[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by michellemfry The thing about parallel in parallel universes is that the two never meet. Is that possible that two universes could exist and yet never meet? There is something here but I'm not quite there yet.

No Michelle, it is impossible for parallel anything to actually exist. Even the rays of the sun are not truly parallel, however much they appear so, they are aprroximately so. Every path of every particle has wobbles. Spin and wobble are the essence of all that we call "real".

Now in this thread we are supposedly discussing String Theory and some comments on M Theory and "parallel" universes, and I say that becuase I strayed from the topic here, unfortunately, early on. The concept of parallel is important to erase from our minds and also from the vocabulary of any empiricist.

Parallel is a concept. ONLY. And only man made things are parallel - and even a laser beam eventually spreads out.

Parallel has never been observed in nature, on the contrary nature has very different ideas of how things are.

Nobody has found parallel. Nobody has seen touched heard or sensed parallel. Parallel exists only in human minds, much the same as the God of the Agumgu tribe, it is a construct.

Since when has beauty stolen the crown of truth? The idea of two universes existing but never meeting is delightful and romantic, we cannot say anything further. Of no interest to science, it is art and always will be, and very pretty too.

The idea of parallel is something you dare not question or teacher will smack, nevertheless it is delusion. Purest belief. As is zero, these are non existent BELIEFS, or axioms as Goedel called them. Which is why we can expect great progress and mundane industrial value from a more real form of mathematics yet to be clarified.

Returning to my post here about Professor Turok, his idea is about undulating membranes that meet as ripples - an idea I use a lot but I tend to speak of oil and water in a glass being stirred by a spoon, the surface of encounter is complex.

I'd like to open the debate wider now - if TWO membranes encountered and encounter still to create this universe, then what is the specific nature of these two membranes - mind and body? Consciousness and material form?

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald Sorry Mike, I couldn't find the thread you started to continue this discussion. The fractals you describe remind me of binary trees; Left or right, only two decisions. Are there only two decisions? It is certainly a possibility based on what we can observe (mitosis being the most obvious; true and false among others).

Nice to hear from you dustin archibald - our first encounter.

I have not yet expressed myself clearly at all on Fractal Dialectics, I expect the posts are in Mathematical Theories.

Binary trees, dendritics, left/right choices, mitosis, DNA/RNA, YiJing, Yin Yang, comparison and difference, yes, this is the track of my current explorations. how come so much can be done by digital computers with only 0s and 1s? BUt nature is analogue and fractal, what about putting all this together and then seeing that this is structural mathematics?

Oh but words, and people so convinced Descartes is to be worshipped, anyone who disrespects my tribe's gods cannot be serious, that is our problem. No scientists. NO mathematicians. No empiricists, only scaredy cats making easy potshots at the vulnerable who dare to think aloud and make mistakes in their research to get to the truth.

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl I believe that infinity does exist as does zero. (one being the flip side of the other).

My point exactly. It is a belief to be taken on faith.

It is also a delusional belief with little to constribute. Infinity and Zero were resisted with good reason. Ultimately we have lost our dignity, and value as humans. Trade and war were the parents of existing mathematics, not truth and love.

Should I hesitate to say love?

It is my breath and my experience, I dare to say love and ask, is love part of the mechanical, and the mathematical, or not?

Harmony Girl nice to see you posting here - I am unable to reply further because this thread is digressing. I have points but not about brane theory.

11 dimensions is wrong, so much to say, but there are no comments here really on M-Branes - the topic appears to be digressing, I myst stop

[dipayankar]

I am a little skeptical about parallel universes. Primarily because if two branes give rise to a Universe through collision, then there has to be a tremendous release of energy which has to be detected. We havent detected one yet...

