Other universes?

i resent that...im a high school kid and although i can barely grasp the theories and statements given in these forms i still learn alot from them and give my share of opinions!...and just so u kno every term given in here i dont kno i look up ...so i do take the time to learn about what i am talking about :wink: haha...im not mad or nething just lettin u know ALL kids arnt half as bad as people think they are

Re: Other universes?


I think they almost have to, based upon our limited but progressing understanding of the big bang and leading edge theoretical physics.

I like the idea of membranes in M-Theory which allows for multiple realities that are internally consistent with their own rules of existence, sometimes these realities may go bump in the night and form a new, different combined reality with new laws of existence. Such a creation event may start with a big bang.

A deeper thought is all these realities may or may not dance around obeying some far more grand metascience that goes well beyond a propsed grand unified theory (GUT) of everything for our reality. What I am say is maybe there aren't grand unifying rules on a membrane (multiverse) level; maybe a system of too much complexity has rules so dynamic and extensible governing it that it changes the rules all the times. As a mathematican that intrigues, appeals and excites my thinking and is in line with experience from pure mathematics. It leads to a not even God can know everthing outcome. A hyper complex system may be characterised by the fact it cannot be be able to be fully defined by a complete set of rules.

I must go back through the recent points of view, if there are specific challenges or questions to Einstein's work I may be able to answer them clearly.

i disagree, i see the "laws" of physics, etc. as simply the way things are, and have to be in order to work; they are not 'magic' they simply make sense, and allow interactions to occur with some predictability; and they most definitely where NOT 'designed'.

so i see this universe as an example of 'universeness', and would expect one that is a giga maxtillion light years from us, completely beyond our observations, to be basically similar in 'nature' but different in content.

[but the evidence is scant!]

I am 99% in agreement with the likelihood that everything that occurs in our Pocket Of Space Time and the physical laws that determine their very specific interactions were not designed. They are just as they are because to have it any other way would mean there was something outside of the laws of physics, of space, and of time, that predated everything there is existing in a void of nothingness for an eternity. Since it seems so illogical to fathom an eternal existence in a void of nothingness prior to creating what we observe as the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc then we must accept the laws of nature as naturally occurring.

But then there is the 1 percent that sees the perfection in a planetary orbit that can give us an almost perfect lunar and solar eclipse, or an orbit of our planet that is positioned far enough away from our sun yet close enough that something as simple as a tilted axis could give us the seasons that produce snow storms and sun showers, or the laws of physics related to refraction that can produce a rainbow, or electromagnetical imbalances that can create lightning bolts, or an ecosystem that develops to allow oxygen, carbon dioxide, photosynthesis, evaporation, and condensation to create an abundance of life that requires a microscope to comprehend. When I think of things like rainbows and almost perfect solar eclipses I realize that not only is our world infinitely complex but it is also wondrous beyond reason which leaves that 1 percent open to question how an infinite universe can create such coincidental perfections not having a master design in play.

So I lean towards the 99% percent likelihood with an open mind looking through rainbow colored glasses.

I've not had time to read the whole thread so I am not sure whether anyone has raised the the issue of the meaning of "exist".
For me, that which "exists" is that with which "we can interact".
Therefore if "the laws of physics" are different in such hypothetical universes and bar interaction, the question of "existence" becomes problematic.
However I have also said (elsewhere) that even though I call myself "an atheist" according to my definition "God exists" because I interact with "the concept". The difference between myself and "a believer" lies in the nature of the interaction. Thus "other universes" might "exist in conceptual form" if they fulfil some interactive "need" in myself or others.

Later edit.

Glancing above I see that "existence" is talked about independent of "an observer". Unless we are prepared to adopt Berkely's solution that "all is observed by God" I maintain that existence without an observer (interactor) is meaningless.

Agreed, but I still think that our physics the universe is more than we can understand or model with the current platforms we have.

We can't yet explain why our 100 or so physical constants are so precisely tuned to exactly where they are. Even a miniscule difference in the mass of a neutron or proton - say 2% lighter or heavier and life wouldn't exist in the Universe.

So are we lucky or can in some realities these physics constants vary? If so other realities may exist and our science has a long way to go.