Parallel Universes

quote:

---

So, are you saying, for instance, that a finite universe that contains an electromagnetic force of strength "x" precludes the existence of another finite universe with emag force "x", but not one with emag force "y"? Or does this preclude an emag force of any strength in any other finite universe? Of course this could be extended to any force of any form of your choosing,

---

If you infer here, as I understand it, a force can exist outside this universe, but derived from an event occurence which is not related to any of this universe's materials - then this may not be precluded. However, even the premise of a force outside this finite universe becomes problematic, because its very existentialism is based on this universe's criteria. We surely cannot have H or O or H2O; or nuclear energy, matter, space, atoms - so how can one condone the force of gravity outside this universe - when it is mass related?

quote:

---

I just wasn't aware of such a conceptual restriction. What is the basis for this restriction?

---

It is based solely on the finite premise, and its actual meaning in non-acedemic terms. If particles exist outside this universe, it negates the finite factor. This makes the BB a post-universe or within-universe factor.This is the enigma posed by genesis, by its opening preamble the universe is finite. Whether one says they reject creationism or not, this finite factor makes creationism very logical and scientific, with no alternative. Mostly, this perspective is lacking in the worldly mindset, and genesis is missread. Seen from the genesis view, the BBT is saying the universe is infinite, because there is no source for a beginning [where did the BB particles and the premise of expansion, come from?]; otherwise it is saying - the universe is finite yet it had a BB explosion pre-universe. Both ways presents problematic scenarios, and these are deflected with controversial premises, which resemble sci-fi more than science; eg: complexity from random; animated life from inanimate non-life; etc.

Thats not logical. Why can't there be another universe with H, O or H20? If I have water in a glass does that mean that there cannot be water outside the glass? If I make a cup for my water, why then could I not make two? Not it does not. Two finite univereses would negate your point. BB theory. It covers the "finite factor" you speak of. No it does not. It says the universe came from a finite point. Thats mostly correct, outside of the word "explosion". To my understanding a better choice of wording would be expansion. If there was no expansion then the universe would be infinite, and thus not needing a Big Bang Theory because its not expanding from a finite point. There is not two scenarios, maybe in your misunderstood readings of BB theory you can make up two scenarios. The reality is there is only one scenario. An infinite universe would mean that the universe is not expanding from a finite point, this goes against what is observed and as a result is not a "scenario" let alone part of the BB theory. Why nominate as pertaining to another universe? I nominate that another universe would have its own "stuff" and not pertain at all to this one.

quote:

---

I nominate that another universe would have its own "stuff" and not pertain at all to this one.

---

No arguement here. The word 'stuff' needs qualification though: if it contains products of this finite universe, it contradicts the finite premise.

quote:

---

Thats not logical. Why can't there be another universe with H, O or H20? If I have water in a glass does that mean that there cannot be water outside the glass? If I make a cup for my water, why then could I not make two?

---

See above. Your glass would not/can not contain water outside the glass, if the glass is finite; otherwise you have a finite glass & water, but with another glass and water elsewhere, making the premise of finite meaningless.

quote:

---

If particles exist outside this universe, it negates the finite factor.

​

Not it does not. Two finite univereses would negate your point.

---

My reasoning is based on the premise, all components of a finite body are likewise finite; their appearence outside that finite body contradicts this premise. I point out, I do not refer to an academic/mathemically improvised factor term of finity, but an actual one.Further, my reasoning is that based on the premise all components of the universe are finite, means they cannot exist outside or prior to this universe. It is a legitimate view, and requires considering as such. Its subsequence is that creationism is scientifically explainable on such a premise - notwithstanding this is exactly what genesis is saying. The latter is not proof of a creator, but a premise that the universe was created or come about, without any tools and elements known to us or universe contained.What is meant by no tools or elements used, is also explainable in the genesis scenario: namely that there was an external impact here, and also what genesis is saying. When we look at all the actions of this universe, we can also see that an external factor [external to any subject component or action in this universe] also impacts. IOW, a pineapple requires external factors to impact its subsistance, like the sun and water. Reduced further, actions such as making a car, house or PC - also requires an external impact - such as human input. Nothing in such a scenario occurs w/o an external impact - which is an emulation of how the universe emerged.Thus I posit there are more than one scientific and explainable scenarios here, and genesis is up there with the best. The genesis scenario does not allow parallel and multi universes, with valid reasoning. Further, IMHO, genesis does not contradict itself, but maintains a consistancy with its own premise: it first declares the universe as finite, then goes on to explain its chronological and diverse structures, positing that all sectors are intergrated - a factor which negates randomity.

