The Multi-verse Theory

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by greymare

oh my god, another Q are we ready for the cloneing to begin. Bring it on I say...... and tell him to check out queensland while hes at it. Love the Grey

Where ever your fabled paratroopers are stationed, that is where my son is, trying to earn the coveted Australian "Jump wings"...go figure lol

[greymare]

"Fabled.... Ill have you know that our boys are not fables. (as in .... made up stories but I will investigate this and I bet i find him.) Oh I just re read my post q...makes me sound like a stalker. You know me... im not. am I ??? eeeek.

[flowperson]

This article takes us back to the subject matter of the OP. It's a good one !

flow....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/sc...5&ei =5087%0A

[DrFree]

Hi, jiii,

Originally Posted by jiii

When I looked into the concept of 'multiverses', I began wondering exactly what scientists think they are talking about. For instance, do they actually believe that at the outer bounds of our Universe there is another one? ....

It seems as if astrophysicists have come to that same unexplainable open end as atomic physicists. We wanted to find the most fundamental particle in the Universe (which is, in some ways, synonymous with the quest to determine a 'Theory of Everything', which the concept of 'multiverses' seeks to explain), so we looked deeper...then we looked deeper...and deeper...until we found that when you start getting down to the those fundamental particles, you begin to find that there is no objective answer, really....

I guess, my critique of the multiverse theory is that it cleverly diverts us from answers by making a broad assumption about things that cannot be tested. The same thing occurs when scientists trying to explain how life began on Earth fall to the idea that "aliens planted us here" or "we came from Mars". All they are doing is coming up with a fantastic story which moves the problem from a place we can study to a place we can't....

All in all, the 'multiverse' theory is certainly fascinating...I just question the value, really. What does it actually tell us about our Universe? Not much. If anything, its value is in finding some vaguely believable way to describe the much older notion that there are things in this Universe which just never seem to make sense without a little imagination.

You captured my skepticism quite well. Seems like there are a number of weaknesses in the multiverse theory:

1. It sounds like abstruse mathematics searching for a realization. (Not everything that can be said in mathematics has a physical application.)
2. It lacks any confirming experiment.
3. To the extent that it implies "parallel universes", i.e., branching into alternative ways of collapsing the wave functions, it is patently absurd. No matter which way you cut it, the proposition it is possible that P does not imply it is true (in some universe) that P.

Frankly, I think the persistence of this theory has little to do with the nature of the universe, and everything to do with the nature of academia's publish (something original) or perish policy.

Does make for great science fiction though.

Namiste

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Hi, jiii,


You captured my skepticism quite well. Seems like there are a number of weaknesses in the multiverse theory:

1. It sounds like abstruse mathematics searching for a realization. (Not everything that can be said in mathematics has a physical application.)
2. It lacks any confirming experiment.
3. To the extent that it implies "parallel universes", i.e., branching into alternative ways of collapsing the wave functions, it is patently absurd. No matter which way you cut it, the proposition it is possible that P does not imply it is true (in some universe) that P.

Frankly, I think the persistence of this theory has little to do with the nature of the universe, and everything to do with the nature of academia's publish (something original) or perish policy.

Does make for great science fiction though.

Namiste

Lol, based on what? Our "known" concept of how things might be? I think (what the hell does it matter what I think), that we don't have a clue as to the nature of the Cosmos. I think that we forget there is something beyond us. I think we as thinkers, imagine what is possible. And that includes the improbable. But there is a passage in the "Bible" lol that does point out one thing. What man imagines, he can accomplish....

Does make for great science fact though...eventually.

[DrFree]

Hi Quahom1,

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What man imagines, he can accomplish....

Maybe, but not necessarily in our generation.

And it does depend a lot on what you count as imagination. Escher was quite imaginative.

Namiste

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Hi Quahom1,

Maybe, but not necessarily in our generation.

And it does depend a lot on what you count as imagination. Escher was quite imaginative.

Namiste

Actually I can't claim credit for that phrase. It's biblical. And so far it has been proven true, generations aside. There is no limit to what man can accomplish, should he put his mind to it. Escher has to stand aside when God speaks of man.

[cyberpi]

So there we have it... the bible is multi-versed.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1
What man imagines, he can accomplish....

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Actually I can't claim credit for that phrase. It's biblical. And so far it has been proven true, generations aside. There is no limit to what man can accomplish, should he put his mind to it. Escher has to stand aside when God speaks of man.

Can you provide a scripture? Are you referring to faith of a mustard seed or something else?

I know Wattles referred to it, as Napolean Hill, if you can conceive it and believe it you can achieve it.