You Can't Die

ik9zeroE

Kashai
In relation to many worlds hypothesis and multiverse theory. A referent is in relation to the potential of consciousness to transcend separateness inherent physically, in such modeling.

Implied is another point of view related to such a construct as a whole.

It is to present that each impression of separateness is alike to a facet in a Diamond.

Any thoughts?

edit on 12-2-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I believe there is only one Universe.

Please expand on this... why do you believe that?

I suggest you take a look at Quantum Mechanics more closely...



I hope this brings you to an epiphany...

Peace,

Korg.

Korg Trinity

ik9zeroE

Kashai
In relation to many worlds hypothesis and multiverse theory. A referent is in relation to the potential of consciousness to transcend separateness inherent physically, in such modeling.

Implied is another point of view related to such a construct as a whole.

It is to present that each impression of separateness is alike to a facet in a Diamond.

Any thoughts?

edit on 12-2-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I believe there is only one Universe.

Please expand on this... why do you believe that?

I suggest you take a look at Quantum Mechanics more closely...


Peace,

Korg.

Well, philosophically (and etimologically) speaking, the poster is right: UNI-verse implies "all there is" - including all possible variants or "verses".

In other words, even with a myriad of "parallel universes", it would still be one UNI-verse.
But we could change its name to POLI-verse.

AdAstra

Korg Trinity

ik9zeroE

Kashai
In relation to many worlds hypothesis and multiverse theory. A referent is in relation to the potential of consciousness to transcend separateness inherent physically, in such modeling.

Implied is another point of view related to such a construct as a whole.

It is to present that each impression of separateness is alike to a facet in a Diamond.

Any thoughts?

edit on 12-2-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I believe there is only one Universe.

Please expand on this... why do you believe that?

I suggest you take a look at Quantum Mechanics more closely...


Peace,

Korg.

Well, philosophically (and etimologically) speaking, the poster is right: UNI-verse implies "all there is" - including all possible variants or "verses".

In other words, even with a myriad of "parallel universes", it would still be one UNI-verse.
But we could change its name to POLI-verse.

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

Hmmm... not really...

The concept already has a name.. it's Multi-Verse....



Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Yes, but it's not an appropriate name.
It's a redundant neologism, coined by people unfamiliar with the full meaning of the term "universe".

Purity - consistency - of thought is important, IMO, when dealing with such subjects.
Besides, this IS the "philosophy" forum. :-)

AdAstra
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Yes, but it's not an appropriate name.
It's a redundant neologism, coined by people unfamiliar with the full meaning of the term "universe".

Purity - consistency - of thought is important, IMO, when dealing with such subjects.
Besides, this IS the "philosophy" forum. :-)

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

I don't think the person that coined the term multiverse did so out of some misguided concept of what uni-verse means... you could call it a banana it doesn't really matter.... what matters is the concept that our universe is just but one of an infinite number of parallel universes... i.e. multiverse.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Thank you Korg for your input on this

Yes the quantum suicide thought experiment is a perfect example of what I am trying to talk about. My OP is a barely coherent rambling, but typing these things out always gives me a better perspective, especially when there are valuable replies to it. I have gathered so many paradigms and what if scenarios that now when they are all starting to link together logically in my mind I am completely overwhelmed.

Using the quantum lenses of simultaneous belief and disbelief, I have been following logical paths, I feel like our personal realities are normalized probabilities based on our assumed remembered past, of us and the people we interact with, so with the addition of the internet our realities are even more normalized today than ever. I feel like our consciousnesses are taking the path of least resistance in terms of suffering, through time causing our present experience. When I take this and add in the what if of 'can the future communicate with the past' if the answer is yes then I predict we will never see world peace or a utopia, because this world is seems consciousness-wise meant to cycle us personally through a cycle of belief and disbelief, until we can know ourselves wholly, while taking the path of least suffering. The political, military, and religious arenas are so chaotic, warlike, and deceiving, that it seems to me that these actions may be the result of the elites believing they are speaking to god/devil/angel/demon/et/ed when in reality what they are doing is communicating with the future, and the future wants us to have the most epic history every imagined, and what better way than with a never ending war that parabolas into the future alongside technology that would have otherwise created world peace and wealth. The best part is we don't have to live out this suffering filled future because we are paying the price in suffering right NOW and our consciousness is helping us choose the path of least suffering while still being able to believing that this could be the actual reality.

refer to my post on page 2 of the what if the future could communicate with the past scenario and logical pattern.

