On 2 July, 17:05, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > "They're unnecessary, as a 'proper geometry' can account for serial > universes in which all possibilities can be explored. Basically, > while parallel universes are 'possible' they aren't as likely as > 'serial universes', which can be handled by simple geometry of the > overall system. When you have 'all of time' you gain NOTHING by > performing events in parallel, so there is no 'gain' in parallel > universes. In other words, the concept of parallel universes doesn't > pass 'Occam's Razor'."-Pat > > How could we possibly determine what is necessary in regard to the > universe.
With mathematics. The necessity that was discussed was with respect to parallel universes. Parallel universes would only save time and there already exists 'all of time' so there is no extra time that can be gained. >I think the Franciscan Friar may have been short sighted in > this regard. Parsimony should not be elevated to a general principle > especially in the arena of advanced sciences. I can give one example; > Chaos Theory! The simplest answer is that there is nothing simple > about it! In explaining the anomolous energies coming from certain > planets of our solor system, Richard Hoagland applied non-Euclidian > geometries in order to account for it. How can you tell the difference between actual randomness and plain incalculability? You can't. Both appear the same. I, too, use multiple dimensions (string theory) to resolve issues between the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics. In doing so, I discovered a geometry that would reduce the universe to a single object of stringy energy. I find nothing 'simpler' than a single object--even if that object has contorted itself and twisted itself around several different dimensions and 'appears' as complex as this universe does. One thing, given the right geometry, can appear to be incalculably complex. > “The existence of unseen hyperspatial realities... that, through > information transfer between dimensions, are the literal ‘foundation > substrate’ maintaining the reality of everything in this dimension.” > He stated in explaining his Hyperdimensional Physics Theory. This is > not to say that these are parallel universes but who knows? Also, > theories shuch as superstring and M brane theory do allow for parallel > universes, not to mention the research into Zero Point Energy which > suggests the energetic flux in a vaccum (empty space) is coming from > somewhere (parallel universes?). > I agree that parallel universes are possible, I just don't believe they are likely because there is nothing gained by them. > On Jul 2, 9:24 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 30 June, 19:01, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So..it happens over and over again?...but if it happens over and over > > > again.. the big bang throw out i mean..is it the same pattern always.. or > > > is > > > it different each time.. are there infinite possibilities... > > > I would think that it's ever-so-slightly different each time. And, I > > would think that the difference is at the 'distillation' time (the > > 'Inflationary Period') when matter precipitates from the 'cosmic soup' > > just after the Big Bang, that way, the entire universe can re-settle > > itself and form a completely different universe than the one prior or > > the one after. And, yes, the possibilities, while, not necessarily > > infinite, are so incredibly huge as to be close enough to > > 'countless'. Think on the order of googolplexes of googolplexes of > > googolplexes, where a googolplex is a googol (a 1 with a hundred > > zeroes after it) to the googolth power. There may truely be a limit > > as to what can be done with energy, but there is still a vast and > > countless number of possibilities and my estimate above could be off > > by a googolplex of googolplexes of googolplexes, and THAT could be off > > by just as much. So, like I said, not strictly, NECESSARILY, > > infinite, but absolutely, hugely countless. > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > On 29 June, 20:50, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > sorry for my ignorance but could any one tell me wat serial universes > > > > > are....... > > > > > As I happened to HAVE to come back in to work in order to try to book > > > > a flight, I thought I'd take a peek back here again. What I mean by > > > > 'serial universes' is 'one after another', i.e., universes in a > > > > series, like episodes of os a soap opera. In this case, the case of > > > > universes, each episode starts with a Big Bang and ends with a > > > > cataclysmic/apocalyptic 'Last Day' where the matter of this universe > > > > expands into the anit-matter wall that forms the outer boundary of the > > > > medium through which our space-time expands. Once the huge matter > > > > antimatter collision takes place, this leaves nothing but light > > > > (photons) and, if the boundary of the medium is shaped like a donut > > > > (torus), those photons will wrap around to the centre and re-start the > > > > sequence again with a new Big Bang. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 June, 20:10, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So how does the idea of parallel uiverse figure in the already > > > > decided > > > > > > chain > > > > > > > of events? > > > > > > > They're unnecessary, as a 'proper geometry' can account for serial > > > > > > universes in which all possibilities can be explored. Basically, > > > > > > while parallel universes are 'possible' they aren't as likely as > > > > > > 'serial universes', which can be handled by simple geometry of the > > > > > > overall system. When you have 'all of time' you gain NOTHING by > > > > > > performing events in parallel, so there is no 'gain' in parallel > > > > > > universes. In other words, the concept of parallel universes > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > pass 'Occam's Razor'. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Pat > > > > > > > <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 18 June, 13:09, "[email protected]" < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes RP I agree. > > > > > > > > > > We do it seems have much choice, and we do indeed often have > > > > none. > > > > > > > > > > An accident, will change the choices that we have and so the > > > > choices > > > > > > > > > that we make. The future is not defined, > > > > > > > > > Einstein proved that incorrect 105 years ago. Proved! Since > > > > > > > > then, > > > > it > > > > > > > > has never been disproved, rather, only supported. There is > > > > > > > > truth, > > > > > > > > though, in your words...the word 'seems'. It seems that we have > > > > > > > > choices. That IS true. But it is an illusion. And I KNOW we > > > > don't > > > > > > > > want to go 'round and round' this again. Do we? LOL!! ;-) > > > > > > > > > >both human choice and > > > > > > > > > circumstances beyond our control for which we have no choices > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > make, > > > > > > > > > go a loong way in deciding what our futures will be. > > > > > > > > > > On 17 June, 21:07, hassan yacoub <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > no we are not bound by the future but the future is bound by > > > > our > > > > > > > > present and > > > > > > > > > > it is affected by what we do now and whatever we choice and > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > is > > > > > > too > > > > > > > > (the > > > > > > > > > > future )a result of the present and this future depends upon > > > > the > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > do we try and we may succeed or not we try to do our best > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > as > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > as we > > > > > > > > > > are strong in mind and in body and educated well by good > > > > knowledge > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > succeed and our action be right even right in a place may be > > > > wrong > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:46 AM, RP <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Pat says that we are bound by the future and our choices > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > therefore > > > > > > > > > > > those which result in a particular future event. I beg to > > > > differ > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > believe that our present actions are the result of our > > > > effort > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > endeavour, but our effort is bound by our physical and > > > > > > psychological > > > > > > > > > > > motives in reaction to the present nature of the > > > > > > > > > > > environment. > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > what we do becomes definite doesn't change the nature of > > > > actions. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > try to change ourselves and act with a resolve to create a > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > > > > future , and that future is an effect of our actions and > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > viceversa. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > hi to all- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
