The Multiverse Conundrum

[Nick_A]

You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

But for those who begin with the premise of Plato's "good" or Plotinus' "ONE" the question arises why the universe is necessary. Why does the Source need the involutionary expression of the unity of one into infinite diversity? Then the question arises if one universe is sufficient for absolute involutionary expression.

If the cause of existence is necessity, a seeker of truth contemplates the reason for existence. This requires deductive reason.

The theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: "The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation—the only one that is tenable—of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality."

You seem to need to explain the concept of multiverse through science and I've read it explained through dimensions and "the solid of time" which makes it far more reasonable for me.

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

Here is a little on the theory of six dimensions. Eternity is the fifth dimension and the domain of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Everything repeats. The sixth dimension is infinite eternities.

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was trapped in a time loop. Everything repeated. Once the crew realized their predicament they had to come up with a way to awaken the eternity they were trapped in so as to break free from it.

We can change our cycle of eternal recurrence so as to enter a new cycle, The question is how.

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

The shell of a periwinkle as a visual representation of six-dimensionality
This section presents an analogy of six or seven dimensions—seven dimensions if the point or 0th dimension is counted as a dimension.

An analogy of dimensionality which originates in a point of existence and extends through space-time to include all possibilities for that existence:

The point at the apex of the shell represents the coming into existence. This is a point, a representative of no dimensions. The extension of this point is the first growth of the shell; it describes a series of points, i.e., a line, one dimension, extension in space. The line is next seen to curve, indicating the attribute of a next dimension which describes a plane—two dimensions, width and breadth. The curve is seen to spiral into the next dimension, indicating the three dimensions of width, breadth, and height. That this occurs over time indicates the fourth dimension, time itself. The motion over time now repeats to create the multiple spirals of the circle—repetition, the fifth dimension. The continual growth of the expanding spiral describes the ultimate shape of all possibilities for the periwinkle, analogous to the sixth dimension.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

The shell of the periwinkle used in the analogy illustrates what she meant

[TimeSeeker]

But for those who begin with the premise of Plato's "good" or Plotinus' "ONE" the question arises why the universe is necessary. Why does the Source need the involutionary expression of the unity of one into infinite diversity? Then the question arises if one universe is sufficient for absolute involutionary expression.

If the cause of existence is necessity, a seeker of truth contemplates the reason for existence. This requires deductive reason.

The theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: "The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation—the only one that is tenable—of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality."

You seem to need to explain the concept of multiverse through science and I've read it explained through dimensions and "the solid of time" which makes it far more reasonable for me.

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

Here is a little on the theory of six dimensions. Eternity is the fifth dimension and the domain of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Everything repeats. The sixth dimension is infinite eternities.

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was trapped in a time loop. Everything repeated. Once the crew realized their predicament they had to come up with a way to awaken the eternity they were trapped in so as to break free from it.

We can change our cycle of eternal recurrence so as to enter a new cycle, The question is how.

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

The shell of a periwinkle as a visual representation of six-dimensionality
This section presents an analogy of six or seven dimensions—seven dimensions if the point or 0th dimension is counted as a dimension.

An analogy of dimensionality which originates in a point of existence and extends through space-time to include all possibilities for that existence:

The point at the apex of the shell represents the coming into existence. This is a point, a representative of no dimensions. The extension of this point is the first growth of the shell; it describes a series of points, i.e., a line, one dimension, extension in space. The line is next seen to curve, indicating the attribute of a next dimension which describes a plane—two dimensions, width and breadth. The curve is seen to spiral into the next dimension, indicating the three dimensions of width, breadth, and height. That this occurs over time indicates the fourth dimension, time itself. The motion over time now repeats to create the multiple spirals of the circle—repetition, the fifth dimension. The continual growth of the expanding spiral describes the ultimate shape of all possibilities for the periwinkle, analogous to the sixth dimension.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

The shell of the periwinkle used in the analogy illustrates what she meant

How would we (humans) test/falsify such an infinite loop?

Just like another universe - how would we come to know of such a dimension’s existence?

It is not even wrong.

[Nick_A]

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

Here is a little on the theory of six dimensions. Eternity is the fifth dimension and the domain of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Everything repeats. The sixth dimension is infinite eternities.