If what I am thinking is true, then our imagination is also key in all of this, to make you believe in yourself you may actually die and go to 'heaven' or 'hell' for a time just like you believed before you died and in this imagined afterlife you are still presented with the cycle of belief and disbelief until you achieve your personal realization and you go from believing 99.9% to KNOWING 100%

When I think about all these things discussed in this thread together, when I realize that all of this may be logical, and I look with one eye at the past, one eye at the future, and use the quantum thought experiments, the fractal patterns, the normalized probability wave, the seemingly absurd reality presented to me in each vision start to come into focus slightly; I feel an electrical sensation in the middle of my brain and it really freaks me out like I have seen my ghost. It makes me pop out of my seat and ramble on the internet like a madman hoping someone can make better sense of it than I

reply to post by Korg Trinity


The problem is - potentially - that disregard for nuances (not just of meaning) and/or a tenuous grasp on logic could imply a lack of intellectual rigor that is not conducive to scientific discovery.
(And I mean "science" in the proper sense of the word - knowing - not just orthodox science.)

Believe me, I am not trying to be nitpicky or confrontational.
And I am dropping the subject anyway.

AdAstra
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

The problem is - potentially - that disregard for nuances (not just of meaning) and/or a tenuous grasp on logic could imply a lack of intellectual rigor that is not conducive to scientific discovery.

On the contrary, it is a direct result of logical thinking that has led us to such concepts as Quantum gravity / cryptography and computation. All of which relies on a firm grasp of quantum mechanics.

I don't know how you could think that would lead anything other than pushing the very boundaries of what we know to be true. After all Science is about exploration and discovery.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by AdAstra


We have imagined the polyverse omniverse parallel reality mirror reality all of this in comic books because it is our intelligent urge to imagine such things. What is truly startling to me is that science has been forced to imagine this because of Schrodinger's equation. They call it multiverse theory, so for the sake of focused intellectual growth it is logical to take up a quasi-dogmatic approach than the Socratic agnostic approach, even though the quasi-dogmatic answers always turn out to be incomplete, this is the cycle of belief and doubt that is vital to our conscious awakening, and is more or less a force of nature that we just have to deal with in order to proceed.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I am not talking about Quantum computation - or any of the lines of thought that led to it, for that matter.
What I am saying is precisely that to arrive at conclusions such as Quantum computation - or any other scientific advance - you need a razor-sharp sense of nuance. That's the edge that dissects and opens truly new avenues of thought. ("New" for every given culture; globally speaking, most ideas that prove to be valid have been around for centuries or millenia, and that includes Everett's "many worlds interpretation", albeit without the specific physics behind it.)

I believe there is a misunderstanding here - semantic or otherwise.
So, to avoid derailing the thread, once again: I am dropping the subject.

reply to post by MemeticHarvest


Yes, I understand the urge behind it (although it's not a new invention; the idea of "parallel worlds" has been around for many centuries - under different guises and names, of course).

All I am saying is that the NAME "multiverse" (or "poliverse") is unnecessary, because the term universe already contains the notion of all possible universes, even those that we might consider extraneous to ours.

And come to think of it.... it's all quite relevant to the idea.
But, like I said, I am not here to derail the thread, so let's leave it at that.

AdAstra
reply to post by MemeticHarvest

 

Yes, I understand the urge behind it (although it's not a new invention; the idea of "parallel worlds" has been around for many centuries - under different guises and names, of course).

