So, it was time to create a new thread. I don’t know if this have been talked about here already, maybe some similar stuff but maybe not in this way… This is just some crazy theory I had in my mind so I thougt I would share it with you all. I hope you all will enjoy the read.

What if we live in a multiverse and it is not certain in which one you are living in, in fact you would be living in all possible universes at once, it would depend on how much of your surrounding you had observed and for some reason it picks a path for you. So when you are first born then there are many possible universes for you, and when you grow older then you observe and learn of your surrounding so the numbers would go down.

I have heard some stories where something had changed for someone, like a reality shift where something in their reality would have been replaced, removed, created or something els. Maybe this would be what some mentally ill people are experiencing in their life, maybe they shift forth and back between some universes so they get really scared by it and feel insecure.

So I thought that these universes would be connected to each other in many ways then, in time, matter and so in your thoughts and your whole mind. So maybe deja vus would be because of this, and maybe someone remembers a experience that never happened, or parhaps they knew the future. So all these universes, if you visualize... Would look like infinite numbers of universes in a 4th dimensional web that crates patterns.

And a last crazy thought, do you think it would be possible for someone to maybe change their surrounding with their mind? Maybe even change themselves? Not that im trying to

would you really want to have everything or anything, what if another version is living in a hellish place and time. what if the life we live is in between, not too good not too bad. people would start to change there prospective if they had to live during a plague or the days of medieval torture. i have a hard time believing that people can't live in the now, if something was so bad in our past , do what ever it takes to make a better future. or maybe everything is happening, any choice you make leads you to another choice but even if you follow ever path, the next path will have another choice. never ending, talk about a mind blow lol.

here is a question

if multiverse theory is true wouldn't it also observe time shifts into the pattern as another possible timeline


like a tree thats branches and roots intertwine in a more severe degree

well... know... universes are differing... also it take massive amounts of pressure to create inflation (birth of a new universe)... you would die... i think that our universe is a multi-verse having billions of tiny universes the sizes of calabi-yau spaces, in each their are more, then by them, they might hold us... this would be mean an infinite number of universes in a ring, and that also means the universes have no shape, since the big bang happened every ware in and out of space time, but by the simple reason of ware we aree in time, it appears to be over, when it is over and is still happening... so the universe (to me atleast) may have to shape but yet maybe part of a shape, weird.

not weird

how can one describe infinity
without first sounding mad

for people who live with ones and twos do not realize that
their baby blocks can only show so little

Yes I suppose so, if you apply all time into the visualization then parhaps that would give birth to another dimension. Maybe these time patterns would even connect to each other in some places not just split. And maybe these paths would eventually come to the same end and that end would be connected to the begining?

And about something els then your question. If there is free will, then that "will" would be your minds power to be able to choose in what parallel universe/universes to go foward to, and could it be even much more then so? If you just put your mind into it? Since, if the multiverse and free will exist, then free will seems to be a powerfull thing to have in this world, maybe you could even become a god of your own world

But free will is something that requires an out worldly force like the soul or something els, it dosen't fit the equation of physics. Maybe there is a soul who knows, I dont. But people need to believe in the free will, they can become mad without it, if they truly understands it

Sorry for the late reply.

The Mulitiverse theory has been around for a long time. 'Worlds within worlds'. Recently, mathematicians (New Scientist) have postulated that there may be as 'many as 11' other universes within this one. Going by the relatively huge spaces between the atoms of physical reality, there could be 'room' for many more on a different vibrational level. Lobsang Rampa in his books talks about the Multiverse. The Jane Roberts 'Seth' books go into how reality functions in more detail. Try 'Nature of Personal Reality.' and how mass consciousness creates our reality, and other possible realities.

Look into the possibility, with the concept of reincarnation, that space time, past, future and present are all interlinked, all influencing each other.
We are in one lifetime, thousands of years ago, as well as now, as well as in the future. A multidimensional reality, interracting with each aspect of experienced reality.

Mr Dot mentioned something about creating reality with our minds. We have been doing that for thousands of years. Every invention, every painting, book, etc originated within our minds and emotions.

