D-world cut through all the time by 3D-things moving haphazardly around in their 3D-world. In effect, those 2D-beings, if any, would have to be entirely a part of the 3D-world and a consequence of its laws. They may get to be surprised now and then by what happens in their world but not necessarily more so than we are ourselves in ours.

My previous post mused about a 3D-cut moving through a 4D-world much in the same way that your 2D-slice could move through a 3D-word. And we're not overly discombobulated by what happens to us.

Although, well, it's essentially because how we feel about what happens is not only a function of what happens but more fundamentally a part of what happens. We don't have any choice about feeling discombobulated or not. It just happens or it doesn't. Depending perhaps on the laws of a 4D-world. Stuff happens, someone noticed. Right, it does.

Assuming all this would be "deterministic", which maybe it isn't.

And definitely no time travel for anyone in a block time universe, sorry. Doesn't work like that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes. But not currently, as 'currently' refers to 2018, when we are having this conversation. The problem being that there's no good language for describing four dimensional spacetime from a fifth dimensional perspective. From our 4d perspective, i am not in the UK in 1994, because I am in Australia in 2018. But from a 5D perspective, both are true statements of two of the points in spacetime in which I exist.

Nah, because the two of you, or these two "yous", are not one and the same. Not only are they at two completely different space-time points but these to "yous" are not identical to each other. In fact, from the 5D perspective, there's no relation whatsoever between them, except perhaps that they may look vaguely similar from a distance.

In a block universe, the notion of you being in the UK in 1994 is meaningless. Whatever you may think, the guy in 1994 wasn't you.
EB

That's mostly true, but more an illustration of the vagueness of our language than of anything related to the block time model.

They say you can't cross the same river twice; but my experience with a narrow river spanned by a good bridge suggests that you can in fact do so in less than a minute.

A 5D 'god's eye view' would see the two different 'mes' connected by a series of similar 'mes', like a 3D vein of human embedded in 4D spacetime. So it's not completely true to say that there's no relationship between them.

Agreed, there's a relation.

The same as there is between the set of all the bits of matter and energy that make up your body right now and the same set a billion years ago, or five billion years ago, or ten billion years ago.

Hey! that was you then! You look different, for sure, but it was you alright!

I think somebody already mused about us being made of star stuff. Right.
EB

 

[ryan]

I thought you were talking about presentism or arguing against a block universe.

Neither. Just describing what a Block Universe would probably look like if taken both as a whole and sectionally. In other words, if you believe block time allows freedom as you conceive that to be, where is this freedom to be found in relation to a Block Time Universe?

I don't remember saying anything about it allowing freedom.

Although if we use a many words interpretion, maybe I can direct my consciousness through choices made.

 

[steve_bank]

And, speakpigeon, to add to my post, as to the 'real' situation (my living in what appears to be a 3-D world) there may be extra dimensions I cannot experience, and so do not notice.

As to whether time is 'next up' (dimension number 4) I do not know. In what ways time is like the other three and in what ways it isn't, is not something I understand.

But to pursue my analogy, does time manifest in my experience (in my infinitessimally thin 3-D slice)? I don't even know the answer to that. Lol.

If it does, it does not seem to be subjectively regular. 10 minutes can feel like an instant, etc. In which case am I merely ignoring/discounting unpredictable anomalies (analagous to mr 2-D-experiencer ignoring 3-D bird shit or, hypothetically, me ignoring the sky going green now and again) rather than not noticing them at all?

And if it's 'at least a bit like' microwaves, in that I cannot subjectively experience them, can it, like microwaves, be nonetheless detected, and detected as being regular, by instruments, and its effects (on me) measured?

Now I'm just getting confused.

That is just it. In Cartesian rectangular coordinates there are 4 dimensions. (x,y.z.t). X, y, and z are in meters and t is in seconds. The word dimension mostly from scifi has subjective meaning.

We traverse distance in meters and the rate of change in distance is measured in seconds. It is as simple as that. You can say we move through space, but we do not move through time. Time is a measure of velocity through space. We move through space not through meters, we move through space measured by meters.

If time is somehow a reality unto itself, it needs another word and definition.

 

[DBT]

I thought you were talking about presentism or arguing against a block universe.

Neither. Just describing what a Block Universe would probably look like if taken both as a whole and sectionally. In other words, if you believe block time allows freedom as you conceive that to be, where is this freedom to be found in relation to a Block Time Universe?

I don't remember saying anything about it allowing freedom.