All I am saying is that the NAME "multiverse" (or "poliverse") is unnecessary, because the term universe already contains the notion of all possible universes, even those that we might consider extraneous to ours.

And come to think of it.... it's all quite relevant to the idea.
But, like I said, I am not here to derail the thread, so let's leave it at that.

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

Actually you are not derailing the thread. A major point to this thread is the relativity and communication between the infinite imaginary multiverse/poliverse/omniverse where are possibilities are possible, and the seemingly real universe in which we consciously reside and have experiences which are relatively definite to our personal reality. I believe all the terms involved are unnecessary, that the real deal is the simultaneous communication between it all, which creates the illusion of our personal present reality. I'm trying to logically link a wide range of paradigms to look for real fundamental patterns of reality, in which none of this is new material (cycle of belief/doubt/sleep/awake and cycle of suffering/pleasure/contentment/anxiety) but rather an attempt at creating a new perspective which is logically normalized and possible, based on believing science and spiritual data simultaneously with the implications of the Schrodinger's equation and the assumption that the future can communicate with the past and that if this assumption is true does this mean the future wants us to be in constant war? Is war based on divine communication a kind of catalyst for our reality?

So now that we have thoroughly investigated the paradigm of a normalized infinite universe based on relative perspective, would you care to discuss the other paradigms I or others have presented in this thread?

ik9zeroE

Kashai
In relation to many worlds hypothesis and multiverse theory. A referent is in relation to the potential of consciousness to transcend separateness inherent physically, in such modeling.

Implied is another point of view related to such a construct as a whole.

It is to present that each impression of separateness is alike to a facet in a Diamond.

Any thoughts?

edit on 12-2-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I believe there is only one Universe. I think human beings have lost their mind and have no idea how wrong they are in thinking there is more than one Universe. The Universe isn't a cell, it doesn't split and start multiplying itself. There's only one Universe.

But I do have a replica Earth theory. It makes a lot of sense, to me. If it isn't a theory, it's an awesome sci-fi fantasy waiting to be born and brought to life on the silver screen.

It's quick and easy to tell: the anagram of Earth is Heart. At the Heart of every galaxy is an Earth. Now imagine ONE Universe, filled with galaxies. And in each galaxy is an Earth. We die on one Earth but wake up on a replica.

I imagine other bright minds in the world have had a similar concept, if not the same exact concept. Oh, and...

the Universe is a dark place. When we get it all right, the Universe will become all Light. No darkness, No sleep and endless life...

edit on 2.12.2014 by ik9zeroE because: (no reason given)

There’s something exciting afoot in the world of cosmology. Last month, Roger Penrose at the University of Oxford and Vahe Gurzadyan at Yerevan State University in Armenia announced that they had found patterns of concentric circles in the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang.

This, they say, is exactly what you’d expect if the universe were eternally cyclical. By that, they mean that each cycle ends with a big bang that starts the next cycle. In this model, the universe is a kind of cosmic Russian doll, with all previous universes contained within the current one.

That’s an extraordinary discovery: evidence of something that occurred before the (conventional) Big Bang.

Today, another group says they’ve found something else in the echo of the Big Bang. These guys start with a different model of the universe called eternal inflation. In this way of thinking, the universe we see is merely a bubble in a much larger cosmos. This cosmos is filled with other bubbles, all of which are other universes where the laws of physics may be dramatically different from ours.

Scource

Perhaps you should take a better look at the subject.

They already sent the next satellite and the conclusion is confirmed.

This already having been discussed at ATS Science and Technology forum recently.

AdAstra
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Yes, but it's not an appropriate name.
It's a redundant neologism, coined by people unfamiliar with the full meaning of the term "universe".

