Effects of a rolled up multiverse

Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by ghost, Sep 28, 2017.

  1. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    I've been having trouble finding any skeptics to debate this with.

    A universe from nothing isn't a good answer; in fact, it's probably meant to hide something. Or maybe the physics community doesn't have any better ideas. So let me suggest this idea. It was inspired to me from spirit. What if all possible universes are rolled up? Universes with all possible physics constants and probably some other strange rolled up universes with physics and properties we can't anticipate.

    So where did the universe come from? One of the rolled up universes fully unfurled and expanded. So what we have are all of these rolled up universes. Do they do anything? The answer is: they leak particles. Whether through tunneling or some other mechanism, these other rolled up universes will leak particles. Since there are so many different kinds, there will be a near infinite variety of particles. If true, then you have the building blocks for a spirit world and many alien universes.

    What do you all think?
     
    Wormwood likes this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    My feeling is that modern physics has become obsessed with models of reality that are too remote to be meaningful or testable. Mathematics can spew out any number of weird constructions, including those we read about at the moment - multiple universes etc, but these are based on far too little hard facts.

    A lot of the story as I see it, is that over recent decades, science has gone bad. One example of that, of course, is their attitude to ψ - but there are many, many other examples of this problem. Indeed, this is why the other problems of science get discussed here so much.

    Therefore, I am really cautious about joining the scientists in all this grandiose speculation!

    One of the interesting things that NDE data tell us, is that the may be a timeless realm out there. Now I expect you are like me, and find it nearly impossible to imagine living without time! However, people do have these experiences, and come back to tell the tale, so I shall be interested to read Eben Alexander's (remember, he is the neuro-surgeon who had a very extended NDE) second book, which is going to discuss the possible science behind reality. This book is due out later this month.

    http://ebenalexander.com/

    David
     
  3. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284
    David[/QUOTE]
    I suppose this sort of multiverse would possibly explain "fine tuning" and the origin of life, similarly to Eugene Koonin's hypothesis, where he admits that the spontaneous chemical abiogenic origin of life is beyond vanishingly improbable in our own single universe, so he invokes a multiverse and the anthropic principle to explain it. Unfortunately this sort of explanation is ultimately unscientific, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and goes against one of the more reliable principles of scientific hypothesis building - the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony. Ultimately, also, it just "passes the buck" or kicks the can down the road so to speak by one step. Then we need to come up for an explanation for this overarching continuum of a multiverse - all that organized complexity, in fact an infinite organized complexity that still strongly looks like it is intelligently designed at the core, even more than our own single universe.

    Anyway, to propose that the spirit world is ultimately built up of some sort of fundamental particles, presumably having mass and energy, measurable wavelengths, etc. seems unlikely, since this would go against a century of paranormal research which seems to show a "spirit existence" that is independent of the physics constrains of space and time, the inverse-square law of propagation, etc.
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  4. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    The ultimate origin of the big bang might be crazy and unprovable by human standards. Even when I think about my own idea, it's just too crazy to discuss, but it provides more answers, causes more questions. We would stand at the threshold of being able to open a rolled up universe, if we knew how. I know the basic means, but lack specific data. But if you all prefer a great mystery, maybe you're better off. I have done all that I could.
     
  5. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    Occam''s razor actually supports my argument. Other universes are rolled up with minimal energy, ask me how.

    The existence of non standard model particles, that tunneled out of rolled up universes, are not necessarily detectable, but could still contribute their effects.

    Kicking the can down the road is not a real argument.

    The existence of non standard model particles could account for things like an Astral plane, some ghosts and aliens.

    How I address consciousness is completely self consistent, but will be rejected out of hand. Talked about rolled up universes. The part that was presented to me was that rolled up universes unroll as a series of line segments until a transition point is reached. (More to follow).
     
  6. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    823
    Big Bang Theory was invented by a catholic
     
  7. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    I can navigate a pathway through Cosmology, all the way back to the big bang, before the big bang, to the alchemy that falls into our lap from first causes. The pre-big bang existence is more like a paranormal, ethereal inner-verse anyway. There does seem to exist something like an inner-verse. i can go all the way back to the nothingness, to first causes, and even "God forgive me for saying this", the birth of the Creator. It does take a Creator, some kind of Infinite Intelligence with enormous power to cause the big bang of a universe that is Fine Tuned, that will eventually lead to life. Using my approach, from first principles, from nothing, you do get a paranormal, ghosts and a lot of other things you may or may not have wanted.
     
