Is there more than one physical universe?

Greytraveller · July 03, 2003, 00:18:55

Lasher's post about a falling tree making or not making a sound has prompted me to share a curious Gedanken experiment. I thought the gedanken experiment up so will take the credit - or the blame- for it.

A hiker gets lost in a forest. He is out in this forest for several days and eventually runs out of food and water. Gradually he begins to succumb to the elements. On his final night, near exhaustion, he comes to a small clearing.
He has with him a tape recorder which he has used to keep a running account of his dilemma. As he records his thoughts on tape a fierce thunderstorm moves into the area. Minutes later a huge lightning bolt strikes a nearby tree sending it crashing to the ground. The lost hiker comments on tape that the tree fell nearby in the clearing.
The next day rescue workers find the body of the lost hiker who has died during the night. They play back his tape recording and listen to the lightning strike and the sound of the tree as it crashed to the ground.
But when they look out into the clearing they see that TWO trees have recently been struck by lightning. Both trees were knocked down by lightning strikes from the last night's storm. Yet only One lightning strike/tree fall was caught on the tape.
SO the question - if such a situation did exist then - if both trees fell in the forest and nobody was alive to hear them fall And only one tree fall was caught on tape then did either tree make a sound while falling[?]
If the answer is Yes, then which tree made the noise[?]

To my mind this Gedanken (or mind) experiment highlights the importance of repeatability in science. If 100 consecutive tree falls all make a recordable sound and if the next tree fall is not caught on tape then science (=observable and measurable phenomena) tells us that the last (unrecorded) tree fall Does make a sound.

JoWo · July 05, 2003, 16:05:15

Concerning Graytraveller's falling tree quantum physics has demonstrated that our act of observation "collapses" one specific reality out of an infinite number of probabilities. The infinite probabilities exist potentially in what I call multi-dimensional reality. We call an event not "real" if it may occur but has not occurred (yet). However, the possibility for such an event can be very real indeed. If I drive down the opposite lane of a super highway, the possibility of an accident is very real indeed, even if it does not occur. So we can postulate that an invisible reality exists "beyond" ours where all possible potential events exist as potentials, as probabilities. This abstract reality beyond ours is for instance described by the quantum wave function for a subatomic event. It tells us exactly the probability that a uranium atom will decay at any particular time, but it does not tell us when we will observe this event.
Quantum Metaphysics postulates that probabilities of events in our world do exist "for real". These probabilities exist in a reality that is transcendent to ours with many more dimensions than our three. It is a different reality than our space/time environment, but it is very real in its own way.

Coming back to Graytraveller's Gedanken experiment, a high probability existed for trees to fall. However, only when someone's consciousness experiences a tree-fall, only then does this fall become a reality in that person's reality. If there is no person's consciousness, then no observation occurs, and no noise exists in 3-D reality! We only believe that the trees made noise when we see them on the ground, based on past experience, but without the observation, the noise was not made real in our reality. Each one of us creates his own 3-D reality by observing his subset of a multi-dimensional reality of probabilities. The fact that we all tend to make similar observations is because our individual consciousness-es [

] are so similar.

Graytraveller asked, "if both trees fell in the forest and nobody was alive to hear them fall and only one tree fall was caught on tape then did either tree make a sound while falling? If the answer is Yes, then which tree made the noise?"
My answer is, both trees would have made a noise if a consciousness had heard them. However, only the one noise on the audiotape was made real in our 3-D world. The other tree's noise existed potentially in multi-dimensional reality but was not made real in our world because nobody listened. The first tree's noise was the one on tape and the only one made real through observation. The lost hiker said so on tape.

Jo.

Greytraveller · July 07, 2003, 23:11:58

Thanx for the response JoWo. Your answer had a refreshing combination of common sense backed by scientific method. Yet it leaves open the very real possibility that unseen realms/planes/dimensions Do exist.
Higher dimensions (higher than 3 dimensions that is) already Do exist for people who have had OBEs.
Higher dimensions exist as probabilities for quantum metaphysicists.
Yet higher dimensions exist only as mathematical constructs and working models for quantum physicists.
What I find frustrating is that a quantum physicist will not admit the (virtual) reality of higher diimensions although that same quantum physicist will use those same higher dimensions in mathematical equations to prove or disprove the various quantum theories.
The quantum metaphysicist is able to see beyond the limitations of the calculator and superstring theory and admit to a possibility of higher dimensions having an independant objective existence.
For most people who have had an OBE then scientific verification of objective higher dimensions would be Nice but is not absolutely essential. The ineffable nature of the OBE both verifies the validity of the experience And explains why science cannot (yet) directly or indirectly detect the existence of higher dimensions.

