the nature of the *?*verse

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Digit, Jun 19, 2003.

  1. ok... so i'm not actually posting much on this topic yet... but i've been meening to post a cyclic-multiverse thread for aaaages... its about time i put a foot in the door... hopefully it will motivate me to get clued up as to what it is i wanna say... and how i plan on saying it.
    this is no simple subject.
  2. I read an article about anti-space, it turns out that every atom and proton etc. has an anti form and they're now suspecting that there are tons of anti-matter somewhere in the universe.... I was just thinking maybe there's and anti-universe somewhere, or something like that.
  3. "Parallel universes are no longer a figment of our imagination. They're so real that we can reach out and touch them, and even use them to change our world, says Marcus Chown

    FLICKING through New Scientist, you stop at this page, think "that's interesting" and read these words. Another you thinks "what nonsense", and moves on. Yet another lets out a cry, keels over and dies."

    ...says an introduction to a New Scientist article.

    i'd call this "worlds within worlds"... or rather, universes within universe. even as well depicted by the analogy here, as i see it this is but only a part of that which makes up the universe.

    in this version of multiverse theory, time is always described as being synchronous.

    but this is what i describe as only a part of our "uni"verse as a whole.

    my version of multiverse theory goes beyond, much further beyond this example of a "multi"verse that comes from chaos theory.

    if the multiverse can be considered (or visualised) as an extremely massive collection of bubbles, within each containing a "uni"verse. Each universe could be vastly different due to variation in the events that transpired to make it how it is, the events early on in its birth having a greater effect on the outcome as this is when the physics and so forth of it are defined. These universes are far from synchronous. not only do they not have synchronous timelines, but they would startup and shutdown at different times too. that is of course, if we can pretend we can still exist outside all these goings on and witness it all going on from a standpoint of simple spacetime.
    much the same way that through chaos theory, the "universes" that exist closest to our own are more similar due to having less variation (more recent variations), so too could the universes in my theory. this is where the two theorys merge on an even grander scale. perhaps even to the point where the two are the same.

    where my theory truely takes a step beyond is the complete merger between cyclic universe theorys (wich apparantly are tied more closely to superstring theory, dont ask me how) and multiverse theories.

    "A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth."

    ...or so a princeton university paper beggins.

    even from this tiny slice of it all seems to me to so completely fit just too neatly into multierse theory to the point that i have to say that i subscribe to the "Cyclic-Multi-verse" theory.

    anyways... i'll save the rest for another day.

    the language we use to describe such theorys is slipping behind the ever evolving theories. the terms dimension and universe dont measure up to scratch when trying to describe things between the two. words get in the way.

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page