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was trapped in a time loop. Everything repeated. Once the crew realized their predicament they had to come up with a way to awaken the eternity they were trapped in so as to break free from it.

We can change our cycle of eternal recurrence so as to enter a new cycle, The question is how.

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

The shell of a periwinkle as a visual representation of six-dimensionality
This section presents an analogy of six or seven dimensions—seven dimensions if the point or 0th dimension is counted as a dimension.

An analogy of dimensionality which originates in a point of existence and extends through space-time to include all possibilities for that existence:

The point at the apex of the shell represents the coming into existence. This is a point, a representative of no dimensions. The extension of this point is the first growth of the shell; it describes a series of points, i.e., a line, one dimension, extension in space. The line is next seen to curve, indicating the attribute of a next dimension which describes a plane—two dimensions, width and breadth. The curve is seen to spiral into the next dimension, indicating the three dimensions of width, breadth, and height. That this occurs over time indicates the fourth dimension, time itself. The motion over time now repeats to create the multiple spirals of the circle—repetition, the fifth dimension. The continual growth of the expanding spiral describes the ultimate shape of all possibilities for the periwinkle, analogous to the sixth dimension.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

The shell of the periwinkle used in the analogy illustrates what she meant

How would we (humans) test/falsify such an infinite loop?

Just like another universe - how would we come to know of such a dimension’s existence?

It is not even wrong.

Why must it be right or wrong? The idea of the sixth dimension as the solid of time is a very deep conception beyond the limitations of the duality of science. This is where conscious contemplation comes in. It uses a higher form of reason which seeks to inwardly experience rather than scientifically prove.

The ideals of art, science, and religion, seek to open our minds to a quality of reality beyond animal dualism. The fact that these means for understanding are abused isn't the issue. We cannot experience ourselves in eternity so what good is it to argue about infinite eternities? As Socrates implied, we know nothing. We can open our minds to conscious contemplation so as to invite remembrance of what is already known at the deepest parts of our being.

[TimeSeeker]

Why must it be right or wrong?

Because whatever little knowledge we have ought to be slightly more useful to us than mere self-flagilation?

Otherwise why even bother seeking it?

[Greta]

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

The epistemic issue is simply a matter of premature labelling.

In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible, the separation is achieved over vast stretches of space and time that dwarf our universe (just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves).

[TimeSeeker]

The epistemic issue is simply a matter of premature labelling.

Or premature definitions/scope...

In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible, the separation is achieved over vast stretches of space and time that dwarf our universe (just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves).

If there is any measurable force between these two universes (gravity? photons?) then they are still interacting. And if they are so far apart that we can't detect any interaction then epistemically they don't exist.

And so it really depends on how you define 'universe'. I define it 'as everything measurable' (detectable? knowable?) e.g the testability/falsifiability criterion of science.

[Nick_A]

Why must it be right or wrong?

Because whatever little knowledge we have ought to be slightly more useful to us than mere self-flagilation?

Otherwise why even bother seeking it?

Some people are drawn to the essence of meaning for humanity. Most are not which is why the great ideas must be hated. They are an annoyance. But as much as these ideas are annoying there is still a minority who are drawn to what it means to "awaken."

When the Buddha started to wander around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being. They asked him: "Are you a god?" "No," he replied. "Are you a reincarnation of god?" "No," he replied."Are you a wizard, then?" "No." "Well, are you a man?" "No." "So what are you?" They asked, being very perplexed. Buddha simply replied: "I am awake." Buddha means “the awakened one.” How to awaken is all he taught.

Buddha had the experience of his life in eternity. You would call it self flagilation. It is meaningless to the dualism of science. You may call Buddha a fraud since the scientific method is unconcerned with awakening. But what if a person can awaken to their life in eternity and the necessity of conscious change within the sixth dimension as opposed to our usual mechanical reactions? You may call it lunacy. Others capable of intuition may feel its value. We don't know which is why some can open to the path of conscious contemplation to bypass our usual dualistic programming

[Greta]

The epistemic issue is simply a matter of premature labelling.

Or premature definitions/scope...

Agree. The concept of the universe - everything being one thing - was devised at a time when it was believed that the universe comprised only the Sun, Moon, Earth, several planets and the stars.

In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible, the separation is achieved over vast stretches of space and time that dwarf our universe (just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves).

