Parallel Universe

K

KatYes

Two
MBTI
Infj
Hello INFJ community!

I am new here and this is my first thread, and I hope it's not the last one. First of all, I like to discuss philosophic questions, so spirituality and mysticism are the most interesting fields I like to research. I rather write than speak, because of my introverted personality, which gets complicated with overthinking, so I am really glad that there is community like this, so that we can all write and express ourselves, and especially connect with one another. As I mentioned before, I like to discuss philosophic questions, so below you have one, that fascinates me.

I wonder how many of you believe in parallel universe. I find it very interesting to think about possible universes in which we do exists in different forms. Everything about human beings and souls fascinates me. Is it possible that you go to parallel universe when dreaming, so that your dreams are reality in another universe? Is the parallel universe another reality like when you die and your soul leaves your body? I heard about stories of people who kind of got in parallel universe and it felt wrong for them. Is here anyone with that experience that would like to share it with us?

Sending positive energy,
Katyes 🙂
 
Welcome to the Forums. 😌

Cheers,
Ian
 
KatYes said:
I wonder how many of you believe in parallel universe.
Click to expand...
Greetings KayYes and welcome to the forum.

I guess my position on a parallel universe is one of open mind. Of course the meaning of parallel here needs to be thought out carefully, and of course the word universe also needs to be thought through. The idea of 'universe' on the face of it means everything there is - that would include other places in other dimensions too and would include those that are totally unconnected from our world. But usually these days, people take The Universe to be the connected space time that we live in.

So taking the second of these, I'd say that other universes are very likely to exist. That's because many of the ideas about how the universe came into being would automatically create many of them. Not just based on hard cosmological physics either - even religion says as much. For example 'in my father's house are many mansions' from Chr 14 of St John's Gospel.

But a parallel universe - that would imply that it's evolution is recognisably close to ours and maybe even separated from ours by a very narrow margin of whatever it is that separates universes. At first sight, this seems possible but unlikely unless the physics demands it, because our universe is so very finely tuned that another with only very slight initial differences would move a long way from ours before they both evolve very far.

There's more to this, though, but it's going to sound far fetched. So if we start with the question of why there is something rather than nothing, things get interesting:
  • One possibility is that there is nothing at all - that seems both logically and intuitively a very strong possibility. We know it's wrong, or I wouldn't be here writing this down - but even so it would not be surprising if it had been true, except that there would have been no-one around to not be surprised of course.
  • A second possibility is that something exists, but there is a lot of what could exist but doesn't. We take for granted that this is what reality is like, but logically and intuitively it seems highly implausible. There has to be some kind of selection made, and out of all the possible selections brought about by contingency (as is assumed by materialistically oriented physics) we have our particular world. Yet we know our world is highly tuned and is less likely to have come about by a one-off chance than if I won our state lottery every time I entered it. Of course we could always go back to the idea that God created it just as it is - but I suspect even God doesn't work quite like that.
  • A third possibility is that whatever is possible exists. This seems implausible, yet like the first option it is both logically and intuitively satisfying. It also seems consistent with the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and with the myriad worlds hypothesised in the string theory attempt to create a quantum theory of gravitation.
So if I had to pick one of these three, the third seems the most likely to me. i.e. Whatever is possible exists, and this would of necessity include a whole myriad of universes parallel to our own, as well as maybe infinitely more that are not parallel to us. It's also the one I fancy most, because the second one is pretty boring really, unless there is only one and it was created directly by Someone.
 
John K said:
Greetings KayYes and welcome to the forum.

I guess my position on a parallel universe is one of open mind. Of course the meaning of parallel here needs to be thought out carefully, and of course the word universe also needs to be thought through. The idea of 'universe' on the face of it means everything there is - that would include other places in other dimensions too and would include those that are totally unconnected from our world. But usually these days, people take The Universe to be the connected space time that we live in.

So taking the second of these, I'd say that other universes are very likely to exist. That's because many of the ideas about how the universe came into being would automatically create many of them. Not just based on hard cosmological physics either - even religion says as much. For example 'in my father's house are many mansions' from Chr 14 of St John's Gospel.