Mr Dot: "And a last crazy thought, do you think it would be possible for someone to maybe change their surrounding with their mind? Maybe even change themselves? Not that im trying to "

We are changing all the time. Just that some people try to do it consciously. Its called evolution and growth. Plant a tree, you change yur reality. write a story, you change yourself, and change your reality. It s happening all the time, look around you.

I had something more crazy in mind than the normal doing, I thought if there is an infinite amount of universes then there may be another universe where my state of mind is the same but things in the surounding may be different, would it be possible to maybe, "jump" to another one Or parhaps these universes could be connected. And in that way change things that you know of to something els.

Maybe you one day think, hey the 911 never happened, and before you know it, it didnt. And when you ask someone about the 911 its like it never happened.

Multiverse theory, while unproven, is a possibility. However, in the real world there are two ways to safely access a vast multiverse. First, if you are gifted or skilled enough to lucid dream, you can create your own. Secondly, anyone who can read has an entire multiverse available to then in their local library. (and if you are gifted or hard working enough, you too can contribute to the expansion of this multiverse, by writing)
At the age of one or two I was taken away to the worlds of the wishing chair and the magic faraway tree. Since then I have read several tens of thousands of books, including scores which address /are set in, a variety of constructed multiverses.

It was a partyicular favourite of SF writers from the 30's to the 60's, but almost every SF and fantasy novel; no, almost every FICTION novel, of any genre, ever written, is set in an alternate universe.

You mean parallel universes ?
Altenate lives ..?
Could we then choose ?
( Freewill? ) ...
How could we tell our location in space and time?

Or ,..Could we choose to live forever , hopping on and off different spans ? Forever ?
Or maybe choose our moment of end .. if any ??

I mean, one universe for every possibility, like parallel universes. I somewere heard that it is called Multiverse now... Is that wrong?

No i think you ae correct. The multiverse is the sum of all the potential parallel universes.

The theory goes something like this: At any singular point in time, there are many potential outcomes (given the nature, size and complexity of the real universe, make this an almost infinite number of potentialities, but writers tend to concentrate on a limited scenario)

So, every time a nano second passes, there are infinite possibilities for the universe. The multiverse scenario examines what might happen, if these infinite possibilities actually acheived a real and independent existence of thir own (there are many possible shapes and forms the multiverse could take)

Writers like it, both because of the potentiality for new worlds/universes, but also because it eliminates the time travel paradox. (you CAN go back and kill your father; because while you will no longer exist in that universe, you and your father will still exist in one where you did not go back and kill him (a simplified scenario)

In the real world, there is one problem with this theory. Time is linear. Thus, we exist always at an interface between the past and the future, which we call the present. The past has happened. There is only one version of it, and that is now immutable/unchangeable. In real life there is no pause/save button, which allows us to go back and replay the game.

The present moment is existence, real and also now unchangeable, but the future exists, only ( for each individual, and for the universe itself), as a number of potentialities. Some potentialities are more likely, due to the inertia of past events, and a momentum of time, which makes them more likely to happen, but no, one future for any, or all of us, is set in concrete.

This was made very clear to me when I discovered I had a massive blockage in a major artery. This had been caused by past events, including actions I had chosen, and genes i had inherited. However, in the second when I was warned of this threat, my future changed onto one particular potentiality. I had a major operation (rather nasty) and recovered well. I was quite upset at the pain and suffering I experienced, but one specialist put it in perspective. "You were damned lucky" he said. "While you had no clinical signs of a problem, your artery was 95 percent blocked. If you had not come in for an examination, you would have dropped dead of a massive heart attack within 3 months" ( I did not tell him that luck had nothing to do with it, but rather a series of miracles starting with prophetic dreams and ending with an angelic visitation)

Once I started to recover from the op the same specialist said. "your heart is now as good as ever, just watch out for busses when crossing the street." This throwaway line made me consider both, future potentialities for my life, and how I had been safely steered through one such crossroad, where I could just as potentially have died.

So I could still be run over by a bus, but the potential/likelihood is low. The whole world could be destroyed by a major catastrophe, but the potentiality is low. Global warming might continue to develop, and if it does, many possible scenarios open up. Given human ingenuity, I am not really worried about any of them. At worst, we will muddle through, at best we will contiue our historical advancements and developments, to a point where we can safely, and successfully, manipulate our environment to maximise the benefit to all.