If there is any measurable force between these two universes (gravity? photons?) then they are still interacting. And if they are so far apart that we can't detect any interaction then epistemically they don't exist.

And so it really depends on how you define 'universe'. I define it 'as everything measurable' (detectable? knowable?) e.g the testability/falsifiability criterion of science.

Yes, I am using the old version of "universe" here rather than the word's true implications. I think it quite possible that universes are separated by space, making this one essentially a megacluster of superclusters. As with galaxies, if it's true you'd expect interaction to be more the exception than the rule due to the vast distances involved. I don't always worry much about epistemology because the ontology keeps chugging on regardless of what we might think of it. I simply assume that we perceive only a small fraction of what is. We were evolved to survive, with our senses and brains more effective at dealing with existential challenges than existential concepts, at this stage.

[seeds]

I wrote "a person who means" , particular rather clumsy wording, because an entity that makes meaning merits 'who' not 'which'. I hope it's clear that, in the context of all that exists, final cause pertains to a personal creator and maintainer but does not pertain to eternal truths .

Sorry B (and it’s no doubt due to me being thick headed), but I am still having a problem figuring out what your question is.

Also, you didn’t seem to give a clear explanation of how (and in what context) rules and eternal truths can exist independent of mind.
_______

[seeds]

Seeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist.

You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

I cannot speak for Greta, but no, I am not tripping over language.

When I say reason, I mean reason.

For example, if life and consciousness did not exist, then I see absolutely no reason for the existence of trillions of fusion dynamos uselessly frittering away their energy and light on trillions of empty and barren spheres.

However (as I once pointed out to thedoc in a similar argument), if you sprinkle a few capsules (cells) of evolvable information (DNA) onto the surface of the spheres, then a sun’s (and by extension – a universe’s) true reason for existing, becomes obvious.
_______

[surreptitious57]

In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible the separation is achieved over vast stretches
of space and time that dwarf our universe ( just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves )

If there is any measurable force between these two universes ( gravity ? photons ? )

In brane theory light cannot travel between universes that exist on different branes only gravity can
But they are effectively entirely separate entities and so are completely independent of each other

[TimeSeeker]

In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible the separation is achieved over vast stretches
of space and time that dwarf our universe ( just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves )

If there is any measurable force between these two universes ( gravity ? photons ? )

In brane theory light cannot travel between universes that exist on different branes only gravity can
But they are effectively entirely separate entities and so are completely independent of each other

The word “separate and independent” make no sense for entities interacting.

Even gravitationally! They exert a force on each other.

[surreptitious57]

Gravity is stronger within galaxies and weaker outside of them and the same is also true for universes
The reason it is weaker outside is because in empty space there is nothing there for it to interact with

[TimeSeeker]

Gravity is stronger within galaxies and weaker outside of them and the same is also true for universes
The reason it is weaker outside is because in empty space there is nothing there for it to interact with

The reason gravity is stronger within galaxies is because mass. Greater mass = greater gravitational force.

Irrespective - interaction is occurring. So why call it a multiverse?

[Belinda]

I wrote "a person who means" , particular rather clumsy wording, because an entity that makes meaning merits 'who' not 'which'. I hope it's clear that, in the context of all that exists, final cause pertains to a personal creator and maintainer but does not pertain to eternal truths .

Sorry B (and it’s no doubt due to me being thick headed), but I am still having a problem figuring out what your question is.

Also, you didn’t seem to give a clear explanation of how (and in what context) rules and eternal truths can exist independent of mind.
_______

I'll try again if you will be patient with me. I am citing the teleological cause as appropriate only to living organisms. The eternal good, or eternal truths are not living organisms.Teleological(or final) cause is commonly expressed as 'intention' or 'meaning'.

The idea of God as other than eternal good or eternal truths is the idea of God as a living organism. Few people think of God as a great Zebra or a great Bull; most people who think of God as a living organism think of Him as a great Person.

My contention is that the idea of God as a great Person Who intends this or that is an inadequate idea which does not even have the dignity of the best of human reasoning. Worse, the idea of God as a great Person permits men to oppress other men, and permits lazy thinkers to push their responsibilities for this Earth and its inhabitants on to a deity.

The multiverse is an example of a theory which men reason about with no reference to a God Who is a great Person. However it's possible to reason that there be eternal truths such as for instance mathematics.