[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Infinitely expanding non-flat universe. Curvature is irrelevant. Dave

I think I didn't use the correct words. I mean that if it was non-flat=curved. Not about curvature of space-time i.e. gravity. But about non-flat open universe.

[undef00]

... brain (or rather get hold of it once-or whatever)


but i personally go with an open but NOT expanding (meaning not expanding further from now-or from the tomorrow-or from a trillion trillion ..... years ago) universe . it is just open (endless)

senses= limited senses

[PassatAmnesiac]

What about the Brane thoery that we are living withing a 3-brane expanding and contracting parallel to another three brane within and 4 brain an so on? Also the idea that gravity is the only force that can seep in between each universe. Would the saddle shape still work in this scenerio? my other guestion is that why couldn't the universe have started with a big bang but from that point started expanding and contracting within the previous scenerio I just mentioned. Wouldn't this idea make the iniverse closed but the "multiverse" open? What exists in the multiverse? The Higgs Ocean?

[Guille]

passat,

If multiverses exist, I believe it should be completelly full of universes: i.e. it should have no "middle space" between the unvierses, they should fill it all up, because, how can there be space, whic h is something inthe unvierse, out of it?

[PassatAmnesiac]

Guille,

I have two beliefs for the existance of a multiverse.

The first is that there is space in between them. I beleive that within
this space is the primordial zone of which our universe and possibly
others spawned out of. I would take a guess that within this zone there
are quantum fluctuations or jitters of the Higgs Bosom. What else exists
there I could only speculate and my ignorance become apparent. In the
expansion universe theory they say that an enormous amount of energy
and pressure (making gravity push outward) with the combination of the
Higgs Bosom hitting some non-zero value. Then we have outward expansion
with extremely low entropy and so on and so forth.

Now if there is no space in between them, then I have two guesses about
that. The first is that the universes overlap. The second is that the
universes tessellate like soab bubles stick together. If the universes
overlap then I would wonder if that is what is responsible for the 95%
of dark matter and dark energy that supposedly occupy our universe. If they
tessellate then I would think that they would push against each other
expanding and contracting randomly.

The truth is that I am only an ignorant 23 year old relatively
extremely insignifant to the amount of space and time or space/time
that exist. these are my shots in the dark based upon what I have
read and thought about.

[Guille]

A human is insignificant to humanity. Humanity is insifnificant to the galaxy. The galaxy is insignificant to the universe. The unvierse is insignificant to the multiuniverse. The multiuniverse is insignificant to the multimultiuniverse, and so and so on...etz.

Were does this sequence stop? At the hypermegaultrasupermultiuniverse? Where does the inverse sequence of this sequence stop? At the strings? Where do we live? Where are we going? Who are we? How are we? And why do we exist?

The list of questions of what I call philosciensophia (science-philosophy) is if not infinite, the nearest human approach to this unexisting limit.

But should we all suicide due to the fact that we are nothing, or even we are notihng to something that is nothing? NO. I believe. We should gain knowledge and wisdom, we should explain, understand and predict, all of what philosciensophia studies.

I think there are two possible types of multiuniverses: the full one and the spaced or vortexed one. The second one is describe dby you, but also by many, and each give his own theory of what there "is" between. Whiles if the mutlunverses are full, the universes can interlap, which is not problem making like the space idea, but problem solving, as you mentioned about dark energy etz.

[PassatAmnesiac]

Originally Posted by <<>> But should we all suicide due to the fact that we are nothing, or even we are notihng to something that is nothing? NO. I believe. We should gain knowledge and wisdom, we should explain, understand and predict, all of what philosciensophia studies.

I couldn't agree more. I shouldn't have sounded so depressing. As Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living".

Vortex, or Calabi-Yau shape could be. My ideas are not so original. I have much to learn before I can come up with something off the beaten path. I think Mike 5 has some new interesting ideas. He kind of blows the lid off the M-Brane theory. But then again I wouldn't know that because I don't really understand either in depth, only in broad strokes. Gotta go up the ladder in math, physics, and cosmology still.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PassatAmnesiac I couldn't agree more. I shouldn't have sounded so depressing. As Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living". Vortex, or Calabi-Yau shape could be. My ideas are not so original. I have much to learn before I can come up with something off the beaten path. I think Mike 5 has some new interesting ideas. He kind of blows the lid off the M-Brane theory. But then again I wouldn't know that because I don't really understand either in depth, only in broad strokes. Gotta go up the ladder in math, physics, and cosmology still.

You will see in many threads that most of the members that post regularly are ussually against m-theory. I'm not particularly against it, but not in favor. I don't think it's near to nature at all. It's explenation are very inventive: they base on things that base on things that base on things which are invented and not proven at all. So, inventions of inventions of inventions is what m-theory is, we could thus say that it is m for magic. No philosciensophia around.

Mike's idea is interesting but hard to understand. You see, we grow with the part of our brain that is logical, being mathematicisez. This is, being based on the logic of mathematics over any other kind of logic (for more of my thoughts on logic and maths, see my thread "Logic and maths" in philosophy of mathematics forum). So, as mike has changed the basic principles, even things more basic than the axioms, he's changed the logic upon which the axioms are done, so it's completely in contrast to what we ahve learn. The fac tthat they contrast in such a way tells us that they are talking about different thing. And this is my theory: there infinite number of possible mathematics, just by changing the logic. Mike's math replaces quantity with quality, static with motion, cartesian with circular (maybe we can say "kesian" derived from mi-ke, just like cartesin is derived from des-cartes?)... Both his invention/discorvement/development and math can help us understand the cosmic simphony, but in different manners. TO discuss mike's theory, continue these postings (I woudl liek to carry on) in any of hese threads.

By the way, great quote socrate's one, I had heard it once, but can't remember where....oh yes, in my own mind. But he was born first.

[PassatAmnesiac]

Thank you!! And by the way I agree with what you said. I am such an agnostic though. I think I need to take up epistimology before I can explore metaphysics. Sorry OFFTOPIC...

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PassatAmnesiac Thank you!! And by the way I agree with what you said. I am such an agnostic though. I think I need to take up epistimology before I can explore metaphysics. Sorry OFFTOPIC...

When you finsh getting informed on epistemology, I invite you to take my quiz (which is announeced in the toe forums page, at the top), which is preciselly eabout the amin theires, tools and thought of epistemology.