etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I am not a professional physicist, and I do not understand physics as well as most of you would, and I understand this is a very conditional idea. My question is: - If the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true, and - M theory or any other theory involving creations of other universes is true I am a possible outcome of the universe we live in, and have been realized here. Is it possible that I might also be a possible outcome of another universe, and therefore am, will be, or have been realized in another universe as well? This may be too far into the realm of pseudoscience or metaphysics. I'm not asking if it has been proven, only if it is possible based on those prior conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I am a possible outcome of the universe we live in, and have been realized here. Is it possible that I might also be a possible outcome of another universe, and therefore am, will be, or have been realized in another universe as well? You are a product of your environment, not another environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Duration - I don't think that addresses the question in the OP. etcetcetc - If we accept your first two axioms as true, then yes... You very well could have been realized in other universes as well. It logically follows from your opening suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Science says (and correct me if I'm wrong) that my consciousness is a product of the electrical impulses in my brain. I'm not talking about a clone or twin, but an exact replica that is a product of the exact same history of the universe I am a product of. Theoretically, this would be a product of the same sperm and ovum that I am. It develops the exact same cells in the exact same arrangement with the same chromosomes and DNA code. Would it not then produce the same electric impulses that make my consciousness? I understand this is not testable, but I want to understand how this theoretical entity is or is not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Duration - I don't think that addresses the question in the OP. etcetcetc - If we accept your first two axioms as true, then yes... You very well could have been realized in other universes as well. It logically follows from your opening suppositions. He (or She) is here, not there. Two different points can not share the same environment. Impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Duration - I'm not asking if two different points can share the same environment. I'm asking if two environments can share the same point. Quantum Physics seems to suggest it can in the case of photons. I just want to know what the difference is between the electrical energy in my brain and in one that is the exact same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Duration - I'm not asking if two different points can share the same environment. I'm asking if two environments can share the same point. Quantum Physics seems to suggest it can in the case of photons. I just want to know what the difference is between the electrical energy in my brain and in one that is the exact same. What is the volume of the two environments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 The volume of the environment is the volume of today's universe. This is based on the idea that this universe exercises all possible outcomes based on the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If another universes is created (assuming M Theory is correct, then if another Brane Collision occurs), and everything that happened in our universal history happens again because it is one of the possible Multiple Worlds (Our current existence being a precedent for this possibility), how is the me that exists as I do today down to the very last skin cell, that produces the same electrical impulses that my brain does, that is reproduced in the exact same process I was produced not also support my consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 The volume of the environment is the volume of today's universe. This is based on the idea that this universe exercises all possible outcomes based on the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If another universes is created (assuming M Theory is correct, then if another Brane Collision occurs), and everything that happened in our universal history happens again because it is one of the possible Multiple Worlds (Our current existence being a precedent for this possibility), how is the me that exists as I do today down to the very last skin cell, that produces the same electrical impulses that my brain does, that is reproduced in the exact same process I was produced not also support my consciousness? So we have the volume of our universe, what is the volume of the other universe? Are you counting the same volume twice and calling it a different universe? Absurd! ...and why not call the total combined volume "our universe," as the term "universe" implies "everything," correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 This is a different universe. This is based on specifically M Theory and brane collision as the origin of the universe, but also applies to any other theory of the possible creation of another universe. I know the term "Universe" implies everything, but it was coined before the idea that other universes could be formed. Hence, the misnomers of "Alternate Universes" or "Multiverse" were created. Even "Black Hole" is an inaccurate name because it has been discovered that they emit radiation since the object was named. I'm not here to discuss linguistics. Because it was formed in the same way, and developed in one of the possible variants our world has proven to be (If MWI is correct), this "Alternate Universe" has the exact same volume with the exact same arrangement of matter that exists today in our universe. If your not even considering Multi-Dimensional Hyperspace, or the idea that another universe could be created in the same manner as ours, you're not addressing my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) you're not addressing my question. Because your question is impossible. There is not 2 universes, there is one, which is of INFINITE volume. How the heck could you have a specific volume of a universe? How could volume be limited in space, when there is unlimited distance in every direction possible in THE universe? Give me a break! You live here, not somewhere else. You occupy this space, not that space. Edited March 20, 2009 by Duration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Duration - The Universe is not an infinite volume of space. It expands and has always expanded through time. Cosmologists