This has a connection to the Lost Hiker gedanken experiment. Consider the role of an observer. Consider the likely reactions of three different people who listen to the unfortunate hiker's tape recording. What would be the reaction (subjective bias?) of these 3 observers?

Observer 1 - the quantum physicist. He/she listens to the tape and concludes that there is only a mathematical probability of a falling tree making a noise. That probability is based on observation. Sound does not exist without observation. Because without observation ( = scientific measurement) sound is only a mathematical probability.
This follows the scientific method of measuring the state vector collapse of a photon. Without observation there is only a mathematical possibility of one of 2 states existing (either wave or particle).

Observer 2 - the quantum metaphysicist.. He/she hears the tape and appears to agree with the quantum physicist in that a falling tree making a sound is based on observation. However, to the quantum metaphysicist the objective reality of that sound is not necessarily dependant on whether that sound occured in this universe. A sound that occured in another universe (or higher dimension or alternate reality) could have a valid objective existence apart from an abstract mathematical formula.

Observer 3 - the non-scientist who has had an out of body experience. He/she hears the tape and probably concludes that both trees made a sound. Perhaps the tree fall that was not caught on tape made a sound in an alternate universe or a higher dimension/plane. This person does not need mathematical models or statistical probabilities to believe that such dimensions or planes do exist. It is true that this non-scientist could not provide verifiable proof to convince the (quantum) scientists. Yet observer 3, who has an OBE, realizes that experiental proof can and does replace the necessity of scientific proofs. And besides observer 3 realizes that the scientist or mathematician cannot disprove the validity of the OBE'ers own experience and so takes more than just a little satisfaction in that trade off.[

]

JoWo · July 10, 2003, 09:03:20

Hi Graytraveller,

I believe that my interpretation of your fallen tree Gedanken experiment is only possible based on the assumption that unseen realms/planes/dimensions Do exist. This is what I meant by multi-dimensional reality and this is EXACTLY what quantum metaphysics is about. You may find it worth your while to read my article "Revolution in Common Sense" in my website www.quantim-metaphysics.com. It explains in detail why the higher dimensions beyond our limited subset of three are very real indeed and how their reality is the basis of the life that we experience in 3-D. I agree with you, Graytraveller, that quantum physicists are "missing the boat" by denying that their abstract multiple dimensions correspond to an invisible reality.
I feel that we have an obligation to spread the word about our point of view, because this view leads directly and logically to the basic ancient wisdom that Adrian is talking about. Humankind appears to have lost contact with this inner knowledge and is heading towards disaster unless enough individuals stand up and reclaim this wisdom. I believe that this Forum and similar ones are very important by providing a platform for public discussion. The scientific and technical aspects are very interesting and challenging, but it is their deeper implication of leading us back to the spiritual (= multi-dimensional) nature of cosmic reality that is so urgent.

Jo.

P.S. I'll address the second part of your 08 July post later.

JoWo · July 10, 2003, 09:11:29

I just noticed that my website address is misspelled in the preceding text. The correct spelling is:

Greytraveller · July 10, 2003, 16:25:59

JoWo -
apparently I shortchanged you and other quantum metaphysicists somewhat. It is refreshing to see that you do believe higher dimensions/planes have an objecctive existence apart from mathematical models and eqations.
BTW - I do find the possibilities of quantum mechanics to be fascinating. (Example - quantum entanglemnet, 'the spooky action at a distance' and the possibility of faster than light communication and teleportation.) What I find annoying is the tendency of most scientist to arbitrarily dismiss personal experiences. In this way OBE report are just like Sasquatch sightings. Even though thousands of people have reported both going OOB and having seen bigfoot this area is considered pseudo-science and is conveniently skirted by most mainstream scientists.

JoWo · July 13, 2003, 22:00:48

Graytraveller,

One important conclusion of quantum metaphysics is that you will experience whatever you focus your attention to. Please, try not to focus on those scientists who are not yet ready to accept the truth that transcends their scientific understanding. This only enhances your frustration and perception of conflict. Instead, try to enjoy the many signs of progress towards understanding of multi-dimensional reality. You may find that you even gain a deeper understanding of your own experiences. My own awareness comes from an experience similar to OOB and my development of quantum metaphysics is based on it. However, don't take my word for it. Many scientists are now dedicated to breaking the "sound barrier" towards multi-dimensional reality. I have researched libraries and the Internet for such efforts and I have recently linked a selection of relevant websites to my site, www.quantum-metaphysics.com. Please, spread the word about these trailblazers and forget about the disbelievers. As you read more about quantum metaphysics, you will find that there is no basic difference between Observer 2 and Observer 3 of your 08 July post [

].

