[MJA]

Thanks FP, for your interest,

To simplify my previous thought I would say:
Although there can be infinitely different points of perceptions or views of this universe, they are all equally a view of one and the same. Different but equal, don't you see?
And if our perception of different universes is probable at best, then it is simply better to see all things not differently, but truly and certainly, equally.

=
MJA

[Fluent Piffle]

Although there can be infinitely different points of perceptions or views of this universe, they are all equally a view of one and the same. Different but equal, don't you see?

I certainly do! There is only existence to observe. One Truth, one real existent truth. Perfectly explains intuitions of 'multiverses', as infinite points within One existent Cosmos.

I think the explanations for our metaphors can only lead to truth, that which necessarily exists! Our thoughts are also real things, even though the things they posit may not actually be manifestable. This makes our thoughts 'metaphorical', guided by 'concepts', which are not the Real thing, but somewhat misguided interpretations of the Real thing. Slowly, we adjust these interpretations to correlate with the obvious Reality, as we discover its Truths. The Real thing exists, but we are not yet in full appreciation of it, still clinging to the metaphor, for some strange reason.


pif.

[Troakin]

greetings again and i will try to be little more explanitory.
first, i would like to thank covis for the nice email. As to the universe, it is evolving and will continue to evolve but it is also finite. There is only so much matter and only so much energy contained within it.
If we believe in the Conservation of Energy and Matter then we acknowledge that the two are interchangable, so we can state that no new matter or energy will be forth coming only changing in form, and one of the biggest changers out there are Black Holes.
From approximately the 4th century BC until roughly the 6th century AD, it was argued, mainly by philosophers, but a few fledgling scientists, that all we can know is either obtained by reason or by sense. TOday we use both, hopefully. the Universe is knowable. Keppler showed us that.
If we ask ourselves, where did the universe come from, the answer is generally thought to be the Big Bang. But where did the Big Bang get its start?
what set it up? How could that much matter and energy be contained to a point of singularity? The driving force of gravity which keeps everything humming along and gravity intensified, grossly intensified, are found in black holes.
It's in here that electrons are stripped from matter. Deep within the Black Hole it is reduced further to the point where matter is converted into energy and stored since it's much more economical to do it that way, and from those electrons and other consituant parts of the atom there are strings of energy waiting to be released.
i am taking up too much space and your time with this post. i will continue later about what happens, in theory of course.

take care, be safe and thank you again.
Troakin

[neutralino]

I don't think this poll can be answered, at least not without defining some terms. Firstly, we need to define what we mean by "universe." Do we mean everything that exists, or do we mean everything that exists in our 4D spacetime mainfold? There are braneworld models that model our universe as a 3D brane moving in a 6D space. Other universes are then other 3D branes moving in the "bulk." [Someone mentioned this model above, but incorrectly said that other galaxies were the other universes: not true.]

Ok, so now we presume we have a definition of universe and, thus, a definition of "another universe." The first answer to the poll seems the obvious one "there are no others" and in fact this will necessarily be the answer if we define the universe to be everything that exists. I would immediately throw out the second option, unless there is a new use for the term "void." A void is, basically, a patch of empty space. However this is empty space and thus, by definition must be in our universe. Any other matter past this must also be in our universe, since there must be some boundary between the void and this other matter.

Option 3 is the one used by sci-fi writers all the time. But what does parallel actually mean? I would seek some clarification on that before selecting that as an option. Option 4 seems to be a reason answer.

To summarise, obviously I don't know the answer, but I stress that we first define what we mean by terms before we can answer this, and any, question.

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

I read that in order to explain the big bang some scientist came up with 2 parallel universes colliding or touching to avoid the old "something from nothing" problem. Only problem there is where did those parallel universes come from? Also I don't know if you need parallel universes to accomplish that. One closing in on itself should do it. Like one hand clapping.

I don't disagree with you Neutralino about definition,
But I think this whole topic is so speculative that I hope you don't mind if I and perhaps others have some fun with just free brain storming and speculation. Not very scientific I know.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. Hi Troakin and welcome to the forum I hope you enjoy yourself here

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi everyone; I read that in order to explain the big brain some scientist came up with 2 parallel universes colliding or touching to avoid the old "something from nothing" problem.

I don't suppose you remember where you read this, do you? Sounds interesting

I don't disagree with you Neutralino about definition, But I think this whole topic is so speculative that I hope you don't mind if I and perhaps others have some fun with just free brain storming and speculation. Not very scientific I know.

No, I don't mind at all: I'm not that boring am I, Pat? I agree it's a very speculative subject. Perhaps I shouldn't have said the word "definition" but rather "what people think." That is, I would be interested to know what people think when they say a "parallel" universe. To me, saying a universe is parallel is automatically invoking at least one extra dimension in which the universes can be parallel. So, in my opinion, anyone who believes in many universes must also believe in many dimensions.

Just my thoughts, anyway (and not factually correct like I aim for my other posts to be!)

[Profpat]

Of course you're not boring Neutralino, and I'm sorry if you thought that was my thought. Actually I think you are very bright and interesting.

As far as the parallel universes as I recall it was a program on PBS ( an american station ) I think it was on Brian Greene's book THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE.

Best to you sir,

Pat

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat Of course you're not boring Neutralino, and I'm sorry if you thought that was my thought. Actually I think you are very bright and interesting.

Thank you! My comment was only a joke though: it's pretty hard to convey humour over the internet!

As far as the parallel universes as I recall it was a program on PBS ( an american station ) I think it was on Brian Greene's book THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE. Best to you sir, Pat

Ahh, ok. I guessed it was something stringy. I've actually got his book (which I've not finished reading) so I'll have a scan through that and see if he uses the same analogy

[Profpat]

Hi Neutralino;

I may be wrong. Rethinking it may have been a program on PBS called PARALLEL UNIVERSES, with Michio Kaku.

My mind has become like a black hole where information goes in, never to be seen again

Best,

Pat

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Neutralino; I may be wrong. Rethinking it may have been a program on PBS called PARALLEL UNIVERSES, with Michio Kaku.

Ahh, ok. Well, I'll have a look around, anyway.

My mind has become like a black hole where information goes in, never to be seen again

Haha. I wouldn't say that; you seem very knowledgable.

Wow.. I'm a black belt already! If only martial arts were this easy