have even discovered that space is expanding faster than the speed of light due to its interaction with Dark Energy. Space and Time were created with the universe, and develop with it (You've seriously never been told how the Universe is expanding?). There are at least two universes assuming the axioms I introduced in my first post. Please don't respond to an idea based on conditions if you don't understand the conditions. This is a hypothetical question. In other words, If I asked you if you would rather live in Prague or Copenhagen, but you don't know where those places are, don't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Duration - The Universe is not an infinite volume of space. It expands and has always expanded through time. Cosmologists have even discovered that space is expanding faster than the speed of light due to its interaction with Dark Energy. Space and Time were created with the universe, and develop with it (You've seriously never been told how the Universe is expanding?). There are at least two universes assuming the axioms I introduced in my first post. Please don't respond to an idea based on conditions if you don't understand the conditions. This is a hypothetical question. In other words, If I asked you if you would rather live in Prague or Copenhagen, but you don't know where those places are, don't answer the question. The volume of the universe is expanding? Into what, non volume? You're out there, dude, and so is science if they think the volume of the universe is expanding. Infinite space can not be expanded on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Go read a book on M Theory, then read a book on the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics, then think about it, then get back to me if you still feel like it. The idea of our universe being an infinite amount of space is out-dated. That remains true even if my hypothetical situation isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Go read a book on M Theory, then read a book on the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics, then think about it, then get back to me if you still feel like it. The idea of our universe being an infinite amount of space is out-dated. That remains true even if my hypothetical situation isn't true. So you define the universe with a specific volume? Are we inside an expanding balloon? Why are you only counting the volume inside the balloon instead of the total volume of space? I don't need a book to understand infinite volume. ...and your self imposed boundary of where the universe ends is to laugh! I cut a pie into four pieces and give you one piece. What percent of the pie do you have? I dare you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 The Boundary of the Universe = The c*The amount of time passed since the Big Bang (Or Big Clap). WMAP Satelite imagery has allowed cosmologists to determine not only the volume and rate of expansion of the universe, but also the time and place of its origin. I didn't make this up, and you're very wrong. please allow anyone with a better understanding of modern physics to address my idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 The Boundary of the Universe = The c*The amount of time passed since the Big Bang (Or Big Clap). WMAP Satelite imagery has allowed cosmologists to determine not only the volume and rate of expansion of the universe, but also the time and place of its origin. I didn't make this up, and you're very wrong. please allow anyone with a better understanding of modern physics to address my idea. BS! The volume of the universe is infinite. Prove otherwise. Show me a picture of the dead end sign, and then show me a pic of the non-volume on the other side of the dead end sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonPrry Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 He (or She) is here, not there. Two different points can not share the same environment. Impossible. You should read this. http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBS! The volume of the universe is infinite. Prove otherwise. Show me a picture of the dead end sign, and then show me a pic of the non-volume on the other side of the dead end sign. The universe can't be infinite, given our three dimensions. If the universe were infinite, it would have never been created and would never cease to exist (lines have no beginning and no end, through time or distance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Please stop. You don't understand what you're talking about. I want someone with an understanding of these concepts to address my question. If you re-post, I will ignore you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) The universe can't be infinite, given our three dimensions. If the universe were infinite, it would have never been created and would never cease to exist (lines have no beginning and no end, through time or distance). Correct, it never began and it will never end. Do you have a problem with that, or are you of the belief it was created from nothing? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPlease stop. You don't understand what you're talking about. I want someone with an understanding of these concepts to address my question. If you re-post, I will ignore you. Just like you ignore the outer volume of your enclosed universe? Edited March 20, 2009 by Duration Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonPrry Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Correct, it never began and it will never end. Do you have a problem with that, or are you of the belief it was created from nothing? I am of the belief that it has always been nothing EDIT: Sorry to hijack your thread etcetcetc, it wasn't intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I am of the belief that it has always been nothing Nothing, as in no distance? That would be a trick. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI am of the belief that it has always been nothing EDIT: Sorry to hijack your thread etcetcetc, it wasn't intentional. Did nothing make you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 there is no proof of either and no nay-say proof of either. no ones right, no ones wrong. yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 there is no proof of either and no nay-say proof of either. no ones right, no ones wrong. yet. So there is a dead end sign out there somewhere, eh? The universe has an infinite volume, it's not even debatable!! Space is infinite, there can be no stopping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Please confine responses to the parameters of the OP, rather than drag the discussion off in another direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now