Alternate Realities/Alternate Universes

[Susma Rio Sep]

JJM writes:

Further more if this theory is correct while time may change in comparison between to objects but to those object if they don't interact wouldn't notice a change in time. so if you did travel for 28 light years it would seem like 28 year to your twin but it would seem like roughly 181 days (that is assuming that you brother lived to be 80 and you didn't pull the 1500 number out of you butt. then every earth year you seem like .018401237 years to some one traveling at the speed of light.) so while in relation to each other the time may change but to the actual person they don't.

. . . to those object if they don't interact wouldn't notice a change in time.

Can you please rephrase the statement above to remove its anthropomorphic construct, and still make sense?

Susma Rio Se[p

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by DrChaos

This question will be my demise. If everything exists, then in essence nothing exists. I think that when God destroyed the Tower of Babylon, he destroyed the use of most of our brains, thus not allowing us to realize or contemplate things that God himself can. This being said, Quahom1 also stated, "God said man wasn't ready, and his thinking was wrong, so God threw a wrench in the works, not to stop us, but to slow us down. " Does that mean that we are slowly preparring ourselves? And if so, does that mean that we use more of our brrains with every generation, and what happens when we finally realize everything? Do we just become in a way "God" ourselves, or return to Him, and then do the process all over. And if so, does that mean that this all has happened before?

I think it is really interesting that JJM commented that this sounds exceptionally Hindu. It struck me as sounding very Mormon. You see, in Mormon theology, it is assumed that human beings will get more and more truth as they perfect themselves and prove themselves worthy of it, at least as the Mormons see worthiness and perfection. That is one of the rationales Mormonism has for having what they consider to be present-day prophets and believing in modern-day revelation. And, in fact (although the hierarchy has begun to downplay the teaching, as I see it in an effort to look more like mainstream Christianity), the Mormon church teaches that those who attain what they see as perfection will actually become Gods in the afterlife, complete with planets that they will create, populate, and rule over. This is illustrated in a book of Mormon scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants, which mostly consists of a series of revelations Joseph Smith claimed he received. In section 132, verse 19 there is listed a series of things a man must to to be seen as righteous in the sight of God, followed in verse 20 by these words:

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject to them.

"They" in this verse refers to human males who follow all the teachings of the church. There is also a saying in Mormonism that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." So, if the idea that humans can progress to become one with god or like god is Hindu, it is in a very real sense also Mormon. Then, again, I've heard more than one person (usually when trying to argue that Mormons aren't Christians - an open question, in my opinion) say that as far as they can see, Mormons are really Hindus. I know that Hindus would dispute that, but I'm only reporting what I've heard.

Oh, and DrChaos, you're very welcome. I'm always ready and willing to pose the kinds of questions that will drive a person insane. So, glad to be of service.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

JJM writes:



. . . to those object if they don't interact wouldn't notice a change in time.

Can you please rephrase the statement above to remove its anthropomorphic construct, and still make sense?

Susma Rio Se[p

Sorry, I realize now how weird that sentence was. My computer began acting funny halfway through the post and I scrambled to post it without losing al I had written. I guess I forgot to read it over and make sure it all made sense. Alright let me use an example involving Quahom1 and his "twin" again. If Quahom1 was to wait until he was about 10 years old when he had a firm grasp on how time works. Then they tried the same experiment in which if his twin stays on earth and he leaves earth traveling at the speed of light. If they didn't ever interact again then neither would realize that there had been a change in the rate at which they where traveling through time. Obviously 28 years to the twin would feel like 28 years. But the twenty eight years to Quaham1 would feel like 181 days to Quahom1 (assuming that the 1500 years he used in his original quote was correct.) and as Quaham1 slowed down upon reaching his destination he would not realize that that his rate of time had changed at all. The only way the two of them would notice is if they interacted with each other. So what I’m saying is while the rate at which our time changes in relationship to others. It would not change the way we perceive time.





I hope that clears up what I meant.