Sorry for the unscientific description. I was generalizing the everything that makes up a universe. Why would a different universe be made up of the "stuff" that makes up this universe? Why do you get that idea? Of course the water inside my glass would not be of the same water outside the glass. As analogous to the multi-universe idea... why should it? No. You would have two glasses (universes) containing water (everything; be it matter, energy, particle waves, or whatever). They don't share anything. They are like say.. two glasses with different water in what we call different glasses. The causing agent is meaningless in this circumstance.I can investigate the contents of the glass, describe any changes that may be taking place, look at the evidence and conclude changes that may have taken place in the past, and at no time is it important for a discussion of who made the glass. BB theory is not a description of who made the universe, its a description of what has taken place after that event. Your reasoning is flawed. If all contents of a finite body are also finite, the contents of TWO finite bodies can also both be finite. No sharing, no holding hands, no interaction whatsoever is nessesary. See my glass example again with this understanding; stop sharing particles and you may begin to understand. Right. So it would be nessesary for the components of another universe to not share the same components of this universe but have components of their very own. Sure its a legitimate view, I would say it is an unreasonable idea to think that any other universe must share components with this universe. Its not legitimate, frankly I find it bizarre. For you to say this is the only view is simply limiting your mind to one concept. Given that this concept is an effort to somehow show BB Theory to be faulty, its really just a strawman. Can you link the source of this faulty reasoning? Well sure it is given the incorrect outlook and the illogical conclusions it results in. That is called a strawman. BB Theory is not restricted to such ideas of sharing particles with other universes, ideas of multi-universes are not restricted to hand holding components with this universe. Such illogical ideas do not have an effect. Agreed. On that note, where do we look for evidence about the causal factors that created time itself? When did it take place? Why do you think BB Theory has anything to do with it? Faulty reasoning is not valid reasoning. You have attempted to once again show Genesis to be vindicated while mis-understanding what you are debating against. Off topic. My snowflake trumps your nessesary creator.

quote:

---

Of course the water inside my glass would not be of the same water outside the glass. As analogous to the multi-universe idea... why should it?

​

otherwise you have a finite glass & water, but with another glass and water elsewhere, making the premise of finite meaningless.

​

No. You would have two glasses (universes) containing water (everything; be it matter, energy, particle waves, or whatever). They don't share anything. They are like say.. two glasses with different water in what we call different glasses. The causing agent is meaningless in this circumstance.

---

Two factors:1. I concede now, after further contemplation, another universe can potentially exist, without contradicting this universe's finite premise, subject to more deliberation.2. The caveat to [1] is that the issue of different glasses of water should be better explained and qualified. [1] can only subsist if it does not use any components of this universe, and what you are saying is - they can be equivalent [the same], but not from the same universe. While this condones your position, the veracity of being the same components but not from this universe, is questionable. The occurence of a glass of water, the example here, was produced using materials and actions of this universe, so you are postulating that such actions and materials can also be available outside of this universe - while not coming from this universe? Whether this can be vindicated, w/o contradicting this universe's finite premise, requires more deliberation.In fact, you are saying stars and water and life forms can exist in other universes, exactly as in this finite universe, but they have emerged independently of this universe - and constitutes no contradiction this universe still remains finite. At the very least, this also means that the triggering of this universe, was from a point which causes any and all universes; this also means, the causative factor of this universe is outside of this universe, and which you see as irrelevent.To further reduce this prmise, two peoples in different spacetimes, come up with the same song [tune and lyrics]; while they have never met each other. While both can claim to have originated the works by themselves, a court will grant the copyright ownership to the precedent one - regardless that they have not plaguerised and made their works independently. The applicable question here is, both are using the same environs to produce their songs - the underlieing factor, and the effecting relationship of the glasses of water in two universes. What is common to both these universes is that they display a commonality of effectations. It is a hedy factor which extends beyond the issue which contains them.I am uncertain here, while you have pointed to a critical and sharp possibility. Aside from this exclusive view, the majority mindset does not consider that generally speaking, another universe containing this universe's components is a contradiction of the finite premise.

If it used the components of this universe then it must be, I would think, within this universe - and thus would not be a different universe, but simply a part of this one! Or a component of this universe must simultaneously be in two different universes... and that is much too sci-fi for me. If by that you mean the other universe could have energy, gravity, hydrogen, oxygen, etc; then I would say you are correct in understanding me. If you mean exactly the same hydrogen atom, sharing two universes at once then I would say no. I agree completely. Though physicists could someday prove me wrong I cannot, in my limited understanding of the subject, expect that humans will discover evidence of other universes. Without evidence, its just sci-fi as you put it. Its possible, but this does not mean its supported by evidence. Thats my thoughts exactly. Possibly; I am not saying "fact" as this is all hypothetical. My point is not that its factual, only possible. But yes that is, in fact, what I am saying. Some could be older, some younger, or they all began at the same time. There could be only two, or infinite numbers of. Why limit your ideas to one "point which causes any and all universes"? It could be a lot of points I suppose. Not irrelevant to discussion, just irrelevant to science. Much like a parallel universe, the time before time began is impossible to study and therefore not scientific. The cause of BB is obviously before the expansion, and therefore not within the realm of evidence. Big Bang is not about the cause, its about the effect. At this moment I have the luxury, as do you, to reserve the cause of Big Bang to faith or imagination. Perhaps science can break that boundary and find some evidence but I have my doubts. (or I just don't really know a darn thing about physics) Not much point in coming to conclusions when its hypothetical. Would an alternate universe have the same laws of physics? Would it have water, music, hydrogen bombs? It depends on how many universes you want to imagine, but don't forget its just imagination. What is "beyond the issues that contain them" (ie: The Cause) is as much left to the imagination as the parallel universes themselves. Using bad terminology and horrible analogies. My opologies to any and all cosmologists who I hope would set me straight on any critical errors. Seriously, I doubt that what you have stated is the way the majority of people think about such topics (regarding this sharing components idea). I have not read about this "sharing components" aspect before, I am far from well read about such topics, but its simply an illogical position to take. We both seem to agree on this and I believe its more likely a misunderstanding on your part than a majority mindset.** I hope what I have said above can clear up any issues with the analogy. If not, I may have to try and think of something more appropriate for the idea I am trying to get across.
**

