Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am open to the possibilities of not a universe, but "multi-verses" and parallel universes.
Is it not possible that we still don't have a clue about the space and time continuum ... that we still don't really understand the infinite and complex nature of the cosmos? We are so much in a hurry to formulate conclusions and come up with satisfactory answers that seem logical and comprehensible about something that may defy our logic and beyond our present intellect and understanding?
I am amused by the theory that all is Maya - pure illusion - that we and everything we perceive is non-matter because we are all just the figments of imagination in the dream of a sleeping Hindu god.
I am amused by the theory that all is Maya - pure illusion - that we and everything we perceive is non-matter because we are all just the figments of imagination in the dream of a sleeping Hindu god.
Some of the ancient greek philosophers pondered this as well as i always liked the paradox ''Archilles and the Tortoise''postulated by Zeno of Elea (late 400's b.c.) showing that all motion is an illusion .
Why is the Higgs boson called the "God particle?"
The popular nickname for the elusive particle was created for the title of a book by Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman -- reportedly against his will, as Lederman has said he wanted to call it the "Goddamn Particle" because "nobody could find the thing."
I'd be inclined to word that in reverse. What we are is relative to the Universe.
I would alter that a bit and say: That you are is relative to a universe.
In other words, you can't be if the current state of the universe does not support a life form such as you. Things may change in the future but, for now, you don't exist.
I would alter that a bit and say: That you are is relative to a universe.
I completely agree. We are at least relative to the universe we live in. Without the universe, or if conditions of the universe were different, we would not exist. To describe it as "a" universe, implies that we alreaady know there are indeed other universes. That's certainly possible, but we don't know one way or the other. The reason I say "the" universe, is because it's the only one we actually know of.
I completely agree. We are at least relative to the universe we live in. Without the universe, or if conditions of the universe were different, we would not exist. To describe it as "a" universe, implies that we alreaady know there are indeed other universes. That's certainly possible, but we don't know one way or the other. The reason I say "the" universe, is because it's the only one we actually know of.
Actually, when I say "a" universe I don't mean there are plural universes. Frankly, I don't think there are multiple universes. What I mean is, the universe can change over time. So at one time there is this universe and at another time there is that universe.
Multiple universes would have to exist somewhere simultaneously. To exist is to exist somewhere. "a somewhere to exist" is a quality of a universe. To exist inside a universe is not to be a universe but only a component of a universe. So that's why I don't beleive in multiple universes.
Just because we can't breath under water doesn't make it another universe. Just because we can't pass through a copper wire like an electron doesn't make it another universe. Just because we can't get to the other side of a black hole doesn't mean there's another universe on the other side. It's all the same universe.
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 02-04-2012 at 10:52 PM..
Actually, when I say "a" universe I don't mean there are plural universes. Frankly, I don't think there are multiple universes. What I mean is, the universe can change over time. So at one time there is this universe and at another time there is that universe.
Multiple universes would have to exist somewhere simultaneously. To exist is to exist somewhere. "a somewhere to exist" is a quality of a universe. To exist inside a universe is not to be a universe but only a component of a universe. So that's why I don't beleive in multiple universes.
Just because we can't breath under water doesn't make it another universe. Just because we can't pass through a copper wire like an electron doesn't make it another universe. Just because we can't get to the other side of a black hole doesn't mean there's another universe on the other side. It's all the same universe.
The problem with having a singular universe is that it inevitably leads to space-time paradoxes. For example, in a singular universe one could never travel back in time and kill their grandfather before their father was born.
Whereas, a multiverse concept eliminates those space-time paradoxes. Merely appearing back in time creates a whole new "universe" where a whole new future now exists. So one could kill their grandfather before their father is born in a multiverse, thus spawning a completely different future from the time-traveler's perspective. Unfortunately, in a multiverse concept a time-traveler could never return to their original "universe." Once someone travels in time, just the fact that they now exist in a different time alters that timeline irrevocably.
Last edited by Glitch; 02-06-2012 at 11:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