__________________________________________________ _______
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[JJM]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

I think it is really interesting that JJM commented that this sounds exceptionally Hindu. It struck me as sounding very Mormon. You see, in Mormon theology, it is assumed that human beings will get more and more truth as they perfect themselves and prove themselves worthy of it, at least as the Mormons see worthiness and perfection. That is one of the rationales Mormonism has for having what they consider to be present-day prophets and believing in modern-day revelation. And, in fact (although the hierarchy has begun to downplay the teaching, as I see it in an effort to look more like mainstream Christianity), the Mormon church teaches that those who attain what they see as perfection will actually become Gods in the afterlife, complete with planets that they will create, populate, and rule over. This is illustrated in a book of Mormon scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants, which mostly consists of a series of revelations Joseph Smith claimed he received. In section 132, verse 19 there is listed a series of things a man must to to be seen as righteous in the sight of God, followed in verse 20 by these words:



"They" in this verse refers to human males who follow all the teachings of the church. There is also a saying in Mormonism that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." So, if the idea that humans can progress to become one with god or like god is Hindu, it is in a very real sense also Mormon. Then, again, I've heard more than one person (usually when trying to argue that Mormons aren't Christians - an open question, in my opinion) say that as far as they can see, Mormons are really Hindus. I know that Hindus would dispute that, but I'm only reporting what I've heard.

Oh, and DrChaos, you're very welcome. I'm always ready and willing to pose the kinds of questions that will drive a person insane. So, glad to be of service.

Thank you for this littlemissattitude I'm not to common with the Mormon religion. I've met a few, but I've never truly asked them about their religion. I did know they think God was once a man but I didn't understand why. However I think that there was something in Drchaos's statement that makes it slightly differ from both the Hindu Ideas and those of the Mormons. that is that it is not through human progression in their actions and spirituality that this new use of the brain would happen but rather the actual act of have another generation that turns that generations brains up a bit. however if he would be kind enough to help clarify that It would be appreciated



_______________________________________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by JJM

Sorry, I realize now how weird that sentence was. My computer began acting funny halfway through the post and I scrambled to post it without losing al I had written. I guess I forgot to read it over and make sure it all made sense. Alright let me use an example involving Quahom1 and his "twin" again. If Quahom1 was to wait until he was about 10 years old when he had a firm grasp on how time works. Then they tried the same experiment in which if his twin stays on earth and he leaves earth traveling at the speed of light. If they didn't ever interact again then neither would realize that there had been a change in the rate at which they where traveling through time. Obviously 28 years to the twin would feel like 28 years. But the twenty eight years to Quaham1 would feel like 181 days to Quahom1 (assuming that the 1500 years he used in his original quote was correct.) and as Quaham1 slowed down upon reaching his destination he would not realize that that his rate of time had changed at all. The only way the two of them would notice is if they interacted with each other. So what I’m saying is while the rate at which our time changes in relationship to others. It would not change the way we perceive time.

I hope that clears up what I meant.

__________________________________________________ _______
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

Thanks, and I must commend your equanimity and accommodating disposition.

I guess people who are very adept with your scenario should also work out the very mundane details of nutrition or food intake and digestion including the very vital phase of elimination, in the process of high speed and low speed life prosecution.

Best regards and keep on.

Susma Rio Sep

[DrChaos]

Originally Posted by JJM

however if he would be kind enough to help clarify that It would be appreciated

I'm guessing you are referring to how the generation of people would "brain up". Well, think about it this way, we teach our kids everything the world already knows (or we try to). This means, that unless their generation learns nothing, then they learn something new, which is passed to their kids. So, eventually we know everything through the tedious accumulation of knowledge through the generations. Makes sense to me. The only problem is that it is human nature to try to learn more, so what happens when we know everything? I'm guessing Apocolypse in some form, maybe just the loss of our knowledge, maybe the destruction of Earth, who knows.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by DrChaos

I'm guessing you are referring to how the generation of people would "brain up". Well, think about it this way, we teach our kids everything the world already knows (or we try to). This means, that unless their generation learns nothing, then they learn something new, which is passed to their kids. So, eventually we know everything through the tedious accumulation of knowledge through the generations. Makes sense to me. The only problem is that it is human nature to try to learn more, so what happens when we know everything? I'm guessing Apocolypse in some form, maybe just the loss of our knowledge, maybe the destruction of Earth, who knows.