Actually there can only be one outcome of any situation. To change the outcome, you'd have to change the situation.
And, by definition, there can only be one universe.

The theory of Quantum Mechanics and more than 70 years of predictions based on it with confirming observations say otherwise. The computer you typed that message on is a direct result of predictions made by QM put into practice after careful observation.

What you describe is the Newtonian "billiard ball" concept, which has been proven untrue. Any circumstance can have an almost infinite number of outcomes, each one possible but varying in how probable it is that it will occur. For many, many circumstances there are multiple outcomes that have the same probability of occurring. Measuring the spin of an electron is one example.

On the other hand, if the tense of your statement is changed, then we can agree. "Actually there was only one outcome of any situation" works fine for me, practically speaking.


OS

If the circumstance can lead to multiple outcomes then the universe has made a mistake and had to arbitrate a random outcome - or create an alternate universe if that's what you're getting at. But there can't be an alternate universe because the universe has to be everything.

If the universe contains everything, then its mistakes are natural. "Mistakes" would mean an incorrect, and if it is in the universe, then a "mistake" would be part of nature, and by definition not a mistake. If it is possible, then it is natural. Otherwise, it is impossible and wouldn't exist. Or the universe would disappear leaving only the self-consistent mistake as the entirety of reality. If that ever happened or would happen, then we would not be here discussing it (past = we never would have been; future = all histories would be nulled, and we still wouldn't be here.) We must be in a consistent universe where impossibilities are always impossible.

I cordially ask you to refer back to prior posts and other threads concerning what "universe" means. I don't see a consensus on what the differences between "universe," "multiverse," and "omniverse" are.

Forgot to mention, "Welcome, Zareste!"

And to ask: Do you believe in freewill?


OS

Thats why this theoretical scenario/model is called a multiverse. All the alternate /parallell possibilities exist within it. Some writers, and perhaps a few scientists, postulate that the multiverse does not take up any more space than the universe. Each alternative universe exists side by side with ours but slightly out of phase with it (sort of like a dimension we can almost, but not quite, step into from our own. This is theoretically possible because of the huge imbalance beteen matter and space in everything from galaxies to atoms. Many more atoms and galaxies could be existing, physically, side by side with ours, but perhaps vibrating at a different harmony or with a different "density" to our own.

This is all purely speculative, but it is true that there is no such thing as predestination. Despite some probabilities being more likely than others, almost anything can happen to; you, me, and the universe, in the next inst..............

Then has it ever occurred to you that if all situations has only one outcome then everything that is you is the outcome of surounding situations and you can not really change anything, just ride the rail of situations that can only create one outcome. No free will that is.

But then again, anything that has free will is godly, even if there is infinite amount of universes. Happy new year!

i beleive that we can/do shift between dimensions.

although this happens we are unaware or shrug it off as a misconception of the mind.

for example: you have a conversation with a freind.
a week later you recall the discusion and continue but to your surprise your freind has no clue what your talking about.
naturally this is how you take it.
1 they are being ditsy and will recall eventually.

2 maybe you imagined it and shrug it off

3 you're damn sure you had the conversation and try to find a way to remind your friend.

now this could be an event where a minor shift occured and the conversation never happened.

but if we assume for a moment that minor shifts happen then whats to say a madman isn't the victim of a more violent [or more frequent] shift in realities.

Yes, thats interesting Nik Xues. But what if there is a universe where maybe you have managed to control these shifts? Maybe you could keep shifting to a whole new world. Maybe you could even find your way to become god But what then? That would be a god not able to destroy or create, everything would already be there so you would only be able to choose out of all possibilities, maybe you would choose a new life to start from where you dont know that much?

IF the multiverse theory is true....then we should assume its always been true and therefore nothing changes...if its not true....then still....nothing changes.....so it dont matter...surely if it were true there would be a universe where the mulitverse theory wasnt true and therefore cancel it out

And how can such a world be connected to the multiverse? It cant, therefore that world dosent exists. If multiverse is true.