But a parallel universe - that would imply that it's evolution is recognisably close to ours and maybe even separated from ours by a very narrow margin of whatever it is that separates universes. At first sight, this seems possible but unlikely unless the physics demands it, because our universe is so very finely tuned that another with only very slight initial differences would move a long way from ours before they both evolve very far.

There's more to this, though, but it's going to sound far fetched. So if we start with the question of why there is something rather than nothing, things get interesting:
  • One possibility is that there is nothing at all - that seems both logically and intuitively a very strong possibility. We know it's wrong, or I wouldn't be here writing this down - but even so it would not be surprising if it had been true, except that there would have been no-one around to not be surprised of course.
  • A second possibility is that something exists, but there is a lot of what could exist but doesn't. We take for granted that this is what reality is like, but logically and intuitively it seems highly implausible. There has to be some kind of selection made, and out of all the possible selections brought about by contingency (as is assumed by materialistically oriented physics) we have our particular world. Yet we know our world is highly tuned and is less likely to have come about by a one-off chance than if I won our state lottery every time I entered it. Of course we could always go back to the idea that God created it just as it is - but I suspect even God doesn't work quite like that.
  • A third possibility is that whatever is possible exists. This seems implausible, yet like the first option it is both logically and intuitively satisfying. It also seems consistent with the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and with the myriad worlds hypothesised in the string theory attempt to create a quantum theory of gravitation.
So if I had to pick one of these three, the third seems the most likely to me. i.e. Whatever is possible exists, and this would of necessity include a whole myriad of universes parallel to our own, as well as maybe infinitely more that are not parallel to us. It's also the one I fancy most, because the second one is pretty boring really, unless there is only one and it was created directly by Someone.
Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards the third possibility because I do believe there is a quantum level gravity but you certainly won't get that from any scientist these days. This would require a miniature blackhole (dimensional perforations) at the center of ever atom and I've seen a theory that suggest this could theoretically be possible. The blackhole would be so tiny that we would not be able to see it and if we tried to measure it then it's likely that the proton and neutron would block the view of it in he same manner that the stars block the view of a blackhole at the center of a galaxy. This would create a unified theory that would scale top to bottom.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that time does not exist in our three dimensional space and that time is merely a measure of movement within space (clock moves, earth moves, sun moves, which is how we measure time). This movement through infinite space gives the illusion of time. Similarly, in the fourth dimension space does not exist and the movement (for lack of a better word) through time is infinite (yes, this is hard to comprehend). These connection between space and time dimensions occur in these blackholes that scale (atom, planet, star, galaxy, universe), with electromagnetic and gravitational forces emerging at every level. The reason that it works is because there is a higher energy state in one dimension (time) than the other (space). It's also why we see so much energy released with nuclear fusion.

Finally, we have to account for consciousness and that is starting to become more clear as the ORCH OR theory created by Penrose and Hameroff is rapidly gaining more traction. This theory suggest that the brain gains its consciousness from quantum connections in microtubules located within neurons. I've been blogging about the ORCH OR theory in this forum and there is experimentation and studies that are making this theory a very real possibility. What I'm suggesting is that the brain is bridging the connection between the time and space dimensions and provides us with the appearance or illusion of both time and space existing as space-time. This starts to become more logically a possibility when we look at experiments like the double slit which collapses the wave function through observation and Schrodingers cat involving super positions.

Regardless, I do not believe we will ever be able to scientifically measure anything within the time dimension; however, we can make assumptions about what that would look like based on observable effects within the space dimension - something scientists have been attempting to do at CERN.

All of that said, I can't necessarily agree with string theory because it just seems too convenient and because there are far too many of these theories that have been presented.
 
Last edited:
TomasM said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that time does not exist in our three dimensional space and that time is merely a measure of movement within space (clock moves, earth moves, sun moves, which is how we measure time). This movement through infinite space gives the illusion of time.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that some physicists are conjecturing that time and space are secondary and emerge from something more fundamental.

I think our human perspective is distorted by other aspects as well. From the outside our universe is surely a static thing that integrates the full extent of both time and space and all they contain into a single integrated entity. From that perspective we are each of us eternal - each point of our existence exists eternally within the universe, perceived from a perspective outside of it. From that perspective as well there are no separate objects because all are joined together at the roots of the world. Mind you that assumes it has a single root - recent observations may be casting doubt on that.
 