I can't see the point of your preoccupation when we know everything.

The only problem is that it is human nature to try to learn more, so what happens when we know everything? I'm guessing Apocolypse in some form, maybe just the loss of our knowledge, maybe the destruction of Earth, who knows.

Some modesty please, we can never know everything because our brain is not designed to know everything. And if we should know everything we can still work out a lot of mental puzzles of our own making which will keep our brain busy for long long millennia.

When we know everything, everything will be known to us and nothing will be anymore mysterious, that is the consequence. No Apocalypse here. I can't see any Apocalypse from knowing everything, maybe at most we will be very very careful in doing things. But we can still have a lot of pure fun with mental puzzles of our own making.

Try this mental puzzle: Which number is bigger, the infinite series of odd numbers, or the infinite series of consecutive numbers regardless of their being odd or even, just so that one comes after the other in both forward and backward directions without any interrupting intervals. And explain the why of your answer.

Susma Rio Sep

[DrChaos]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I can't see the point of your preoccupation when we know everything.

The only problem is that it is human nature to try to learn more, so what happens when we know everything? I'm guessing Apocolypse in some form, maybe just the loss of our knowledge, maybe the destruction of Earth, who knows.

Some modesty please, we can never know everything because our brain is not designed to know everything. And if we should know everything we can still work out a lot of mental puzzles of our own making which will keep our brain busy for long long millennia.

When we know everything, everything will be known to us and nothing will be anymore mysterious, that is the consequence. No Apocalypse here. I can't see any Apocalypse from knowing everything, maybe at most we will be very very careful in doing things. But we can still have a lot of pure fun with mental puzzles of our own making.

Try this mental puzzle: Which number is bigger, the infinite series of odd numbers, or the infinite series of consecutive numbers regardless of their being odd or even, just so that one comes after the other in both forward and backward directions without any interrupting intervals. And explain the why of your answer.

Susma Rio Sep

I think that we can't know if it's possible to know everything, because that's one of the things we have left to learn. And, there is a high probability that there is an end to everything, we just can't comprehend it yet. I miswrote what I meant, I meant that we know everything that our minds can handle, and if we reach that capacity, there cannot be anymore yearning to learn, because we know we have reached the limit of what we can know. And, if we know everything we can learn there is nothing more we can learn, with our minds. So people wouldn't be naive enough to try. I'm saying we know everything we can with any aid we can invent and anything any other race' (giving the benefit of the doubt aliens exist) stuff (as in anything that would enhance our minds)has an effect on our learning capacity. I'm using a hypothesis that there is actually a limit, which we don't know if it is true. So, now reconsider those question with the midset that there is a limit. I hope that clears it up a little.

P.S. they are the same if there is truly an infinity. It's a really hard concept to even begin to understand though, so I'm not going to strain my small mind.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I can't see the point of your preoccupation when we know everything.

The only problem is that it is human nature to try to learn more, so what happens when we know everything? I'm guessing Apocolypse in some form, maybe just the loss of our knowledge, maybe the destruction of Earth, who knows.

Some modesty please, we can never know everything because our brain is not designed to know everything. And if we should know everything we can still work out a lot of mental puzzles of our own making which will keep our brain busy for long long millennia.

When we know everything, everything will be known to us and nothing will be anymore mysterious, that is the consequence. No Apocalypse here. I can't see any Apocalypse from knowing everything, maybe at most we will be very very careful in doing things. But we can still have a lot of pure fun with mental puzzles of our own making.

Try this mental puzzle: Which number is bigger, the infinite series of odd numbers, or the infinite series of consecutive numbers regardless of their being odd or even, just so that one comes after the other in both forward and backward directions without any interrupting intervals. And explain the why of your answer.

