Parallel Universes

Let's try to get this issue down to a concepualizable size. Suppose that each of the universes in our multi-verse is a 4' by 8' billiard table and that all the 'stuff' in each universe is a small number of billiard balls, Then a few concepts become more comprehendible:1) Let's start with two billiard table 'universes', each with two billiard balls. Suppose at some instant of time the billiard balls on the two tables are in the exact same configuration. If at that instant of time the corresponding balls are not moving in the exact same direction at the exact same speed, in the very next instant, the two billiard ball universes will no longer be in the same configuration. For two universes to be identical, it is not enough that they 'look' the same at some instant. They must also be doing the exact same things (as far as the motions of all their corresponding particles are concerned).2) Again start with two billiard table universes, each with just one ball located at the exact center of the table. At the exact same instant, start one of the balls moving towards one of the long rails such that in strikes it a 1 degree from the perpendicular and start the other ball so it hits one of the long rails in its universe at 2 degrees from the perpendicular. Now add a third billiard table universe with its one ball moving to strike the rail at an angle half way between the angles of the first two billiard tables. Keep adding more tables/universes each with their ball angled half way between the angle of the previous two added universes (or, actually, at any angle not already taken). You will end up with an infinite number of universes, no two of which are identical. To get a situation where there must be countless duplications of a finite number of universes, you have to assume a model with very strong restrictions on the possible dynamics. In this example, you have to restrict the angles (and positions and velocities) to a finite discreet set.

I'm not sure why another parallel universe must have particles. Maybe only our physical universe has particles. Maybe another universe is not contextually material at all, but instead contextually informational. Maybe human consciousness is actually a coincidental universe without any physical attributes, just stopping by for a moment of particular recreaction.Still, I like your billard-table analogy.”Hoot Mon

The OP and the article it references posit that there are an infinite number of universes and that this implies that each universe is precisely duplicated (infinicated?) an infinite number of times. Since we know of at least one universe with particles, this suggests that there are an infinite number of identical (identical in every way including events as well as things) such universes. I'm merely trying to show that the 'infinite duplication' conclusion does not follow from the 'infinite universes' assumption.We, of course, all know that human consciousness is nothing more than chemical 'particles' (molecules) undergoing electro-chemical interactions, so that no extra universes, dimensions, or other mysteria are required for its understanding.

I think you are right: We don't need no stinkin' mysteria! What we do need, however, is a better understanding of the dimensional aspects of consciousness”reflectivity, objectivity, subjectivity, bicamerality. Those features are not so likely to be found in the chemicals. A better place to look would be in the history of the written symbolic langauge.”Hoot Mon

No, the principle idea is that of the very simple, very straight-forward infinite (flat/open) universe of FLRW that we use in Lambda-CDM - not an infinte number of universes, sequential, parallel , or otherwise. Of course we do NOT know this - some assume it without question, a few dispute it, and most shrug and say we do not know yet. Of course there is indisputable evidence that chemical processes affect conciousness but to say "nothing more than" is only a statement of belief at this stage of the game.

I think we need to clear up a term first. When I say "our universe" in an "infinite universe" what I mean is the volume of space centered on earth that extends outwards as far as we can possibly see. This volume has a radius of exactly the age of the universe (13.7 Billion light years or so). I think this is called the "hubble volume."When I say that we are just one universe out of a great many, I mean that we are just one hubble volume out of an infinite volume, but still only one universe.I hope that makes sense. The point the article makes is that our hubble volume IS restricted in a finite way. In other words the possible states that our volume of space can take is finite.To explain this the article asks you to picture a finite volume filled to capacity with protons. Each proton is touching the proton next to it, with no room for anything in between. Now picture another volume the same size as the first, again packed with protons. This second volume differs from the first in only one specific area, where one proton is missing. If you continue you to picture volumes that only differ in the absence or presence of protons you get a very large, but still finite number.As long as that number is finite, if you have a large enough space, they MUST repeat themselves.

I believe that there's no such thing as a parallel universe. Edited by DeAdLy_cOoKiE, : No reason given.Edited by DeAdLy_cOoKiE, : No reason given.

EvC has a set of rules for debate that you need to familiarize yourself with. The rules link is at the top of the page.This is a science thread. When debating on a science thread, one needs to keep in mind Rule #4:Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.Simply stating "I don't believe in a parallel universe" isn't enough.You need either to address the evidence that has been offered or offer your considered opinion (and provide supporting evidence).

But wouldn't all things in our Hubble Volume have it's own Hubble Volume? Something on the edge of our Hubble Volume has not only interacted with us but with things just as far from us the opposite direction, right? Would this preclude things outside our volume from ever having any previous effect (and therefore continuous residual effects) on our volume? I wouldn't think so. Wouldn't the exclusion principle prevent events in our volume from being repeated even across the horizon of our volume?If so, the proton volume analogy really doesn't parallel because those volumes are isolated, unlike ours. Therefore, there must be more than one universe to have repeating instances of the very same events. I have probably missed a piece of the puzzle here, maybe I don't understand the exclusion principle properly, but this is an interesting topic nonetheless.

The parallel scenario, aside from the lack of any supporting evidence, contradicts a fundamental and evidenced scientific fact: that the universe is 'FINITE'.And finite means, and applies to, that all of the universe components are thereby also finite. If one utilises any props of any post-universe components to theorise another universe, they will contradict the basis of a finite universe. The latter applies to all universe components, including space, matter, energy and any construct of this universe.

I believe the parallel scenario implies that these universes are isolated at the instant that they vary. I suppose each universe in and of itself could be finite while the number of universes would be infinite. I don't see where has to be true. Explain further please.

quote:

---

I suppose each universe in and of itself could be finite while the number of universes would be infinite.

---

Two problems with this premise:1. It only moves the goal post further back, and still needs confronting, whereby it does not resolve the finite issue impact.2. The components [physicality; matter; space; etc] and forces [gravity; electro-magneticism; light; etc] of one universe cannot be used to sustain another universe, as this again would render those components as not finite. Thus we cannot allow another physical universe of the same materials.Thus we have to negate the possibility of other universe if the finite premise is factored in. However, it may be that space has another dimension, while still being part of the same universe, namely a non-corporeal [non-physical] realm [usually referred to as spiritual/heaven], or that there may be an unseen sub-space universal warehouse/factory which spits out the core seeds of all matter and elements - much like a womb expells an offspring. Eg: where does a black hole lead to?

Why must this be so?

This is so where one accepts the universe as finite. Its subsequence is that all which is in that finite universe is likewise finite, and cannot be nominated as pertaining to another universe. The only concievable exception here is, that a subsequent universe post-dates this one, whereby the new universe is then part of the same current finite universe.The Big Bang, if accepted, is thus a post-universe occurence, because it contains a particle of matter.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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