the multiverse

Post Reply New Topic

Say wha? Everything's 'animate' on a subatomic level, and therefore exists in time

the insanity of infinity to the power of infinity was unleashed when it was thought that every possible effect of a cause may have happened with a finite possibility in some manifestation of potential reality.
that means that from every infinitessimally minute cause can flourish an entire universe of it's own in it's own exclusive dimension of actuality of variously likely probabilities given infinite recurrences.

all universal possibilities happening simultaneously and also at all points of time is like a "white noise of reality".
the only thing that can discern a pattern (or spiritual tone) to follow from it is a mind.

so there is dimension 0. a point with no width or length or height.
d1 is a line which is an "infinite" amount of points in a single direction.
it has infinite length but no identity because it has no height or width.

if you lay an "infinite" amount of "lines" side by side, you get a universal plane (d2) which is infinite in length and breadth but zero in height (so still non existent in reality).

so then lay an infinite amount of universal planes on top of each other and you get universal volume (d3)
that does exist and is called "space".

then it can be said that all universal space exists at an instant of time.
this "instant" is the 4th dimension (in my mind).
it is a "point" of time with no width or height or length.
so it does not exist. but the whole universe is in it.
the 4th dimension is the universal actuality at a point of time.
dimension 5 is an infinite amount of (related) instants laid in a line to forever past and future.
it is the passage of all instants in one single thread of planar time.
if you lay all universal straight time lines together side by side in the plausible reality realm, then you arrive at planar time which is all parrallel universal evolution given the developments from possibilities that are endless happening at this instant (the instant is the z axis)
.so d6 is all universal possibilities (that are infinite again) happening concurrently in a plane that moves from an unreachable past to an unreachable future.
d7 is an infinite amount of these planes stacked on top of each other to show that all points of time are happening now.

every event in the history of all universes is happening at this instant in d7. it is the universal volume of time and possibility in the instant.

d8.
well that is a "point" of consciousness. it has no length or width or breadth.
it is a witness to only an instant of universal reality. it does not exist in reality itself yet.

the door is making a banging sound and i have to go.
sorry i ranted dumbly and did not get to d9 where my idea stops, but i think you all stopped reading way before this anyway..
s**t she is angry i must go.

I'm unclear why talking about unrelated ideas and then labelling them as "dimensions" is so popular. To grab a quote from Wikipedia: "In the case of string theory, consistency requires spacetime to have 10, 11 or 26 dimensions."

Anyway, all that has nothing to do with the multiverse ideas.

As with all good science, the multiverse is a theory. It results in models that are pretty clearly "true", based on current observation. It addresses, and answers, some deep questions. If anyone wishes to provide some evidence that falsifies it, go ahead. Just saying "I don't like it" or "It's too big for my liking" is not science.

NB. The above are, in reality, the views of the FSM, as implanted in my brain via simulated quantum fluctuations in my neuronal tubules.

PS. I suppose that really is the FMM operating there... macaroni, not spaghetti.

Is a litre animate? Is a Joule animate? Is a pound animate? Is eight animate?

To my knowledge, that's not the same as saying that the big bang could possibly have been the effect of a cause, which I suspect lay in parallel universes - Not a 'multiverse' in the crazy Everettian sense discussed, and definitely not God if that's what you're losing sleep over

By the way, Xelebes, r u sure ur not 1 of us?


P.s. measurements clearly have no existence, animate or not, outside human intellects

"Multiverse" - <Inigo Montoya> You use that word so often. I do not think it means what you think it means. </Inigo Montoya>

The multiversal hypothesis is a fairly reasonable way of attempting to resolve Schroedinger's paradox - that we cannot know the outcome of a quantum fluctuation (or a series of them) until the event is observed, and the quantum function collapses. The maths show that when any event occurs at the quantum level, all such events occur - there appears to be no way to favor one outcome over another. This is plainly nonsense, as we can see that one happened, so where did all the others go?

The multiversal hypothesis states that all quantum states do exist - it's just that each makes up its own universe. That would mean that the universe we see is constantly splitting into a dizzying array of alternatives ("alternities", as the author Michael Bishop put it). Since we can only perceive four dimensions (three spatial and one temporal), we are unable to see the alternities, nor can they affect us in any measurable way. They've set off on their own path through the upper spacetimes, along with all those copies of ourselves.

So far as I know, this must remain a hypothesis, as I am unaware of any experiment that could possibly falsify the idea (any failure of experiment can be explained by the hypothesis itself, a nice bit of circular logic).

Personally, I kind of like the idea emotionally, and think it would be neat if I could see some of my own alternities - maybe, frightening as the thought is, we really are living in the best of all possible worlds...

well, I believe the multiverse idea has its place in the m-theory, which is said that new universes are created when two membranes collide with each other, resulting in a big bang, the theory postulates that our universe would have been created that way.

I think you'll find that there is rather a difference between the brane collisions, which produce multiple universes, and the multiverse, where every quantum event spawns an additional universe.