Susma Rio Sep

As for your mind teaser they are both zero (assuming we are adding the numbers) because if you go in both directions for every positive number there is a negative of opposite value thus they cancel each out. The only exception to this rule would be zero but if you add zero to zero you get zero.


As for weather or not we can know all in my mind the answer is obviously no because I don't think we can truly know any thing. We can think things and believe things but not actually know them. The only person who knows anything is God. and even if God tells us something we can't even know if we really talked to him. or if it was a giant mutated bunny on cocaine. then again I don't know if we truly
can know something maybe we can.


Back to the relativity stuff. If the rate of time can be altered by speed then does that mean that speed is the source of time? and if I was able to stop moving would time cease to be for me? that is I would no longer perceive time thus stop thinking, breathing, aging, Ect...


Just another thought.

__________________________________________________ __
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Susma Rio Sep]

Here is the mental puzzle again:

Try this mental puzzle: Which number is bigger, the infinite series of odd numbers, or the infinite series of consecutive numbers regardless of their being odd or even, just so that one comes after the other in both forward and backward directions without any interrupting intervals. And explain the why of your answer.

Honestly enough, I don't know the answer myself. When I am a bit restless in bed, I think about the problem and similar ones. Then I wouldn't even notice that I had already fallen asleep.

I was of the inclination to imagine that both series are equal for being equally infinite. But with your observations I am not so sure myself now.

Maybe a certified mathematician will tell us what's wrong with the formulation of the puzzle, if anything is wrong; or tell us how the puzzle is solved. Paging, mathematicians in this forum.

Just for more fun, try this other puzzle: Count the fingers of your hands, starting from one hand to the other: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Now count backwards from 10: 10 9 8 7 6, stop there. How many fingers are left uncounted? Five (5), all right. What number did you stop with the previous hand, 6? Yes, 6. So 6 + 5 = 11. Give that demonsration to kids and have some fun.


Susma Rio Sep

PS More on the infinite series of numbers, I had a professor who I remember now told us that we must bear in mind the distinction between the dynamic order and the static order. Well, I still can't make any sense of what answer is the right one. Do you?

[DrChaos]

I got your riddle solved (the new one anyway). The first finger is #1, so that is why you are one number off. When counting backwards, you will end up with 1, because the first finger is one, so you really have to count down from 9.


P.S. JJM, I think that speed would be a variable in time rather than the source, though we couldn't really now, because we are always moving. Your knowledge theory also makes a bit of sense.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by DrChaos

I got your riddle solved (the new one anyway). The first finger is #1, so that is why you are one number off. When counting backwards, you will end up with 1, because the first finger is one, so you really have to count down from 9.


P.S. JJM, I think that speed would be a variable in time rather than the source, though we couldn't really now, because we are always moving. Your knowledge theory also makes a bit of sense.

Congratulations, DrC. You exhibit good analytic grasp. Would you like to agree with me that a lot of troubles come from poor connection and poor transition.

Correct me, mathemticians here, the trouble or challenge of the puzzle is mixing up ordinal and cardinal numbers. Addition and the other arithmetic operations are only among cardinal numbers....


About your PS to JJIM, I confess that is too deep already for me.


Susma Rio Sep

[littlemissattitude]

JJM wrote:

However I think that there was something in Drchaos's statement that makes it slightly differ from both the Hindu Ideas and those of the Mormons. that is that it is not through human progression in their actions and spirituality that this new use of the brain would happen but rather the actual act of have another generation that turns that generations brains up a bit. however if he would be kind enough to help clarify that It would be appreciated

Then, DrChaos wrote:

I'm guessing you are referring to how the generation of people would "brain up". Well, think about it this way, we teach our kids everything the world already knows (or we try to). This means, that unless their generation learns nothing, then they learn something new, which is passed to their kids. So, eventually we know everything through the tedious accumulation of knowledge through the generations. Makes sense to me. The only problem is that it is human nature to try to learn more, so what happens when we know everything? I'm guessing Apocolypse in some form, maybe just the loss of our knowledge, maybe the destruction of Earth, who knows.