John K said:
It’s interesting that some physicists are conjecturing that time and space are secondary and emerge from something more fundamental.
Click to expand...
I have considered that there might be a connecting point (or origin) between the two (time and space). If only we could go inside a blackhole. At the end of the day, I'm a Christian and I leave it in God's hands, yet my human experience loves puzzles so I can't seem to put them down some of the "time." LOL
 
There really is only one theorist here, you know....

And in that vein, I've written an entire text (300 pgs) about the structure of the universe. If anyone else also has, please feel free to chime in.

It's space that doesn't exist, and I can prove that. I did, actually. In fact, it was the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno, who proved this, with his many paradoxes. Even Aristotle couldn't answer them. But this doesn't address your question.

If there was another (parallel) universe, we would have no way to see or measure it. Under the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Many Worlds Theory, a new dimension, or parallel universe is created every single time a quantum split occurs anywhere in the universe, including and inside of our own brains, many millions or billions of times per second. So that many parallel universes would be created in every second, just from the activity inside your own brain.

Incidentally, there are many millions to billions of quantum events that take place in every decision we make. It's appears that our universe is completely random and unpredictable. However, certain measurements have shown that decisions occur in "waves" across the brain, where a multiplicity of quantum events swing across the brain in a wave, thus generally settling a decision.

The vast majority of working physicists and theorists completely discount the Many Worlds Theory, probably because of the amount of energy required to create a parallel universe every time a quantum event takes place. I think it would require all of the energy in this universe and then some more to create a whole parallel universe just like this one, except for one quantum event swinging left instead of right, to offset this one. It makes for great science fiction. But honestly, if you find one alternate dimension, there are a few trillion right next to it.

However, this does not suggest that there are not higher dimensions of reality that we simply aren't aware of, and will probably not be aware of, perhaps for many thousands of years - if humanity survives, and only if we evolve enough to become aware of those higher level dimensions.

For example, we are aware of four dimensions, only, that we can percieve, but if there were a fifth dimension, we would have no way to percieve it. Or a sixth level dimension. Or 7th, or 8th, or 9th, or 10th, and so on. What would a 100th dimensional level being be like.

Just to clarify things a bit, since in my own theory, space does not exist, we technically only live in a two-dimensional reality. Time and, well, something else that I haven't quite worked out yet.

Incidentally, String Theory was constructed around M-Theory, which nobody knows about. Except me - I think because they named it after me. But String Theory was a response to "the non-existence of space as an acting causality". Since three-dimensional matter cannot exist in a contiguous state, I suspect that they tried to create two-dimensional matter to deal with it (called "strings").

Nowadays, they're making space out of "quantum foam", which I think is kind of silly. They keep talking about "fields" and I keep explaining that there are no such things.

It's a neverending task. And it's almost time for dinner!
 
Quarkmaster said:
Incidentally, String Theory was constructed around M-Theory, which nobody knows about. Except me - I think because they named it after me.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you're not Witten.
And most people in the field know about M-Theory.
 
Quarkmaster said:
It's appears that our universe is completely random and unpredictable.
Click to expand...
Do say more about this, because simple observation seems to refute it. You would not be able to make your post or receive my response unless the universe were consistent and predictable to a considerable extent. Particularly as these are not one off events but unlimitedly repeatable ones.
 
John K said:
Do say more about this, because simple observation seems to refute it. You would not be able to make your post or receive my response unless the universe were consistent and predictable to a considerable extent. Particularly as these are not one off events but unlimitedly repeatable ones.
Click to expand...
We must, of course, keep in mind that ideas and concepts like order, random, and so on are entirely human projections onto our idea of the universe. This also demonstrates our idea of the universe is one of cause and effect, which suggests duality in thought—properly antithetical to a singularity of being, an is-ness, if you will.

The language which becomes the shorthand is something altogether removed from experience, necessarily limited as it is when living a human life.