You said something along the line of seriously considering the block time model....and given your position on freedom as expressed in numerous other threads.....I thought the relationship between the two should be made clear.

Although if we use a many words interpretion, maybe I can direct my consciousness through choices made.

Many Worlds interpretation? That too is deterministic. The subject does not control quantum split. Everything that can happen, does happen. All the versions of you do what they do in their world without the ability to have done otherwise....one chooses chocolate, the other vanilla, another, strawberry, hazelnut.....all options being realized.

 

[ruby sparks]

And, speakpigeon, to add to my post, as to the 'real' situation (my living in what appears to be a 3-D world) there may be extra dimensions I cannot experience, and so do not notice.

As to whether time is 'next up' (dimension number 4) I do not know. In what ways time is like the other three and in what ways it isn't, is not something I understand.

But to pursue my analogy, does time manifest in my experience (in my infinitessimally thin 3-D slice)? I don't even know the answer to that. Lol.

If it does, it does not seem to be subjectively regular. 10 minutes can feel like an instant, etc. In which case am I merely ignoring/discounting unpredictable anomalies (analagous to mr 2-D-experiencer ignoring 3-D bird shit or, hypothetically, me ignoring the sky going green now and again) rather than not noticing them at all?

And if it's 'at least a bit like' microwaves, in that I cannot subjectively experience them, can it, like microwaves, be nonetheless detected, and detected as being regular, by instruments, and its effects (on me) measured?

Now I'm just getting confused.

That is just it. In Cartesian rectangular coordinates there are 4 dimensions. (x,y.z.t). X, y, and z are in meters and t is in seconds. The word dimension mostly from scifi has subjective meaning.

We traverse distance in meters and the rate of change in distance is measured in seconds. It is as simple as that. You can say we move through space, but we do not move through time. Time is a measure of velocity through space. We move through space not through meters, we move through space measured by meters.

If time is somehow a reality unto itself, it needs another word and definition.

Yes. As I (partially) understand it, maths and (newtownian?) physics treats time 'as if it were just another dimension like the others' and that this works, as in equations come up with the 'right' answers. And that if we differentiate distance we get speed and if we differentiate speed we get acceleration, etc (and integrating gets us the other direction).

But I am clueless as to whether that treatment is merely a pragmatic model of approximation, or as I said before, how much time 'really is' a dimension like the others.

What do you mean, we do not move through time?

 

[ruby sparks]

.... maybe I can direct my consciousness through choices made.

That'd be a cool trick. You'd need an 'I' to direct your consciousness though, presumably freely and/or with autonomy.

 

[steve_bank]

And, speakpigeon, to add to my post, as to the 'real' situation (my living in what appears to be a 3-D world) there may be extra dimensions I cannot experience, and so do not notice.

As to whether time is 'next up' (dimension number 4) I do not know. In what ways time is like the other three and in what ways it isn't, is not something I understand.

But to pursue my analogy, does time manifest in my experience (in my infinitessimally thin 3-D slice)? I don't even know the answer to that. Lol.

If it does, it does not seem to be subjectively regular. 10 minutes can feel like an instant, etc. In which case am I merely ignoring/discounting unpredictable anomalies (analagous to mr 2-D-experiencer ignoring 3-D bird shit or, hypothetically, me ignoring the sky going green now and again) rather than not noticing them at all?

And if it's 'at least a bit like' microwaves, in that I cannot subjectively experience them, can it, like microwaves, be nonetheless detected, and detected as being regular, by instruments, and its effects (on me) measured?

Now I'm just getting confused.

That is just it. In Cartesian rectangular coordinates there are 4 dimensions. (x,y.z.t). X, y, and z are in meters and t is in seconds. The word dimension mostly from scifi has subjective meaning.

We traverse distance in meters and the rate of change in distance is measured in seconds. It is as simple as that. You can say we move through space, but we do not move through time. Time is a measure of velocity through space. We move through space not through meters, we move through space measured by meters.

If time is somehow a reality unto itself, it needs another word and definition.

Yes. As I (partially) understand it, maths and (newtownian?) physics treats time 'as if it were just another dimension like the others' and that this works, as in equations come up with the 'right' answers. And that if we differentiate distance we get speed and if we differentiate speed we get acceleration, etc (and integrating gets us the other direction).

But I am clueless as to whether that treatment is merely a pragmatic model of approximation, or as I said before, how much time 'really is' a dimension like the others.

What do you mean, we do not move through time?

'Moving through time' is poetry of a sort. Subjective interpretation of perception and feelings.

We do not move through meters, we move through space distance measured in meters. In relativity a point in space has 4 dimension's relative to a reference frame, (x,y,z,t) meters and seconds. In any inertial frame a meter, second, and kilogram seem the same to a local observer.

If you buy a kilogram of potatoes on one ship at some price per kilogram, on another spaceship it will appear the same.Time and length across frames in motion will appear different to observers in different frames. Sane with time. On one spaceship running a 100 meter race will feel the same on a ship at a different relative velocity. The second appears the same to observers in relative frames with clocks appearing different across frames..

 

[ryan]

I don't remember saying anything about it allowing freedom.

You said something along the line of seriously considering the block time model....and given your position on freedom as expressed in numerous other threads.....I thought the relationship between the two should be made clear.

I have always only ever argued that free will is possible based on what we know and a what we don't know. No matter how many times I tried to tell you this, you always took this to mean that I was claiming its existence.

It's the growing block universe that I like.

Although if we use a many words interpretion, maybe I can direct my consciousness through choices made.

Many Worlds interpretation? That too is deterministic. The subject does not control quantum split. Everything that can happen, does happen. All the versions of you do what they do in their world without the ability to have done otherwise....one chooses chocolate, the other vanilla, another, strawberry, hazelnut.....all options being realized.

But what if I am a "spotlight" that chooses which choice to follow?

 

[DBT]

I have always only ever argued that free will is possible based on what we know and a what we don't know. No matter how many times I tried to tell you this, you always took this to mean that I was claiming its existence.

Not quite. You were looking for some means support the idea of free will . My response does not contradict that. As I pointed out, I merely described the consequences of block time in relation to freedom.

It's the growing block universe that I like.

Sure, but a growing block time universe does not permit free will for the reasons given. That layers are being added changes nothing. You don't get to choose how it grows.

But what if I am a "spotlight" that chooses which choice to follow?

There are countless versions of you in 'many worlds' and many if not most of these ryans hold that belief, except for the probability that some don't because that is how many worlds interpretation works....all possibilities are expressed in a split.

 

[ryan]

Not quite. You were looking for some means support the idea of free will . My response does not contradict that. As I pointed out, I merely described the consequences of block time in relation to freedom.

Okay

Sure, but a growing block time universe does not permit free will for the reasons given. That layers are being added changes nothing. You don't get to choose how it grows.

What reasons given? A growing block universe is what I had in mind when we were in those free will arguments. Nothing changes for my old argument with a growing block universe.

But what if I am a "spotlight" that chooses which choice to follow?

There are countless versions of you in 'many worlds' and many if not most of these ryans hold that belief, except for the probability that some don't because that is how many worlds interpretation works....all possibilities are expressed in a split.

Maybe, but maybe their is also a very large number of "selves" inhabiting this same body, all having their own free will to branch off as they please. I mean it would at least explain the feeling of being singular and unique.

 

[bilby]

Okay



What reasons given? A growing block universe is what I had in mind when we were in those free will arguments. Nothing changes for my old argument with a growing block universe.

But what if I am a "spotlight" that chooses which choice to follow?

There are countless versions of you in 'many worlds' and many if not most of these ryans hold that belief, except for the probability that some don't because that is how many worlds interpretation works....all possibilities are expressed in a split.

Maybe, but maybe their is also a very large number of "selves" inhabiting this same body, all having their own free will to branch off as they please. I mean it would at least explain the feeling of being singular and unique.

Mate, everyone feels that way. It's obviously not true.

 

[DBT]

Okay



What reasons given? A growing block universe is what I had in mind when we were in those free will arguments. Nothing changes for my old argument with a growing block universe.


Maybe, but maybe their is also a very large number of "selves" inhabiting this same body, all having their own free will to branch off as they please. I mean it would at least explain the feeling of being singular and unique.

Mate, everyone feels that way. It's obviously not true.

Yes. Each and every version feels that way, that they made a 'free choice,' yet each every version has chosen a different option, not because of freedom but because that is how probabilistic wave function is expressed within the many worlds interpretation.

 

[ryan]

Okay

What reasons given? A growing block universe is what I had in mind when we were in those free will arguments. Nothing changes for my old argument with a growing block universe.


Maybe, but maybe their is also a very large number of "selves" inhabiting this same body, all having their own free will to branch off as they please. I mean it would at least explain the feeling of being singular and unique.

Mate, everyone feels that way. It's obviously not true.

And why isn't it true? If they chose differently and branched off, then they were never really absolutely me.