Well, in Mormon theology, spirituality and actual intelligence on the order of the stuff you learn in school both play into the equation. The belief is that one must progress spiritually in order to gain perfection.

However, there is also a belief that "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." That is from the same book of revelations I wrote about in my earlier post, the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 93, Verse 36. Mormons literally believe that, in the sense of what you know, you can take it with you and that whatever you learn in this life goes with you into the next life.

This makes sense when you realize that Mormonism is actually a very materially-oriented belief system. Again in the Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22, it is taught that "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also;...." In this belief system, this statement is justified in the next section of the same book (D & C 131:7), where it says: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes." This, I suppose you could say, marries the spiritual and the material, as they believe one becomes "purer" by progressing spiritually. Anyway, Mormons do believe that God has a body, as does Christ.

How all this connects to the idea that one progresses to the point of becoming like a god, or in fact to become a god, is hinted at in a book, The Book of Abraham, from another Mormon scripture, the Pearl of Great Price. The history of this book is fairly convoluted and extremely controversial, but for this discussion it is just necessary to know that faithful Mormons believe it to have been written by Abraham and translated from a papyrus by Joseph Smith, the founder of the religion. Anyway in chapter 3, verse 19 of the Book of Abraham, Abraham writes: "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all."

Now, this is where things become a bit odd, and probably more than a bit contradictory; still, the belief is that a man (and only a man; women are believed to be able to become gods as well, but only on the coattails of a man, and it is something the church does not talk about and gets upset about if someone does talk about it) living on this earth can, if he is good enough and obedient enough, go on after this life to become even more good and obedient and earn the right to be a God in his own right. The question, of course, arises as to how he can do that if God (Heavenly Father, as the Mormons call him) is the most intelligent, how can another become a god and, presumably, as omniscient as God is. And, going back to the idea that God was once a man, it also begs the question of whether he is more intelligent than the former man who became his God. Of course, the church authorities will not address that issue, claiming that knowledge of it is not required for us, here and now, for our salvation. But it makes a person wonder.

The point I'm trying to make here, in this longwinded and roundabout way, is that both spirituality and actual knowledge are considered necessary by the Mormon belief system to gain the highest degree of glory, as they term it. This, to the point that Brigham Young actually taught that it was just as appropriate to give a lecture on geology or chemistry in a church meeting (as long, he said, as the principles lectured on were "correct") as it was to talk about the nature of God, or about salvation, or any other spiritual subject that a person would be used to hearing about in church. This aspect of Young's teaching is played down these days, but the fact remains that it is a part of the church's tradition.

Thanks, both of you, for bringing this question out. Writing about it has helped me clarify in my own mind some of the issues surrounding these aspects of Mormon theology. I guess, by way of disclaimer, since I am getting a bit deep into some of these things, I should say that I was once baptized in the Mormon church, but I no longer practice that faith.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Little:

You are a Mormon and knowledgeable about your faith and its observances.

I read that the Mormon church is gathering records of all people who have ever lived, from the beginning of mankind to the present and unto the future.

How do I find out whether they have already obtained my biodata and maybe even curriculum vitae. It will be very flattering to me to learn of my inclusion in their genealogical listings.

May I suggest if they have not yet enlisted computer experts and Internet experts to do so, because with computers and the Internet nowadays their data gathering enterprise will be much faster and more comprehensive.

Susma Rio Sep

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Dear Little:

You are a Mormon and knowledgeable about your faith and its observances.

I read that the Mormon church is gathering records of all people who have ever lived, from the beginning of mankind to the present and unto the future.

How do I find out whether they have already obtained my biodata and maybe even curriculum vitae. It will be very flattering to me to learn of my inclusion in their genealogical listings.

May I suggest if they have not yet enlisted computer experts and Internet experts to do so, because with computers and the Internet nowadays their data gathering enterprise will be much faster and more comprehensive.

Susma Rio Sep

The easy way would be to go into one of their Family History centers. I believe all the data is available there (or at least indexes). You might also check out the church's website - I believe there was talk at one time of their making at least the historical genealogy available that way. (I was researching my family history a number of years ago, and ran across references to them doing that).