In the former case, each universe may well have a completely different set of physical laws, and doesn't even have to stick with the same number of non-rolled-up dimensions.

In the latter case, every universe follows the identical set of physical laws.

Exactly. Existence is really just a fractal. Just like my avatar, the universe is a never ending pattern. A oneness. I like to think that the solar system is just a type of atom and vice versa. Yes, I know a lot of you tecgnical people will come up with extreme differences between an atom and a solar system, but they IMO are really related. Everything is made of sonmething and something always makes up everything. Planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc etc etc. You can never find the end. Atoms, organelles, molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles, quarks, jewes, you can never find the basic unit because everything has to be made of something just as everything has to make up everything. In that sense we are all one, even though we all percieve eachother as different objects.

I can't say I support the popular idea of blurring all distinctions. Galaxies and atoms have nothing "in common".

It's often said by popular science writers/presenters that the only reality is energy.

So if you ask what everything is, it's energy of some kind. If you ask what energy is, well I guess it's really nothing-?!?

I suppose that vthere is no why and only a how. See the difference?

So how did the Big Bang happen?

"lines" are definitely a dimensional extension of "points". i may have no formal education, but i know that a line is composed of an infinite "points" in a single direction .
i know that lines have no physical entity due to 2 of their dimensions being zero (width and height).
but an "infinite" amount of "lines (themselves an infinite amounts of points)" laid side by side on a single level is what a "plane" is composed of.
i know that a plane has no entity although it is infinite in 2 dimensions (length and width).
it is only when an infinite amount of planes are stacked on top of each other (y-axis) that you get infinite volume or space. and that is the room in the universe in which energy and matter can exist.
volume (space) does have an entity, and it is not finite.
so how do you say the 4 physical dimensions are unrelated? (0=point,1=line,2=plane,3=volume)

also, time follows precisely this exponential construct in my mind, and so does consciousness.
(ie, "points" of conciousness (where humans are) to "linear" and "planar" and "spacial" consciousness which is indescribable as yet)

i am not trying to argue your point because i know you are very smart, but the ideas i proposed, while very woolly and "lay", were not unrelated.
can you tell me how they were?
in a conceptual way and not a trawled out wiki thing?

i think big bangs are like a self perpetuating bubble.

at the point of the big bang, every piece of potential energy (which becomes energy and mass) is flung from the center. this creates a gravitational void at the point where it happened.
so the expansion does not slow down, because all the matter/energy that was at the core, is now not there, but it is in transit on an outward journey as the universe expands.

so the bulk of the mass of the universe is eventually in a spherical "halo" (long after now (say 10^100 years time)) and then there will be a surface tension due to the lateral gravitational influence of the matter that is in the halo.
it will coalesce into a tight skinned bubble at the borders of spacetime. and then the bubble will "pop" and and rapidly repose itself as a "droplet" of a zero volume singularity of universal energy that can not be, and is violently rejected again into another cycle.
if you throw a problem with a "division by zero" into the mind of god, then you will get a big bang.

I could recommend "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose, but I failed to follow his physics after the first few chapters (and I didn't like, aesthetically, his hand-drawn representations of dimensions).

You are going along fine, for Euclidean geometry, when you describe three dimensions ("point" is not a dimension, as it has no measure).

A "dimension" is something you can "measure along", and give a single number for.

There is also the concept that dimensions need to be "orthogonal", which is loosely "at right angles". For two descriptive numbers to be "dimensions", they should be independent of one another. In Euclidean space, once you give length, breadth and depth, you are done. There's nothing more to say, plus you cannot get away with less than those three dimensions.

=========

Then along came the idea of using a fourth dimension: time.

As everyone knows, Einstein had something to do with this. However, designating time as a fourth dimension had been around way before him... it was obviously another "dimension" and was pretty much treated as such in "dynamics".

What Einstein did (in his special relativity) was to cease treating it as quite so "sacrosanct" a fourth dimension, and start using "space-time" as a fully-fledged concept.

=======

Until recently, that's where the story stopped. Although science fiction has always liked the idea of "parallel universes" and "other dimensions", there was never any very clear theory behind all that.

However, mathematics has always had fun with dimensions. Multidimensional mathematics has been around for ages, and then the physicists grabbed it. Suddenly, with a whole set of extra dimensions, string theory burst onto the scene.

These extra six or more are ALL still dimensions, with separate numbers measuring along each, but the dimensions are not fully "interchangeable", in the same sort of way that time is not directly interchangeable with length.

Whether string theory (or m-theory) is "reality", or is merely a model that (usefully) describes reality, is a matter of taste, I think.

===========

In your post, when you start talking about "points" of conciousness, you lose me. I have no idea what you mean by that, to start with. Appending the adjectives "linear", "planar" and "spacial" has even less meaning.

===========

And, back to the thread... the multiverse... coined largely in its current sense by one of my favourite authors: