Is there a real chance that there is a multiverse?

[ScienceAf]

I am intimidated by the fine tuning argument.  In the past I subscribed to the "god of the gaps" view, but now I am more sensible.  I believe, or want to believe, that the universe has a natural beginning and it makes sense to me that the universe probably went through a many versions before this one originated.
Are there any people here who believe in the multiverse, or at least think it is a viable option?


Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

There isn't a "chance" it is or it ain't.

We just don't know.
That's why we use science.

[bennyboy]

The universe is what in the what what?!?


Of course there is no bingo if you invent all new words...

Nothing for nothing but I think that's Boggle or Scrabble....never seen words form in Bingo but I'm sure it randomly happens.

A single universe is a single quantum (discrete measure of motion, spatial wave-form) of an infinite material singularity (infnite unified state, IUS, a"particle" with no boundary.)

The IUS is both infinite spatially and objectively "One" (there is no nothing else...not even nothing) so it's singular wave-form expression is infinite "ones" (an infnite plane of equal sized spheres) that contiues to "cavitate" planes of spheres in it's wake.

This is the first and only symmetry breaking needed. There is no impedence to the planar wavefront and it will continue to cavitate universes into being forever. That is the tenporal expression of infinity. The beginning of the metaverse is obviously not neccesarily the beginning of our universe within the metaversal sphere stack.

The universe is the "ex nihilo" like a vacuum/vapor bubble under water. reletive time-space is what was created and the prexistant matter is flung into similar quantum organization within the bubble. The first micro-quantum predicted by the spherical macro-universe is the spherical atom.  They are stble because the universe is stabiled by the pressence of the 12 universes around it and the flows of the IUS (now in super=symmetric motion) around and between the universal void spheres.  They flow around each sphere in exactly the same pattern governed by their contact points as vibrational nodes.  I have these to be predictive of sub-atomic anatomy and behavior like the pos and neg W bosons from a nuetral Z boson, and the inverese triple arrangement of quarks between protons and neutrons.

This is why the model is completely geometrically deterministic.  If the constants on one of these universes (which is the same for them all) can be found to match the constants we find in this universe, then the model, imho, is far more plausible than the Many Worlds metaversal theory of random universe production...and as a side bonus it puts to rest all intelligent design arguements.  Because it's completely unecessary.

In theological terms, the creation of a universe is actually a procreation.  The order and organization of the progenny is inhernent in the parent.  What was reproduced was individuality.  Which is why there are individual atoms, individual universes, individual creatures and individual awarenesses like you and I.  They are all (nested) holons of the original IUS.

I'm far from done exploring it, but I've been able to lay quite a bit of ground work already. Currently in the process of refining it. =)

Too many bullshit speculations couched in language normally reserved for statements of fact. Your 13 year-old girlfriends might be impressed by word salad, but people on these forums actually know what all the words mean, and that putting enough of them together in a text wall does NOT constitute a viable theory. At some point, you're going to have to support ANY of your rambling LSD-inspired points with something more real: like proof, evidence, or even simple logic.


Also, please note that this thread is in the "Science" section, and you are neither doing, nor talking about, science.

[Arkilogue]

Does anyone other than Arkilogue care about Arkilogue's musings on this subject?

Nope. That applies to all subjects.

Always looking for ways to stop wasting my time with people who don't care. Toodles.

---

Too many bullshit speculations couched in language normally reserved for statements of fact.  Your 13 year-old girlfriends might be impressed by word salad, but people on these forums actually know what all the words mean, and that putting enough of them together in a text wall does NOT constitute a viable theory.  At some point, you're going to have to support ANY of your rambling LSD-inspired points with something more real: like proof, evidence, or even simple logic.


Also, please note that this thread is in the "Science" section, and you are neither doing, nor talking about, science.

Is a sphere not simple enough for you? Is a plane of equal sized spheres not simple enough for you? You can make it with pennies. Is a stack of spheres not simple enough for you? Is within .5% of modern dark energy calculations not evidence enough for you? Is the prediction and evidence of CMB assymetry not good enough for you? Is the prediction of 3 densities of quarks and their antiquarks not good enough for you?

I've come to the sad conclusion few to none of you are able to think a new thought or in new ways. It's called entrainment.

Science section eh? Seems people shouldn't be asking questions in the science section, they should be posting peer reviewed artciles and the technical data of experiments. Discussion or consideration of new possiblities is not science.

[bennyboy]

Too many bullshit speculations couched in language normally reserved for statements of fact.  Your 13 year-old girlfriends might be impressed by word salad, but people on these forums actually know what all the words mean, and that putting enough of them together in a text wall does NOT constitute a viable theory.  At some point, you're going to have to support ANY of your rambling LSD-inspired points with something more real: like proof, evidence, or even simple logic.


Also, please note that this thread is in the "Science" section, and you are neither doing, nor talking about, science.

Is a sphere not simple enough for you?  Is a plane of equal sized spheres not simple enough for you? You can make it with pennies. Is a stack of spheres not simple enough for you? Is within .5% of modern dark energy calculations not evidence enough for you? Is the prediction and evidence of CMB assymetry not good enough for you? Is the prediction of 3 densities of quarks and their antiquarks not good enough for you?

I've come to the sad conclusion few to none of you are able to think a new thought or in new ways. It's called entrainment.

Science section eh?  Seems people shouldn't be asking questions in the science section, they should be posting peer reviewed artciles and the technical data of experiments.  Discussion or consideration of new possiblities is not science.

You aren't discussing or considering new possibilities. You are stating as fact bullshit which you couldn't possibly know to be fact. And yes, fucking right you should be posting peer reviewed articles. If you want to make positive assertions about the nature of reality, "Look, it's a circle. Isn't it pretty?" isn't sufficient support for your ideas.

Here's what you do, and I know your type well. You've managed to learn a few words, and may have even watched a couple science shows on Youtube. Then you think if you throw some of your words into long sentences, and use a convincing, authoritative tone, that a non-zero people won't be smart enough to realize that you're pulling shit out your ass. As I said, your 13 year-old girlfriends might be impressed by your grandiose verbiage, but people here know what words mean, and they know when you state a lot of shit with a total lack of evidence or support.

So yes. Link some real science. Link some facts. Show that you can do ANYTHING other than drop a few science words and a few geometrical figures and call it a system of thought. Dude, you're about 1 joint away from, "OMG! I live in room #314. All the circles converge on ME! I don't need to FIND the GTE, because I fucking AM the GTE!"

[AFTT47]

Is a sphere not simple enough for you?  Is a plane of equal sized spheres not simple enough for you? You can make it with pennies. Is a stack of spheres not simple enough for you? Is within .5% of modern dark energy calculations not evidence enough for you?

What isn't enough for us is that we don't hear anyone of any repute in the area of theoretical physics even caring enough about your assertions to even dismiss them. You're not even on the RADAR. You're just another crackpot.

Science is excellent at self-correction. If you are right, you will be vindicated as empirical evidence comes up to support your claims. It happened with Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift. As of now though, you don't appear to be any Alfred Wegener.

[Aractus]

I am intimidated by the fine tuning argument.  In the past I subscribed to the "god of the gaps" view, but now I am more sensible.  I believe, or want to believe, that the universe has a natural beginning and it makes sense to me that the universe probably went through a many versions before this one originated.
Are there any people here who believe in the multiverse, or at least think it is a viable option?


Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

There isn't a beginning (so-to-speak) of the universe as time is a property within the universe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh, please. Everyone knows polysyllabic vocabularies are truer.

Yes, that is self-ironic.

[Alex K]

Keep those peer-reviewed articles coming, Arki

[bennyboy]

Is a sphere not simple enough for you?  Is a plane of equal sized spheres not simple enough for you? You can make it with pennies. Is a stack of spheres not simple enough for you? Is within .5% of modern dark energy calculations not evidence enough for you?

What isn't enough for us is that we don't hear anyone of any repute in the area of theoretical physics even caring enough about your assertions to even dismiss them. You're not even on the RADAR. You're just another crackpot.

Science is excellent at self-correction. If you are right, you will be vindicated as empirical evidence comes up to support your claims. It happened with Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift. As of now though, you don't appear to be any Alfred Wegener.

Wegener looked at physical evidence, and arrived at a conclusion so revolutionary that people just couldn't accept it.  Arkilogue has looked at nothing except his own hallucinations, and arrived at a conclusion so imaginary that people just can't accept it.

The difference is that Wegener was doing science, and Arkilogue is making shit up because actually learning about things is harder than pretending to be clever.

[bennyboy]

Keep those peer-reviewed articles coming, Arki

If Arki has ever read even one peer-reviewed article, and can prove it, I'll eat it.