Purity - consistency - of thought is important, IMO, when dealing with such subjects.
Besides, this IS the "philosophy" forum. :-)

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2014 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)

You should take a look at book from the 1930's where they refer to the Milky way galaxy as an "Island Universe" and then there is the image of the Universe prepared by Copernicus.

Multiverse theory also is related to a matter that originally was developed in Chemistry.

This being the electron cloud.

reply to post by Kashai


Thank you for your input here. I really enjoy trying to get into the frame of mind of different eras like 30s and 70s and comparing how they thought, what we thought about what they thought, and how we think now.

Time is communication? Can you explain your viewpoint on this? I feel like time is the future and past communicating with each other, like a computer 'downloading and uploading' simultaneously, creating the feeling of 'the present' time which is experienced in each of our personal realities. What do you feel?

reply to post by MemeticHarvest




Time is a form of communication
Consciousness transcends all states
that can be perceived as matter
Matter communicates its existence
to Consciousness thru Time

Man is infinite
God is more
than infinite

Juan

It is Spiritual approach to Evolution that presents a path to transcendence. Our capacity to experience the present allows us to access the Collective Unconscious, when taken to its natural conclusion allows for access to all information.

Implied is that from the perspective of all things and in relation to the multiverse. Each of us have access to another point of view that is the culmination of a "many worlds" conscious orientation, my way to defining the soul as an example.

Kashai

There’s something exciting afoot in the world of cosmology. Last month, Roger Penrose at the University of Oxford and Vahe Gurzadyan at Yerevan State University in Armenia announced that they had found patterns of concentric circles in the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang.

This, they say, is exactly what you’d expect if the universe were eternally cyclical. By that, they mean that each cycle ends with a big bang that starts the next cycle. In this model, the universe is a kind of cosmic Russian doll, with all previous universes contained within the current one.

That’s an extraordinary discovery: evidence of something that occurred before the (conventional) Big Bang.

Today, another group says they’ve found something else in the echo of the Big Bang. These guys start with a different model of the universe called eternal inflation. In this way of thinking, the universe we see is merely a bubble in a much larger cosmos. This cosmos is filled with other bubbles, all of which are other universes where the laws of physics may be dramatically different from ours.

Scource

Perhaps you should take a better look at the subject.

They already sent the next satellite and the conclusion is confirmed.

This already having been discussed at ATS Science and Technology forum recently.

edit on 13-2-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I entirely disagree that the Universe is "merely a bubble in a much larger cosmos."

There are no bubbles. There is only one Universe. Humanity has lost its mind.

reply to post by ik9zeroE


A completely absurd comment


I am simply expressing my opinion in an internet forum this is not the UN.

Pardon me but I am not as grandiose as you.

Any thoughts?

AdAstra
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I am not talking about Quantum computation - or any of the lines of thought that led to it, for that matter.
What I am saying is precisely that to arrive at conclusions such as Quantum computation - or any other scientific advance - you need a razor-sharp sense of nuance. That's the edge that dissects and opens truly new avenues of thought. ("New" for every given culture; globally speaking, most ideas that prove to be valid have been around for centuries or millenia, and that includes Everett's "many worlds interpretation", albeit without the specific physics behind it.)

I believe there is a misunderstanding here - semantic or otherwise.
So, to avoid derailing the thread, once again: I am dropping the subject.

What you're saying just doesn't make sense.

The very nature of the Quantum physics is chaotic.... how can you know every nuance of a chaotic system??

Science is based upon ideas.... we take a hypothesis and test it recording the results. once we have results we then use those results to either strengthen or discount the idea.

concept / investigation / experimentation / results / conclusion.....

This is how science works... though sometimes you take a result and work backwards....

Peace,

Korg.

Kashai
reply to post by ik9zeroE

 

A completely absurd comment


I am simply expressing my opinion in an internet forum this is not the UN.

Pardon me but I am not as grandiose as you.

Any thoughts?

edit on 13-2-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I'm sensing that you feel hurt by something, and are defending yourself, but I've not offended you. What is the matter?