Jo.

punkyou · September 12, 2003, 20:44:14

quote:
Originally posted by General-Army

Is there other universes we would be able to travel to by using worm holes or something? I learned a few days ago that if you go in one direction through the universe you would eventualy come back around the other side and end up where you started, that could mean the universe is a circle. Then that could mean there are other universes next to ours that are only able to travel to using worm holes. Is this possible?

How is that possible? If the universe is expanding then what your saying is the universe should came back to point A?

JoWo · September 13, 2003, 12:53:43

Some scientific theories, as well as channeled messges, say exactly that: the universe is "breathing" in and out, eventually returning back to the "Big Crunch".
Jo.

Adrian · September 14, 2003, 09:05:54

Greetings everyone,

When we talk of "universes", we have to clarify whether we are talking about "physical" universes, i.e. of matter, or the entire universe in all of its dimensions of reality all the way from highest vibrations,lowest density of "The All", "First Cause" and other names of "God", down to the highest density, lowest vibrations of the undifferentiated matter.

I am aware some scientists say they universe will eventually contract upon itself. This might well be the case in conceptual terms, however, this is more likely to mean that the physical, Universe will increase its vibrations and move nearer to what is currently considered to be the fourth dimension or Astral worlds. Indeed, many sources believe this will happen to Earth very soon, the end of the Mayan calendar for instance is the year 2012. At the very final analysis, the universe is The All, and everything in the Universe is an integral aspect of The All. The All cannot be added to, subtracted from or otherwise divided in any way. It is the ultimate destiny to return to The All having reached a state of perfection and therefore vibration equalling The All. This is an infinite process however.

In terms of parallel universes, my understanding of the holographic model of the universe which I personally subscribe to provides for theoretically an infinite number of individual universes all co-existing in the eternal now, each with the same heirarchies. Each individual "cell" of a hologram contains the whole hologram. This is what in mystical terms means that we are in everything,and everything is in us; there is no way anything can be separate from the whole. The wisdom of the ages has said this for many millennia, the holographic metaphor of the universe of quantum physics totally agrees.

With best regards,

Adrian.

JoWo · September 15, 2003, 09:29:29

Excellent comments, Adrian! When we talk about expansion and contraction of the universe, we mean our physical, 3-D universe. That's what astronomers are talking about. However, viewed from the higher, spiritual reality, space and time do not exist and are "illusions". Therefore, the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not occurring at the level of "All-Entity", as I call the transcendent Whole of All-That-Is. However, according to Quantum Metaphysics and many channeled sources, The Whole and its parts are One. The difference is only in the point of view. Therefore, the Whole experiences whatever its parts experience. In fact, this appears to be the "purpose" of all creation, that the Whole/All-Entity/God experiences Its own potential through experiences within Its creations. This does not mean that the root essence of The Whole changes, which we can only vaguely describe as the Union of Love, Peace, Joy, Energy, Life, etc. However, The Whole does change "internally" continuously as an expression of life. Without this constant change, "God" would be dead.

Warm Greetings!
Jo.

jc84corvette · October 13, 2003, 19:16:39

I think there is many universals.

Leon · October 20, 2003, 06:25:15

quote:
Originally posted by General-Army

Is there other universes we would be able to travel to by using worm holes or something? I learned a few days ago that if you go in one direction through the universe you would eventualy come back around the other side and end up where you started, that could mean the universe is a circle. Then that could mean there are other universes next to ours that are only able to travel to using worm holes. Is this possible?

well, the idea of another dimension is the same as the idea of another universe. very complex, beause if you come up with proof of other universe (would be extremely hard to prove) would that mean that our universe is indeed not infinite? and if so is there an infinite number of other universes? the qustion was to be able to cross into other universes and safely return. being safe in the unknown is always unpredictable. getting back back would be nearly impossible. because if there was an infinite number of universes, how would you get back? what would be the rules on the planets in those universes? could one really defy gravity much more easily. if so, is ki easier to use there or not even possible. another idea is that every atom has universes much smaller than itself. and if thats true, we could be a mere speck on an atom of something much greater.

think about it.