Though if every possibility is covered by the multiverse theory, surely it has to exist, therefore cancelling everything out and making everything not exist.....im just being difficult

T

? Sorry, my first double post... Didnt think it was possible accidentally

The worlds would not be anything you can think of, it would be anything that is possible, and everything is connected in a multiverse, if it is not, then it exists outside the multiverse.

is it not possible that the multiverse theory doesnt exist....if it did exist there would be a possibility of it not existing, therefore, still cancelling it out....recall the episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to which they talk about the world without shrimp (sorta the same thing, but doesnt create some sort of paradox)

I have made my point and this is going nowhere since we have different views. Multiverse is a net of universes connected to each other. So if it is not connected? Well then it is not and dosent exists in the multiverse, maybe somewhere els but not in the multiverse and has nothing to do with the multiverse.

If everything is connected then to not be connected is not a possibility

See it as a chain reaction of possibilities, now how can you out of that create something that is not connected? It is impossible A world that is not connected was never made in a multiverse and cannot be made in one.

i see...*changes views*

haha our poor freind here has tasted paradox.

let me tell you something a paradox is what the universe is.

how could god or the big bang happenif nothing existed before them?

solution its always been that way

no it doesnt work like that
all thongs have a beginning and end. so that means the universe is the nothing which spawned the everything and when everything dies it returns to nothing and yet still exists as nothing.

so then both statements are true while also being false.

math expresses this as the inability to divide by zero[or is it the other one that scores the error]
and yet the standard equation works for every other number

i love it

i am all
i am one
i am none.

what am i.

I believe that there are multi. universes out there. I believe that there are multi gods out there.


I think that each universe has one god. I also think that each galaxy has one god. further I also believe that each planet/solar system that has life in it has a god.


the god or creator of this world is Christ. however the father that he refers to is the god of this galaxy.


I also do not believe that there is more than one of me anywhere. if there were multi me's out there then that would mean that it doesn't matter what i do i will end up in heaven and hell.

That's understandable. Thank you, I never imagined how it would be from a christian point of view.

Maybe we have a wrong conception of what it would be like to exist as many selves across many universes. I've often wondered if we actually do that everyday, and that's who we are, seeing both quantum weirdness and classical dependability, because we are the amalgam of all of our "selves" spread out over all of these potential universes, and in fact, our "selves" amalgamated is what gives rise to "self."

A self-observing quantum system, if Everett's MWI is correct, would necessarily be not just one system in one state, but one system in all possible states for each potential moment. When the system observes itself, it interferes with all of the other parallels of itself, and they likewise interfere with it. They can't be unentangled from each other, and yet they can't interact with each other on a less subtle level. That might explain why it's so hard to nail down what time and consciousness are.

The distinction between a system (a thinking, aware person) that exists in one potential universe and its analog in all potential universes becomes blurred. To put it in a nutshell: the blur is us.

OS

Hello OS, we draw swords again......

Why must the universe be so sophisticated ? Why must QM be so unexpected, when it is equally possible that it is just the interpretation of results, unexpected results and non-results that lead scientists or philosophers to decide that some 'things' are acting out of expectation ? Why is it not possible that it is beyond our power to test creation at this time ?
In the dark ages, we believed that the world was flat. In the 15th century we believed our survival depended on burning witches ! In the 19th century we believed that Martians would destroy the Earth. In the 20th century we KNEW that we would never need to build a computer that needed more than 640K of memory (Bill Gates) How wrong was THAT !!!
Is it any more wrong to believe that life, the universe and eveything is just as we perceive it ? One world, one existence, one brain and one life to use it ? Why do you maintain that existence holds so many confusing and contradictory discoveries ?
I maintain that it is just our inability to comprehend the things that we come across in science now. Like in 1908 Wilbur and Orville could not have comprehended that in the lifetime of a man, a 'plane' could travel out of our solar system... I'm sure, no positive that Wilbur and Orville would understand the technology now...
Are we so right to say existence is complicated now ?

AJ

So, AJ, my old nemesis, you have come again.