  8. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    I honestly have doubts that anyone can understand what I'm saying. I have crossed more than a few boundaries that some might find offensive. I don't mean to offend. I love the idea that GOD exists, even if not so nice things have happened. God has already proclaimed humans to be sinful creatures. I will happily go toe to toe with anyone over these ideas. I just don't know if most humans can wrap their heads around them. A lot of these ideas are based upon ideas I picked up in physics, chemistry and biology. My approach does strongly suggest that a paranormal is a precursor to the big bang.
     
  9. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284
    The existence of a huge number or infinite number of other universes is still a huge or infinite increase in complex specified information, going against the principle of parsimony.​

    Maybe. Such particles would have to constitute another entire level of reality with its own separate laws of physics. ​

    It's the argument of the infinite regress, which seems to deny the existence of real knowledge. What is the origin of the multitude of "rolled up" universes, then what is the origin of whatever that is, and so on ad infinitum. It seems simpler to posit an intelligent self existent and contained cause of one single universe, namely our own. The buck would stop there. ​

    As I mentioned, maybe. Such particles would have to constitute another entire level of reality with its own separate laws of physics.​
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  10. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    HI nbtruthman,
    Apparently our universe is fine tuned for both complexity and for life. We're looking at the physics constants and finding they don't behave as a random event.
     
  11. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    Long long before the big bang, there was nothing. Cracks and fissures began to form in the nothingness, and then they would vanish. But every time there was a crack, it was actually a universe trying to form, trying to unfurl, to open. Every time a fissure would appear, particles would leak out. This was the state of the pre big bang condition for a long time. Given that there was such a large number of different kinds of universes trying to open up, so too were there a large variety of particles. The nothingness soon began to fill with these particles. A super chemistry began to emerge. As does happen in scientific theory, mechanism made of these particles began to form that could control which universes would open, how much they would open, and what particles would emerge that would drive the evolution of these mechanisms towards life. It would be inevitable that non biological life forms would emerge, and some of those life forms would be strong enough to drive open one of the universes to the point of critical mass, and the big bang. Since we know the universe is fine tuned, it must follow that consciousness and intelligence were available.

    If you ever wanted an explanation of how it all started, this is it.
     
  12. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    389
    Either the Universe came into existence out of nothing (Ill call this theory A), or we pre-suppose the existence of something (ill call this theory B) which started the process, in your case "fissures or cracks" would represent (theory B). We can't really fathom how something could come into existence out of nothing, but I can't either fathom how something could pre-exist in its own right without ever being created. Yet one of the options must be true. Heres how I see it. If you think the evidence for God (Using the term generically to represent some kind of creating supernatural agent) is legitimate and you agree with it, I think that the Universe being created by God out of nothing (theory A) is more plausible. If you are a strict materialist, I think it makes more sense to suppose that something pre-existed in its own right (Theory B) as you have suggested. We know that since time is subjective that (in some way we cannot understand) perhaps there is the potential of matter being realized that has always existed. I think thats less of a stretch than believing that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason at all. But, I tend to believe the evidence in favor of God, so to me, he created the Universe out of nothing. But if I were to try and draw my conclusion under the supposition that a supernatural creator (God) does not exist, I would personally land on option B, like you.

    But I think God exists as (theory B) and that the Universe exists as (theory A)
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2017
  13. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    Yeah, I'm getting results that are just too mind boggling for most ppl to grasp. I don't think I'm wrong. I think the answer is too big to grasp. Cracks in the nothingness refer to cracks in something that we can't understand physically. All things ethereal, ghosts, Holy Spirit, grey aliens, etc. Are in this nothingness. It would take way too much effort to explain an understanding when nobody can comprehend it.
     
  14. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,355
    I think that this is an interesting and good point. Some theologians propose that the existence of such a self-existing, uncreated God is "necessary", but what they seem to mean by this is explanatorily necessary i.e. necessary to explain why the universe exists - i.e. it exists as the creation of this God who is beyond space and time. This is not the same thing though as metaphysically or logically necessary - and I can't see any reason why God's existence is or would be metaphysically or logically necessary, because the logical/metaphysical possibility that it might have been the case that nothing ever existed at all can't, in my view, be ruled out.

    Edit: P.S. Welcome to the forum!
     
    Wormwood and ghost like this.
  15. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    389
    I think you're right. So long as I'm understanding you correctly. Presupposing God to explain the universe is just as LOGICALLY problematic as presupposing potential for existing matter. I.e.-"How can God exist in His own right but matter cannot?" That "explanation" just moves the problem of presupposition up a notch and away from the Universe and onto a supernatural realm. So it really comes down PERSONALLY for me to other lines of evidence that aren't directly related to the question. Part of that, is Related to what David said with regards to NDEs in that people's experiences while separated from consciousness seem to suggest a "timeless" realm which is also in accord with all the work of the best Theologians concept of God and the "timeless realm" which he lives in. Since I accept this belief, it makes sense to me to suppose that something that is timeless (in a way we cannot understand) could exist in its own right in a way that something like the time-bound material world could not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
    ghost and Laird like this.
  16. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,355
    I'm not sure whether or not you are (assuming the rest of your post was meant to be affirming the ideas in mine, which it might not have been) but that's OK.

    Actually, I don't agree with this. Timeless self-existence (i.e. of a God) has fewer logical problems than the temporal self-existence of something like matter: in particular, it doesn't have to explain origination in the causal sense, since there is no origin (because origins are predicated on the passing of time, but on this view God is beyond time (and space and matter)) whereas matter-in-time needs some causal explanation of how it came to be (in time).

    Nevertheless, even though when we posit a timeless God we don't have to explain His causal origination, we still have to explain the reason for this timeless entity's very existence in the first place, and this is what I was trying to get at in my last post: it's all very well to say that the reason for the existence of a timeless God is that He is "needed" to explain (via causation) the existence (really, origin) of our time-and-space-bound universe, this is not the same as saying that such a being is logically or metaphysically "necessary" - and, indeed, He doesn't seem to be logically or metaphysically "necessary".

    FWIW, the sense of "logical necessity" with which I'm working is that of modal logic, in which the given entity is (must be) present in any "possible world" - a technical term in modal logic that actually isn't very difficult to understand: essentially you just need to substitute "reality" for "world" and you get the gist of what it means. In this case, quite clearly, we can imagine possible worlds (realities) in which such a timeless being does not exist - in particular, the possible world (reality) in which nothing exists - which is why I don't think that this being is logically necessary.

    Anyhow, I hope that isn't too abstract and confusing (especially since several hours later I've now edited it a few times to hopefully make it more accessible) - it makes perfect sense to me but I am not at all sure whether my writing is accessible to others!

    In any case, I am sympathetic to what you write next:

    The reason I am sympathetic with this is that, as I wrote above, given that the existence of a timeless God isn't logically or metaphysically necessary, then, yes, we have no fundamental explanation for His existence any more than we have for any other time-and-space-based entity. The mystery remains as elusive as ever.

    That's all very reasonable in my eyes. Thanks!
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
    AryaS, Trancestate and Wormwood like this.
  17. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284
    I think that one thing has been left out of this reasoning. The fact of what appears to be the indelible stamp of some sort of creative superintelligence in the nature of reality as we know it. Perhaps human intuition should be sneered at from the philosophical standpoint, but there is a clear intuition of this. The reality that exists (that could just as easily have been absolutely nothing) could just as easily have been completely chaotic and perhaps even irrational, rather than exhibiting the overwhelmingly intricate and organized complexity that we observe. The only source we know of through observation of even very small examples of such complex specified information is intelligent human ingenuity.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
    Laird and Wormwood like this.
  18. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    I agree that there are additional steps between nothing and a Fine Tuned universe.
     
  19. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284
    One thing has always bothered me about positing various "timeless" realms (for instance that of God and that experienced by NDEers) is that one of the most basic definitions of time is that it is the measure of change. If there is no time then there must be no change - a condition of complete stasis. But conscious experience itself and certainly intelligent action clearly inherently involve changes in the content of intentional awareness, of consciousness. It would seem that perhaps the limitations of language enter in here. Perhaps what is really meant is that these realms are timeless relative to the physical world, but certainly not timeless within their own reference frame.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2017
    Wormwood, Laird and Silence like this.
  20. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    Agreed, except that mention of these realms is rather common in NDE's.

    One obvious way to rationalise timeless domains, is to imagine that you are able to see the complete span of normal (physical) time at a glance, but you have a separate time line in which to think, and do things!

    David
     

Share This Page