JoWo · October 21, 2003, 20:49:25

Hello Leon,

You wrote that the idea of another dimension is the same as the idea of another universe. I would say that the idea of another dimension is the same as the idea of unlimited other universes. Think of a 2-D plane as a "universe" that may be populated with 2-D creatures a la Edwin Abbott*. For those creatures, the 2-D environment is all they know and all they can imagine. We from our 3-D point of view see, of course, that their 2-D universe is only one of an infinite number of possible other 2-D universes, because there are unlimited possible planes in 3-D space in any imaginable orientation. Do all these planes exist? Yes, they do potentially.

In the same manner we must assume that there are an unlimited number of possible 3-D universes within a 4-dimansional environment. We 3-D creatures are only aware of one 3-D universe, but there is no reason to believe that ours is the only one, since modern physics tells us that we actually live in a 4-D spacetime environment. Beyond that, quantum physics talks about even more dimensions.

Now, if another dimension means (at least) another universe, and since we know that other dimensions do exist, we know that other universes exist, right? Quantum physicists now generally accept this conclusion. This does not mean that our universe is limited. The other universes don't exist in the same 3-D space as ours and there is no "crowding" of universes in the same 3-D space. Rather, there are an unlimited number of 3-D universes in 4-D and higher-D environments. Our 3-D world is simply a subset of an n-D environment.

Yet, I hasten to say, even this scenario is still an illusion because any notion of dimensions implies that the transcendent Whole of Everything is divided. This appears true from our point of view, but it is not so from the Whole's point of view, which is the ultimate reality.

All this is hard to explain in a short forum post. If you are interested enough, Leon, you may want to visit my website or, better yet, read my book, Understanding the Grand Design: Spirituality's Inner Logic, referenced in my site.

Greetings!
Jo.

* See www.quantum-metaphysics.com / Quantum Metaphysics / Page 6

Beth · October 21, 2003, 21:02:12

JoWo,

Hi! I'm Beth...moderator in the Religion Forums. As I posted in the main thread, I am now venturing out to see what else is posted on the AP. This is a topic that I am very interested in. I haven't read your book yet (sorry I am in the midst of writing my own!!) but I have read Paul Davies, Amit Goswami and Fred Alan Wolf. I study early Judaism and early Christianity and I think that these early movements were primarily trying to teach about what we now know as the quantum world. I have applied the priniciples of quantum mechanics to my everyday life, and I have also had many astral experiences that I can only attribute to quantum realities.

On understanding multidimensional worlds, might I suggest "Flatlands--A Love Story"

It is about the 2-D world and it gives a good model to start understanding how different the perceptions would be to "move between" dimensions.

It will take me a while to catch up on the posts in this thread, but I look forward to exploring what has been posted. You will hear more from me soon![

]

Peace,
Beth

Leon · October 22, 2003, 06:28:36

Watup JoWo,

You said that the planes could be 2-D. It's a good idea but first of all, if that were true then wouldn't the size of our plane or universe be impossible? Secondly, if there are an infinite # of planes then it wouldn't matter if they were 2-D or 3-D, because if there are an infinite # of planes then there would need to be an infinite amount of space.

JoWo · October 22, 2003, 15:06:01

Hello Beth, welcome!

It is always nice to communicate with a kindred spirit [

]. I read a few of your recent posts in the Religion Forum and I wonder whether you ever considered a "shortcut" to the early Christianity teachings. During an online discussion of Quantum Metaphysics a few years ago, someone mentioned Carpenter's book, "Dialogue on Awakening: Communication with Jesus." As with all channeled messages, you have to make up your own mind about the authenticity of the source. For me, the book's contents match perfectly my own spiritual experience and understanding, and they are an enlightened extension of Quantum Metaphysics. It is fascinating how far off contemporary church doctrines are from what I consider Christ's message.

Concerning your Flatlands note, I referenced Edwin Abbott Abbott's early 20th century book "Flatland" in my writings for an explanation of multi-dimensional reality. Using such analogies, it is possible to postulate logic relationships between dimensional levels, which provide explanations of quantum events and ultimately lead to the basic tenets of all world religions.

I am looking forward to compare more notes with you [

].

Greetings!

Jo.

JoWo · October 22, 2003, 15:45:30

Hi Leon,

I am trying to understand your train of thought, it feels like we are not talking about the same concept. Perhaps my following comments will help.

Planes are 2-D, they not only could be 2-D. Two dimensions means two degrees of freedom to proceed. Even a warped plane has only two dimensions, because within the plane you can proceed only in two independent directions.

