--- In [email protected], "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This > > > > could be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > > > > --- "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite > > universe, there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own > > universe, as well as an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as > > an infinite number of radically different universes, all existing > > simultaneously *somewhere* in THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" > > has two distinct meanings in the above sentence: > > > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our > > standards) conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which > > we believe came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in > > which all "local" universes happen to exist. > > > > > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, > > as do I, that there is an emergent property of the totality of these > > observers throughout any and all of the metaverses that has its own > > consciousness, but what that is like is impossible to say. > > > > L. > > > > It cannot be an infinite expanse of space-time because we > know the local universe was tiny at the start of the > big-bang and is still inflating. The expansion might > eventually rip and disintegrate the local universe. >
Doesn't matter. The local universe is thought, assuming that space-time is flat in the large, to be part of a larger entity that is infinite. > The local universe itself probably behaves like a quantum > particle that is existing in many states simultaneously. > > Some scientists say 'dark matter' is particles hidden in the > fourth spatial dimension and is excerting some influence in > our 3-d space. > > There has to be a regression of observers going all the way > back to this cosmic-uber entity. If you are an onserver, > then who is observing you? > Every electron and other elementary particle in existence. ANd they all observe each other as information is exchanged -that is what "information exchange means" in this context. At the "unified field level," assuming that such exists, the information exchange is constant, and works for all entities at this level. Even at levels like electromagnetism, every charged particle is exchanging information with every other charged particle, constantly. This isn't controversial. The only controversial aspect is the interpretation of information exchange between two entities as "consciousness." L
