If you can imagine it, it exists.

Okay, it would be interesting to see these worlds existing somewhere:

1. All men world
2. All women world
3. No Republican and Democrat party world
4. Grey Alien-Human hybrid world
5. A world where Latin is spoken in every country in Europe.
6. Native Americans invaded/conquered Europeans instead of Europeans invaded/conquered Native Americans.
7. Everybody on Earth is practicing Feng Shui

I'm going to have to say I do not believe or subscribe to this theory.

amazing. i read the article and wondered, no offence, if there's a note of truth to that and reading that pulled me to realise that if its true why does it have to be years or planets away. what if its already here? but just looks different. harry potter and the death eaters battle could be Barrack Obama and the Taliban. zombies could be the idea of reviving people who have died but had cpr to bring them back.
i hope my comment hasn't offended anyone. sorry if it has

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Um, not exactly. The whole idea of a multiverse is that they would be different so one couldn't have "the physics" that disallow the multiverse as there wouldn't be any unifying rules or the rules for one stops at the other to speak.

So your discounting out of an infinite possibilities that one possible universe could contain a unifying physical law that could cause all multiverses to implode? What's the point of claiming an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities if we're going to claim that it's not possible for one of these universes to do anything against the rest of them? That doesn't sound like an infinite amount of possibilities to me.

reply to post by sirnex


Well if we are living in a multiverse I would imagine that the rules for each universe would be just FOR THAT UNIVERSE. To come up with silliness like that is simply a shallow attempt to discredit an idea that you disagree with on impulse.

reply to post by sirnex


In extension, in a multiversal model it would essentially mean that there are NO UNIVERSAL laws of physics as each reality would have it's own, in otherwords each would have it's DEPENDENT UPON NO OTHER'S LAWS. And "Destroys all other realities" is a universal law and thusly would not apply. It's like stating that if one country was to create a law stating that no other country but it had sovereignty but it's self all other nations would suddenly lose theirs.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Well if we are living in a multiverse I would imagine that the rules for each universe would be just FOR THAT UNIVERSE. To come up with silliness like that is simply a shallow attempt to discredit an idea that you disagree with on impulse.

I think it could go both way's honestly. I mean, to sit there and claim an infinite realities with infinite possible physical laws but counter claim that out of an infinite possibilities it's not possible that one universe's physical laws could bind to the rest of the mutiverses with detrimental effects.

It sounds as if your limiting infinity.

reply to post by sirnex


Now you are dragging it into a semantic argument. You can no more realistically discredit the idea anymore than I can realistically prove the idea.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


All I'm trying to do is figure out if infinite realities with infinite possibilities is limited finitely or infinitely. I see no reason to assume that an infinite multiverse with infinite physical laws couldn't contain at least one universe that would have physical laws that move beyond the boundaries of it's edge.

Your the one trying to limit infinity, not I.

reply to post by sirnex


No your trying to drag the premise into absurdity based on the limited ken of a limited being.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I think your just possibly full of BS right now, to be blunt.

I mean, it's cute that you think I don't accept the possibility of an infinite universes with infinite possibilities. Truth be told, your sovereignty analogy is utterly piss poor and you know that. Your doing nothing more than limiting an infinite amount of possibilities because I simply raised the issue that it would also include the possibility of collapsing all realities outright. Yes, that possibility out of an infinite possibilities would put to end the reality of a multiverse, but I see no need to dismiss it because of what it does. I see no need to limit infinity because it destroys your concept of a multiverse.

Honestly, I do think there might be something to it, but to the point where these infinite possibilities are being collapsed into one reality, the one in which we exist.

reply to post by sirnex


Your welcome to your opinion, but, kindly avoid speaking for me. You are dead wrong in the assumption I am attempting to defend anything much less the multiversakl theory. We are speculating. As for your assertion I am limiting inifinity you are sorely mistaken you are merely twisting the term infinite for your own purposes in this particular case. Can you think of any other possible overlap such as the possible reality law your propose?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

you are merely twisting the term infinite for your own purposes in this particular case.

I don't believe I am twisting infinite possibilities/probabilities at all, but merely stating that with such infinite things, all infinite thing's need to be taken into account. Just because we can't imagine a set of physical laws that would effect multiversal realities outside of it's own boundaries doesn't inherently mean that it can't possibly exist simply because there are infinite possibilities.

Can you think of any other possible overlap such as the possible reality law your propose?

Honestly, I can't. Look at what QM states though, this is where we get the multiverse concept. Reality is full of infinite probabilities until the act of observation. It doesn't explicitly state intelligent observation however, but just normal interaction of matter with matter is enough to count as the 'observation'. The fact that we exist in this one reality and that not all matter is existent in multiple realities should intuitively state that this is the most probable of all infinite realities.

Technically, there can't even be an infinite set of physical laws and realities as that would include some universes who's physical laws would collapse those individual universes at the initial onset of their creation. With an ever increasing gravitational constant that is larger than our own universe causing that collapse, they would have been gone long ago taking them out of infinite probabilities, would it not?

[edit on 30-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 30-10-2009 by sirnex]

Originally posted by genma
Right now think of your wildest idea or most outlandish fantasy. Have that mental picture? Good. Now guess what. That concept exists somewhere, somehow in our limitless extra-dimensional multiverse. You're not crazy. Think of any video game that you've played or movie watched. Those ideas and concepts exist somewhere in tangible form. Maybe not on our planet, in our galaxy or even in our universe but somewhere they do. There's no such thing as fantasy. Reality is infinite. I'm no sage or scholar but I know deep down what I say is true. I can't prove any of this to all of you but I don't think I have to. You already knew this as well. Just search your mind, body, and soul. The answers we've been seeking have always been with us.

So if what we imagine must exist. Then God must exist?
People do imagine that God does exist. But what about the people who imagine that God don't exist?

How do we settle that argument?

reply to post by spy66

How do we settle that argument?

By conceding to the obvious. Reality is reality and we exist within reality, not that we imagine and create reality ourselves. We only know of one reality, the one in which we exist. It's just pure speculation that alternate realities are real, but in my opinion, that view is wrong for common sense reasons.

reply to post by sirnex


Common sense reason tells people that solid objects are solid.

The sciences show us something completely different though don't they.

Obvious as things might appear to us, the 'us' in this equation is limited in its ability to see all things that could potentially be obvious.

Think subatomic particles. How obvious was that to you through common sense alone? What are the implications upon the discovery that things really are not inert, and they are interdependent with each other. Nothing about those truths were obvious to a common eye.

I am not advocating multiple dimensions of reality here. I am advocating that we are limited in seeing any of them.

reply to post by silver tongue devil


Let me rephrase the statement then. Common sense from what the theory states itself. The apparent multiverse aspect isn't a real aspect of the theory, but an assumed interpretation of the theory as far as I know. From everything I have read about the theory, it discusses only matter as it exists within our one universe.

I can imagine an anti-social super geek who builds a machine that will travel back to the first moment of time and detonate destroying ALL possible futures and neutralizing all existing forces to ensure no new universe can evolve from the results. Pause....look around....we still here?

Reply to post by sirnex

We live in one reality? Can you prove that? Sure we PERCIEVE it as one reality but can you think of no situation in which perception is fooled? Particles have been found to blink in and out of existance. Who is to say we are not blinking in and out of a number of fundimentally simuliar yet slightly different realities? You will probly drag the above into absurdity to make it sound implausible with an apparent bias for dragging your reality and by extension, yourself into perceived primancy of plausability. But, regardless you just never know *neither do I admittingly* and it explain a number of anomolies.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Robin Goodfellow

What if there is no "beginning" to be "blown up"?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com