Why would the size of our universe be impossible? Perhaps you are using the word 'plane' for what I call 'dimensional level'. In the terminology that I was using, a plane = 2-D is on the two-dimensional level. Our 3-D space is on the three-dimensional level. Einstein's spacetime is on the four-dimensional level and I believe that even higher multi-dimensional levels exist.

There are an infinite number of 2-D planes within 3-D space. A hypothetical 2-D creature experiences only its particular 2-D world, even though this 2-D world exists in a 3-D environment from our point of view. Similarly, we experience only three space dimensions out of a potentially higher dimensional environment that we do not perceive directly.

Would you mind elaborating your comments, Leon, so that I catch on? Thanks [

].

Jo

Leon · October 23, 2003, 06:30:00

ok ill enlighten you on my train of thinking.

im thinking 2-D meaning 2 Dimensional. height and length. 3D meaning height length and width. so my use of 2D, the size of the universe to what you said would be impossible because it has depth.

my question. if the number of planes is infinite then the entirety of the existing planes could be a part of something much geater.

JoWo · October 23, 2003, 13:16:50

You must have misunderstood, Leon. I see no reason why a 2-D plane could not extend across the entire universe. I did say that a hypothetical creature whose life is totally restricted to a 2-D environment cannot imagine a 3-D environment. By the same token, we 3-D human creatures know life only in 3-D space and cannot imagine a 4-D environment. This whole scenario has already been used by other authors to discuss the concept of multi-dimensionality, as Beth mentioned in a preceding post.
If you would like to debate this subject further, Leon, it would be very helpful if you could read the appropriate paragraph in my website (see article "Revolution in Common Sense"). It would put our conversation on a common denominator.

Concerning your second statememt in your recent post, Leon, an infinite number of planes are of course part of something much greater (as is everything else in this world [

])

Jo.

Leon · October 24, 2003, 06:03:18

that's what i thought about the universes being apart of something much, just making sure.

I'll check that out. I'll return to this topic when I'm ready to continue the debate.

until then, [

][8D]

JoWo · October 24, 2003, 09:34:43

Good talking to you, Leon [

].

Jo

General-Army · June 09, 2003, 16:35:41

Is there other universes we would be able to travel to by using worm holes or something? I learned a few days ago that if you go in one direction through the universe you would eventualy come back around the other side and end up where you started, that could mean the universe is a circle. Then that could mean there are other universes next to ours that are only able to travel to using worm holes. Is this possible?

RealmExplorer · July 21, 2006, 20:18:37

Quote from: Greytraveller on June 14, 2003, 18:34:06
Everett's 1957 Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) was his explanation of the Superposition of the 2 states of a photon.
His theory goes - Science cannot measure a single photon as both particle and wave. (For this example assume the photon has been measured as a particle.) Everett saw the wave aspect of that Photon as still existing. But the wave existed in a Superposition in another dimension/alternate universe) with the particle of the same photon.
So Everett did not intend to spark speculation into alternate universes, parallel worlds and many different timelines. Yet that has been the result nonetheless.
Now if this forum were on a strictly scientific website then I would not mention this but -
The idea of alternate universes/parallel worlds fits Very neatly into the concept ot the ethereal plane(s) (and astral plane(s)). Though this was undoubtedly about the farthest thing from Everett's mind and not his intention yet nonetheless one result of MWI has been to nudge the scientific and spiritual/esoteric/metaphysic communities closer together.

My interpretation is that Light (Matter) exists only in true reality as a wave. "The modern theory that explains the nature of light is wave-particle duality, described by Albert Einstein in the early 1900s, based on his work on the photoelectric effect and Planck's results. Einstein determined that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency."

And that's absolutely true about the energy of a photon. And, depending on when the optimum quantum decoherence occurs, based upon environmental polarity and gravity, it is "transmuted", or experienced, as a particle. The reality we experience as three dimensional reality is the most optimum quantum superposition of all quantum decoherences at any given point.

WindGod · July 22, 2006, 20:50:09

Quote from: General-Army on June 09, 2003, 16:35:41
Is there other universes we would be able to travel to by using worm holes or something? I learned a few days ago that if you go in one direction through the universe you would eventualy come back around the other side and end up where you started, that could mean the universe is a circle. Then that could mean there are other universes next to ours that are only able to travel to using worm holes. Is this possible?

People, help me out here please?
There are 2 replies to General-Army BEFORE this was posted.

thanks........ (Twilight Zone music background... do dee do dee, do dee do dee,)

News:

Is there more than one physical universe?