1. Scientists observe the world around them. = "The sky is blue."
2. They then speculate and develop hypotheses about why they see what they observe. = "Why is the sky blue? Something in air is absorbing other colors, leaving mostly blue."
3. They then design experiments to test their hypothesis. = "Let's separate the components of air and see which frequencies of visible light they scatter best."
4. The experiment is designed and run, and more observations result. "Wow! We observed that each element in air scattered a different set of spectral sections from the visible spectrum. After we averaged the absorption per each element, then added these together in proportion to the known ratio of composition of the atmosphere, we found that BLUE is the most commonly scattered wavelength!"
4a. Other scientists repeat the experiment to reduce experimental errors, and also in redesigned procedures to see if the results are "falsifiable," ie., they are invariable by other means.
5. During the experiment, the scientists notice several interesting phenomena: Light can be seen to "bend" when it passes through the different elements. Some of the elements warmed noticeably during the testing phase. Some of the subjects showed no visible scattering at all, but the effect on a photovoltaic cell receiving light on the far side of the sample showed that somehow, there was less energy than was transmitted. Where'd the lost energy go??? What properties of nitrogen make it scatter blue better than other colors? Etc., etc., etc.

From Step 5, the scientists take what their observations and questions and go right back to step 1, in a cycle of observation, discovery, and question.

Where in this process do you stop? It appears to me that you might be the type to step off onto a different step 2, and say, "Because it's not red and yellow," thus ending the exploration. You ask why life is not just as we perceive it, and I say that it is just as we perceive it. The closer you examine "life" and "reality," though, the less intuitive your understanding of your perceptions becomes. Bounce a ball off of a wall, and the reaction can be explained classically. At the scale of an atom, there's nothing that can be described as a "ball," though. So, how does a ball, made of atoms, bounce off of a wall?

I, on the other hand, never stop. I go from 1 through 5, and since I can never observe everything, I have more finite questions about what I observe, and for each one I return to step 1 and start over. Each experiment could result in the process restarting any number of times. The only limiting factor is how much interest there is in the new observation, and a bit of intuition over which ones will lead down the most interesting path. Purely selfish, but that's the way it is.

Are you satisfied with your car engine remaining a magical unknowable thing that obeys your commands? After all, from the driver's seat, you can't directly perceive enough about it to determine what really is under the hood.

If you stand next to a sun-warmed brick wall at night, with zero light for you to see by, you might feel the heat from the wall on your face. Do you just think, "The wall is warm, and I can perceive it," or do you try to understand why you perceive what you do?

Your argument about "what they knew then" versus "what we know now" is actually not in your favor. You described yourself when you described the earlier folks!

In the dark ages, a flat earth was simple. You can see the ground is flat! Why complicate it by adding a curve to the earth's surface?

Level-headed denizens of the 19th century had no fear of Martian invaders. Flighty people easily driven by media-frenzy coupled with terrible Italian-to-English translations did, though. I don't believe the latter, in their more extreme, directly contributed much to scientific progress.

Bill Gates wanted to keep it simple: 640K was simple, and it was enough. Other people paid him no attention and raised the stakes anyway. He was almost left behind. There has been progress in spite of his stance then.

The Wright brothers probably could conceive of larger, better planes, but that's beside the point of what they were doing. They themselves were bucking critics who said things like, "If man were meant to fly, God would have created him with wings." You know, just like someone saying why must "existence holds so many confusing and contradictory discoveries ?" Because we don't yet understand enough to make our observations confirm each other.

The thing to remember is that you have made sweeping, all-inclusive generalizations. Those were attitudes held by some, but not all. There were (and are) others who feel differently, and reject the status quo as being the ultimate state. It is these people, those who strive to overcome any obstacle and take knowledge a step further, so that they and those who follow them can continue the cycle of exploration, regardless of how others fail to comprehend it, see a need for it, advocate it, but yet enjoy the fruits of their labor daily.

My point is that when we observe things that don't make sense (unexpected, in your terms,) some of us are driven to continue exploring until they do make sense. When something doesn't make sense, inevitably it is because we do not have enough information, and only through further observation can we gain more. This covers both of your contentions: If we are misinterpreting the information, then gathering more information will correct that. Our discoveries have been confusing and contradictory, and our chore now is to make them not so. Along the way, we will always make observations that don't make sense. We must then start with speculation, decide if that new idea can be framed in a hypothesis, then we test it with experiment.