Certainly not the case as an object with an infinite perimeter can be drawn on a piece of paper which itself has a finite perimeter. It is my understanding that an isolated body can have as many attributes common to any other isolated body except one in order for them to be considered different. Any similarities are merely coincident, and with an infinite number of isolated bodies, there are going to be those that differ from ours by one, two, three, etc. parameters. There are also going to be as many that differ by one parameter as there are parameters by which to differ. This means that every event that could go a different way by probability, has done so in another universe.

interesting theory. i wonder if the math that was drawn for this might actually be usable to extend the theory of relativity.i think this is a little too much like string theory tho. so out there, that if it is true, we probrobly wont undertand it in a form as limited as the "current" human body.(or find any proof)it is not solid enough for me to honestly take seriosly.but the math is interesting enough that it could be a part of something, if only misdirected in purpose.

quote:

---

Certainly not the case as an object with an infinite perimeter can be drawn on a piece of paper which itself has a finite perimeter.

---

This assumes an infinite perimeter, without any substantiation of such. My position is, that this universe is finite, along with all it's components. This means products such as space, matter, energy, time, quarks, etc cannot exist outside of this universe at any time.If your talking of an infinite peremeter which is made of things different from this universe, then there is no dispute. However, nothing from another infinite peremeter can be used to make this universe infinite, which means we cannot recognise an entity, even a theoretical or academic one, as a positation this universe is subsequent to another, unrelated infinite premise: this would negate the finite factor of this universe. IOW, another infinite, cannot contain any products of this universe, nor can this universe contain anything from another universe.

quote:

---

It is my understanding that an isolated body can have as many attributes common to any other isolated body except one in order for them to be considered different. Any similarities are merely coincident, and with an infinite number of isolated bodies, there are going to be those that differ from ours by one, two, three, etc. parameters. There are also going to be as many that differ by one parameter as there are parameters by which to differ. This means that every event that could go a different way by probability, has done so in another universe.

---

This cannot apply, because it is based on infinite items and co-incidences.

quote:

---

but the math is interesting enough that it could be a part of something, if only misdirected in purpose.

---

One math assumption alone cannot prove a reality by itself. IOW, one cannot prove a math premise using another math premise. This will always place itself in the academic realm, and not in reality. This applies specially in denoting an infinite premise - because the maths relies on measurements and equations related to this universe and conditions of finity only; any other status, such as an infinite premise - does not work via maths. How does one add or subtract $5 from an infinite quality of dollars - all it does is negate the premise, meaning there was no infinity 10 seconds ago?

quote:

---

an infinite perimeter can be drawn on a piece of paper which itself has a finite perimeter.

---

A finite piece of paper cannot house an infinite; this would render the infinite lesser than the finite. Nor can the term 'piece' of paper apply: this infers other pieces, which contradicts its infinite premise.

no one can prove the universe is infinite. but that does not mean it isnt. it is "apparantly" infinite.argueing one case or the other is too easy for a sophist to rip appart any argument by invoking "not being"so, finite or infinite, how does parallel universes find any scientific inquery, without any proof other than the idea of them?

Very well, but my point is that a square with a known finite perimeter can wholly contain within this perimeter an object with an infinite perimeter.

quote:

---

Very well, but my point is that a square with a known finite perimeter can wholly contain within this perimeter an object with an infinite perimeter.

---

Only if the outer square contained no components of the inner infinite square. Else the infinite factor becomes violated: it was not infinite. This is also why there can be no parallel or multi universes.

quote:

---

no one can prove the universe is infinite. but that does not mean it isnt. it is "apparantly" infinite.

---

The current scientific status is the universe is FINITE. [Hawking's BHT; MC2; the expanding Universe; etc].However, those are not required. The law impacting this issue is that anything subject to 'change' is finite. And by subsequence, all components of a finite universe are also finite.