Cheers,
Ian
 
John K said:
Do say more about this, because simple observation seems to refute it. You would not be able to make your post or receive my response unless the universe were consistent and predictable to a considerable extent. Particularly as these are not one off events but unlimitedly repeatable ones.
Click to expand...
Digging deeply into my old, old memories, as I mentioned in the susequent sentence, decisions tend to move in waves of quantum events, and those quantum events mostly need to tend in a direction. Now, I suppose that it might only be the majority of those events which tend in those directions, up until a decision is finally made - in the human brain. And this was from a study I only vaguely recall from perhaps 30 years ago.

As for how we post responses, I'm not sure if you're asking how MOSFETs or BJTs work (the fundamental devices that make our computers work, mostly MOSFETs, but nowadays, BJTs still play a role), but these devices are all about quantum mechanics, which is the guide to understanding their operation. If these devices are off by just a little bit, they stop working. If you get table salt on them, their quantum processes cease to exist, and they aquire new quantum properties that don't do what we would like them to do.

If I take pure Silicon and etch it into nanowires, the quantum properties are altered, from an indirect band gap of 1.12 eV to a direct band gap, with a much higher potential, up to 2.5 eV. This is the first known place where you can alter the morphology of a bulk element and actually change its quantum properties, which is why nanotechnology is so interesting. There are many examples of this.

Nevertheless, it requires a majority of quantum events in a semiconductor to go right in order for that device to work properly, for the gate to open or close, properly and in time. We engineer them so that this happens. There are a number of ways that we can manipulate those properties.

If you're still not certain about this, review the Butterfly Effect. The flutter of a butterfly's wings in south asia is sufficient to create a hurricane in the western hemisphere, and yet, were the butterfly to take a singly different quantum event and turn it differently, the effect might never take place.

Remember also that even your internal decision to respond to my post is also the result of one or many quantum events. If the majority of them tilted another way, it would not have happened. Quantum mechanics is funadamentally a study of probabilities.

The universe really is incredibly random.

I'm looking out my front window (which is where my desk is parked) at a tiny little blue bird, almost smaller than a butterfly, fluttering about in my oak tree. It's not a hummingbird. Perhaps it will create a hurricane in south asia.
 
aeon said:
We must, of course, keep in mind that ideas and concepts like order, random, and so on are entirely human projections onto our idea of the universe. This also demonstrates our idea of the universe is one of cause and effect, which suggests duality in thought—properly antithetical to a singularity of being, an is-ness, if you will.

The language which becomes the shorthand is something altogether removed from experience, necessarily limited as it is when living a human life.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
Which is why I say in my own theories, that it's all about perception. What we see, or think we see, is likely not what really is.

For example, if no creature on Earth had such a thing as vision, how would we percieve our world and our universe.
 
Wyote said:
And most people in the field know about M-Theory.
Click to expand...
For a long time, people had no idea what the "M" stood for in M-theory. There were a number of different suspicions about it and Witten was often quiet or non-talkative about it. Finally, one day, he said, "Membrane".

Witten introduced an 11-dimensional theory of the subatomic realm, 10 spatial and 1 temporal. My own theory introduced a 13-dimensional realm, one temporal and 12 temporally-associated dimensions, and 0 spatial dimensions. I wrote a computer program to model the four most basic atomic particles, using these 13 qualities/dimensions.

As for many people knowing that M-theory exists, it's so, but at this point in time, it remains an anomaly the nobody understands - even Witten.

I suspect that my theories were not accepted in the mainstream primarily for the lack of mathematical rigor, and of course, breaking all of the rules for getting my articles published. Which I only learned about many years later, after I written several equations that had never before been known. In one of my peer-reviewed papers, I proved a mathematical formula in geometry as part of a paper on a completely different subject. A year later, someone else proved the same thing, but in three dimensions. I wish that I had known the three-D version had never been done. It would have been a simple task to go from a 2-D proof to a 3-D proof. I don't know why that was such a big deal, but it garnered a bit of notariety for that mathematician.
 
Quarkmaster said:
Good catch. I published my theories in 1995, the same year that Witten introduced M-Theory.
Click to expand...

I see, so you're more of a parallel universe Witten
 
Quarkmaster said:
My own theory introduced a 13-dimensional realm, one temporal and 12 temporally-associated dimensions, and 0 spatial dimensions.
Click to expand...

Tbh I feel like intuitively that is preferable.
Pls do not ask me to elaborate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top