The point you are arguing with me on has you forgetting the "if" that I put in. I have never stated any of this as fact, but as speculation with some support from experiment (and I am now REPEATING this point to you!) We have observations; we have at several ideas of why we observe what we do; we have further observations (and logic) that support some of those ideas better than others. Right now, MWI is very, very, VERY general in nature (Everett himself said he didn't really understand it or its implications,) but it has fewer points against it than other ideas, such as the Copenhagen model.

Is there another, as yet unknown mechanism to explain what we see? That is very much possible. Can we talk rationally about what is completely unknown? Not really. How do we find the unknown? We do it by pushing the limits of the known.


OS, still not trying to convince you that you are wrong

I doubt it will surprise you to hear that I agree with most all of what you last posted. In the main part, you are describing the simple drive of the questioning mind to discover more about the world around us, the universe above us, and to some extent, the abilities and properties of the mind inside us. That's clear and only needs a modicum of ability to be understood.
I am acutely aware of the fact that I made myself out to be some kind of automaton who doesn't care how the can opener works, so long as he gets his beans !!! I will try to correct.


Let me pose this to you.... please do not think I am trying to make a fool of you, take this next bit with tongue firmly in cheek....

1. Scientists observe the world around them. = "The sky is blue."
2. They then speculate and develop hypotheses about why they see what they observe. = "Why is the sky blue? Something in air is absorbing other colors, leaving mostly blue."
3. They then design experiments to test their hypothesis. = "Let's separate the components of air and see what is absorbing the other colours of the spectrum."
4. The experiment is designed and run, and more observations result. "Wow! We observed that of all the colours in the spectrum are absorbed except blue, so we hunt around for what else in our world absorbs the other colours. Well, blue is one of the primary colours, so the other primary colours left to be absorbed are red and yellow. Red and yellow together make orange, so maybe there are billions of tiny carrots suspended in the air, that are absorbing the other colours in order to make their orange colour, rejecting only the blue. The carrots will not use the photosynthesis method as they are at the quantum level of size and so photosynthesis will not work, so some other process gives them their orange tint. Maybe this is it !"
4a. Other scientists repeat the experiment to reduce experimental errors, but because of the limitations of detecting carrots at this scale, their results do not differ.
5. During the experiment, the scientists notice several interesting phenomena: because of the shape of carrots, if they are travelling end-on, they will pass through a slit in a double slit experiment, but if they travel sideways-on, they will of course, be too wide to pass through the slit, bounce randomly, hit other on-coming carrots, and possibly rebound through a different slit from that which they were aimed at. But the experiment also raises difficult questions like 'how do the carrot seeds 'appear' at quantum level ?, unless it is from a parallel universe, or field.' A Multi Field Theory is born !

They're still doing an experiment, still questioning. They still want to know why things happen the way they do. They are still not convinced that they have the answer, but everything fits, so they're not that bothered by the fact that there is a simpler explanation just around the corner (that doesn't involve root vegetables) but because they have a workable solution, they guess they're gonna run with the carrot theory. They don't really want to think that the air is lacking in carrots, because their presence would also kind of explain why they don't get so hungry when they miss lunch, breathing carrots in all the time, but they need more work to fit this aspect into their Unified Field-of-Veg Theory.

Yes, they did experiments wrongly, yes they made assumptions, yes they would probably have made more exhaustive re-tests, but how do we know real scientists can't do more ? I'm not expounding a return to the dark ages, but maybe, just maybe, the universe is a lot simpler than we think. The 'queerness' that Haldane expounded could fit into simple operations that produce baffling results. The 'scattering of the blue light by elements in the air' process has completely passed the scientists in my example by because they are so centred on a complicated, unified, catch-all theory to explain a blue sky, double slit results, a missed lunch and who knows what else ?

What has trying to explain everything at once done ? What else do they miss by looking at the big picture before fitting in the smaller pieces ?