Originally Posted by Mike 5 This part of the Forum is about String Theory and specifically I posted about M Branes and the collisions between parallel universes. The central point for this forum is that for me if parallel universes collide, and I like this idea not only through theory, but my old friend Neil Turok is involved and he was the one who got me fired up about Hegel and dialectics. But they are NO LONGER PARALLEL. The concept of parallel rests on Euclidean and Cartesian ideals, that I consider esoteric. Infinity, for example, the concept of never/always, is to my mind best visualised in the human mind as a loop. PARALLEL UNIVERSES cannot COLLIDE. Secondly the wonderful and for me intuitively beautiful idea that membranes are as turbulent as tsunami, well, the whole "parallel" universes and euclidean cartesian model has quietly been discarded now, so why have it at all? Then the idea of 11 Dimensions also evaporates, those dimensions presumed graph paper that is not in the bin. Gaussian co-ordinate geometry released Einstein from Relativity version I - where he notoriously mentioned FIXED STARS (!!??!!) as the relative structure to put your fixed ruler over and over to measure strictly Cartesian dimensions. Relativity version II melted all the cartesian planes to mollusc or Salvador Dali geometry, with the famous results on gravity and ultimately balck holes. There is a third version that Einstein never considered, I'll mention it in passing, it can also be Gaussian, but need not be. It is rotational geometry. The fixing of co-ordinates by rotation alone from an original position and a polar axis of apparent stillness. Now my own work is based in rotation simply because a) rotation is everywhere apparent, truly all material forms rotate somehow from atoms to stars and we rotate on a planet surface that paradoxically is internally cognised as utterly and infinitely and eternally within a stage or screen of stillness. b) rotation makes so many dualities, it is a rich source of grounding for dialectics and makes recursive or fractal dialectics tangible and more easily explained. I would be interested to see someone else devise Relativity III - using rotational geometry, and my feeling is the gaussian botch would no longer be necessary, the ideas of black holes and singularity would evolve to something very interesting and be seen from a whole new perspective. This would be very interesting work to see, pretty lousy to slog through and to it though, and ultimately, merely academic, I do think the questions today have moved on since the discovery that neutrinos have mass. I have to say, concerning M Brane theory, which gets resolved only with 11 cartesian euclidean number friendly dimensions, and then the latest theories put flowing waves in the universe fabric and collide "parallel" universes - they are DIVERGENT and not PARALLEL DIVERGENCE immediately raises the question of dimension in a new way. Divergence is rather like the splitting of a single cell into two, and it raises questions of an umbilical nature. Let me explain this by analogy. I have cut two umbilical chords in my life, at the birth of my children. It feels rather like cutting through the rubber hose on a bunsen burner. That act released my children to independent rotation. Otherwise they would be constrained like the dog on a leash or the telephone handset on a coiled cable. So my interest focusses on rotation as the definition of separation. Separation is the fundamental idea beneath parallel AND divergence. Now my son is nearly 19 and fleeing the nest - and my mother is really quite old now, and yet, there is some feeling that somehow those umbilical chords are still uncut. Some "dimension" or "realm" unseen and intangible seems intuitively to still "exist" where my son is directly linked to me, and I to my mother. No chain saw nor Kalashnikov can sever that link, and I am experimenting with actions to remove these repressions, for they restrict my movement and my son's movement. Basically I am doing an Ab Fan, acting like a teenager and my son and daughter have to grow up and be there for me in my adolescent confusions, which I failed to have back when. What if all material forms, separated in our world of light and touch, remain connected by invisible umbilical linkages. Clearly human thought seeks these tramlines and leylines. Do we care that modern architecture is very much like Hitler's architecture. Not until you point out that link and then, suddenly, we adorn the building and fuss about distancing ourselves from the umbilical link to a Bad Man. Can I use the Hindu Swastika as if it had not Bad History? NO way. Clearly Human Thought is not mathematical but umbilical. Life is clearly umbilical. Technically our DNA originally emerged from some sea slug or simple prehistoric lineage, and as a species we are strangely fascinated to know about all that. DNA RNA unzips - I must point out this is dualistic, left or right separations, the essence of Fractal Dialectics. And so with wrongly labelled "parallel" universes. If they collide they are NOT parallel. Were they ever? That is the delusion of the concept of "dimension" - it presumes Cartesian Euclidean ideal that we finally discard like the training wheels on a child's bicycle. If universes are DIVERGENT -ah - this is in fact the essence of Fractal Dialectic theory - the splitting finally recombines and that is a whole new area I call Juxtaposition Theory. These Divergent Universes did not come from nowhere, that is conceptually esoteric. They resonated back together from originally being one. This is OSCILLATION! This is sound. There are harmonies Now my range of discussion is beyond this part of the forum - the mathematics is better posted in the maths theorems section, and where can I post more about neutrinos and the significance that neutrions could actually be some second form of something like light that we do not yet have eyes to see beneath and into the structures of reality?