Food for thought (couldn't resist that one)

AJ

According to your hypothesis, the sky would be orange (carrots scatter orange and absorb other colors.) Plus, in your experiment, you neglect to account for a single carrot emitter, where only one carrot at a time is directed to the slits. Perhaps carrots have an innate predator-sense, and there are sub-microscopic bunnies deflecting them? Bunny-filters would then need to be attached to the system to prevent any rogue influences from dirtying the data.

Seriously, you eloquently stated something that I had trouble getting through the keyboard, so I gave up on it, but I think I found a simple way in the old adage "Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence." That we don't detect extra carrots in the system interacting with our known carrots doesn't mean they are not there. It means we need to examine, re-examine, rethink, re-examine, re-think, re-test.... until we have positive results.

That said, the day I fully "buy" MWI is the day it can be tested and retested, with positive results for its validity. We aren't there yet, but some sub-group of scientists should continue to look for testable evidence for it's proof, while others should pursue proof of alternative theories. The one that leads to questions of a more fundamental nature that should next be pursued will be the winner.


OS

P. S. In MWI, there may be a universe out there where the quantum nature of bunny/carrot interactions has been harnassed to colonize the entire universe with Boltzmann's brains.

I came by to toss you a link you might enjoy, AJ, and saw that I missed something very important about detecting those extra carrots. It should have read:



And now, the Link. You might be interested in this, if not the subject, then the way it is presented.

From the article:



I love it when folks question the axioms, and come up with interesting ideas in the process!

My Unified Field-of-Veg Theory has crumbled !!! A quick note before I go off to work....

That link... I have heard the theory that we are all basically a computer program before, but not in such a compelling and convincing way. This theory makes frightening sense.... This site and the Boltzmans brain link..How do you find such fantastic websites ?

AJ

Aw, and here I've been at work all night and now about to go home finally!

Regarding the sites, questions sometimes occur to me that spawn a craving to know more that can only be satisfied by following the Google-trail down innumerable paths. I have a knack for manual data-mining, and a good memory regarding things that interest me. I come across sites like that during those forays. I just now noticed that the simulation page was on the website of and written by Linda Moulton Howe, a frequent guest on the "Coast to Coast AM" overnight radio show here in the States. She can be pretty kooky. Coast To Coast usually is pretty kooky, also, but a couple of times a week they have a solid science guest, usually talking about some pretty far out subjects.

But, some other favorite bookmarks where I can usually go to get fresh ideas for new questions are:

Physorg

Clifford A. Pickover's "RealityCarnival"

Damn Interesting, the title of which is very much not overhyping it's content

Usenet used to be a good place to visit, particularly alt.sci.physics.new-theories, but the signal to noise has been dropping steadily for years. But, like this forum, the occasional gem pops up.

Over the last several days, I have been gathering as much information as I can about theoretical mechanisms for spatial inflation, and how well they predict the the observed large scale structure of the universe. If you want to see scientists loosely toss around "magical" terms, then this is a great area. "Dark energy/matter" is the alchemy of today, and I'm making it my mission to destroy it's very concept.

I found the link to Earthlines while looking for information on techniques for computationally simulating spacetime. I've been working on a computerized model of spacetime inflation and it's effects on itself and mass, and vice versa, to see if some of my wild speculations will produce results that resemble the large scale structure of the universe and other phenomena that I'm not specifically testing for. Anyway, after reading that article, it crossed my mind that everytime I run my simulation, am I taking a chance on creating an intelligent race, and then wiping them out without ever suspecting they exist when I end the simulation or reseed my continuum? Unsettling. Not that I'm going to stop testing the sim, of course!

OS

I was wrong about how I found the link to the Earthfiles article about the universe as a simulation. It was yesterday's entry at RealityCarnival. My bad.

OS

The virtual reality read was awesome, however I think that it may be possible to proove whether or not the virtual reality is real. If we keep looking for something smaller and smaller I think that eventually we will end the actual "software" part of the system and reach the "hardware" part. This would be parts of reality outside of the virtual reality, we can then build actual reality from this and see where we end up.

Mhmm, what comes before machine code?

Ergh, the whole virtual reality thing is going to leave me wondering for a long time.

Quantum superposition is very interresting and fits very well with the multiverse theory, please look into that if you dont know what it is.

Here is a interesting Double-slit experiment