Grace wrote:Wouldn't it be great if two parallel universes could intersect?

Have you read the definition of 'parallel'?

rainbow wrote:

Grace wrote:Wouldn't it be great if two parallel universes could intersect?

Perhaps.
...but would this result in little baby universes?

Have you read the definition of 'intersect', what you are talking about is the 'union' of two universes.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

rainbow wrote:... if we are to take Hiesenberg at his word, the mere act of observation of a sock may cause it to change position.

Not to CHANGE position, but would cause its wave function to COLLAPSE into one of an infinite number of possible positions. i.e. the sock is in a super position inside the dryer. Once you open the dryer, the wave function of the sock collapses into one of its possible positions, like an orbit around Uranus.

You always explain it so much better.

crank wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Grace wrote:Wouldn't it be great if two parallel universes could intersect?

Perhaps.
...but would this result in little baby universes?

Have you read the definition of 'intersect', what you are talking about is the 'union' of two universes.

It is possible that they could have Extradimensional Protuberances which could intersect.

If the lens effect were true, parallel lines could intersect. Just because an optical illusion appears to be true doesn't mean it is true.

Grace wrote:If the lens effect were true, parallel lines could intersect. Just because an optical illusion appears to be true doesn't mean it is true.

Indeed however just because it is an illusion, that doesn't prove that it is false.

The lens effect isn't an illusion, it's a result of space being non-Euclidean. The parallel postulate only holds in Euclidean geometry.

Thanks hackenslash, just checking...

Perfectly natural magnification

I think an optical illusion is just something that you perceive in a way that isn't real, like the water on the road mirage, isn't that considered one? Some lensing effect images are relatively natural looking, but with the right geometry/conditions, they get splattered out all over the place, including a full ring. The necker cube and eschers are illusion of a different kind altogether.

Move, no. Visit out of curiosity? Yes

dalv8409 wrote:Would you do it or would you continue to live in this universe?

Depends, I suppose, on your cosmology. In mine, black holes are universes as seen from the outside, and our own universe is a black hole in its parent universe. Therefore, the only way you can reach another universe is to fall into a black hole,and become a tiny bit of dark energy in the associated universe. Not something I would recommend! (See the thread on "Loop Quantum Gravity".)

klazmon wrote:Multiple/parallel universes is nonsense term. It is a logical contradiction of the meaning of the word universe, namely 'all that exists'.

I suggest that "all that exists" is not necessarily just this particular big bang, with its attendant space, containing planets, stars and galaxies. I also suggest that the simplest way to avoid blinkering cosmology is to define the "multiverse" as "all that exists", and the "universe" as "all that exists in this space" (See the thread on "Loop Quantum Gravity" for more details.) Otherwise, we'll all get tied in knots with language.

Actually, David, Klazmon is not advocating the position that our local cosmic expansion is all that there is, but that whatever there is, it's part of the same 'universe', because that's what the word means. There is and can be only one universe, whether that one universe extends beyond our local cosmic expansion or not.

hackenslash wrote:Actually, David, Klazmon is not advocating the position that our local cosmic expansion is all that there is, but that whatever there is, it's part of the same 'universe', because that's what the word means. There is and can be only one universe, whether that one universe extends beyond our local cosmic expansion or not.

OK, but I still think that we should accept that the word "universe" should continue to mean only the space we are in, so that any hypothesis that involves things beyond that should require a new word, such as "multiverse". Otherwise, confusion will surely reign! The word's meaning is surely already too well established, and the new word's meaning is clear enough. To put it another way, normal use should always trump etymology.

I disagree entirely, not least because it's what the word means, and always did. Words like 'multiverse' for entities that are only hypothesised with nothing by way of supporting evidence are wandering into the realm of metaphysics, and are entirely superfluous when we already have a perfectly serviceable word that has always meant what it still means. The word's meaning is indeed already well established, and was established long before the idea of other cosmic expanses were even fantasised about, and encompassed them for all of that time.

It might be worth checking out the post I linked to on the first page of this thread, in which I detail the reason for the usage, and the logic behind it. If you have any interesting logical objections after having read it, I'll be happy to look at them.

[quote='"hackenslash"]Words like 'multiverse' for entities that are only hypothesised with nothing by way of supporting evidence...[/quote]

No evidence, my foot! See the LQG thread. One big bang doesn't even make sense, because a natural big bang shouldn't be unique; complex biochemistry shouldn't be a strange fluke; a large imbalance between matter and antimatter shouldn't have occurred (so there shouldn't be anything but black holes and radiation left; there shouldn't be dark matter, dark energy... and you think there's no reason to propose a better cosmology?

I agree completely, except for the suggestion that there is evidence. I have read the LQG thread, thanks, and my point stands, and you haven't presented a logical objection to my detailed explanation of why the word means what it means. Until you do that, you don't actually have an argument, because it's what the word means.

DavidMcC wrote:
No evidence, my foot! See the LQG thread. One big bang doesn't even make sense, because a natural big bang shouldn't be unique; complex biochemistry shouldn't be a strange fluke; a large imbalance between matter and antimatter shouldn't have occurred (so there shouldn't be anything but black holes and radiation left; there shouldn't be dark matter, dark energy... and you think there's no reason to propose a better cosmology?

There is a very popular cosmological model around at the moment called eternal inflation, in which there are multiple instances of expanding patches such as the one we find ourselves in. It doesn't invoke anything as radical or tentative as LQG, just bog standard scalar-field driven inflation.

hackenslash wrote:I agree completely, except for the suggestion that there is evidence. I have read the LQG thread, thanks, and my point stands, and you haven't presented a logical objection to my detailed explanation of why the word means what it means.

Pardon me, but I listed several reasons for rejecting ''one universe" cosmology and a reason why Smolin's "fecund universes" cosmology (based on my extension of his version of LQG) allows for a simplification of physics in the generation of a multiverse by LQG concepts.
As for your definition of "universe", it presupposes that everything is fine with your cosmology, which obviously isn't the case, because, in a recent talk, Smolin himself pointed out that there has been no real progress in various aspects of fundamental physics for about 30 years. Think about it.
'

twistor59 wrote:There is a very popular cosmological model around at the moment called eternal inflation, in which there are multiple instances of expanding patches such as the one we find ourselves in. It doesn't invoke anything as radical or tentative as LQG, just bog standard scalar-field driven inflation.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I don't see why it is less tentative than LQG. It is merely trying to rescue a failed model by making it yet more complicated. An LQG multiverse actually simplifies the physics of the multiverse - eg, there is no need to add the "Cosmological Constant" term to GR, or postulate mysterious, undetectable particles that don't fit with any theory of particle physics. As I have already said, I take such extra terms are evidence of interacting spaces, in other words, an indication that we're ignoring some universes.

DavidMcC wrote:Pardon me, but I listed several reasons for rejecting ''one universe" cosmology and a reason why Smolin's "fecund universes" cosmology (based on my extension of his version of LQG) allows for a simplification of physics in the generation of a multiverse by LQG concepts.
As for your definition of "universe", it presupposes that everything is fine with your cosmology, which obviously isn't the case, because, in a recent talk, Smolin himself pointed out that there has been no real progress in various aspects of fundamental physics for about 30 years.

And here you're back to the already shredded assumption that when I use the word 'universe' I am talking about that which arose from the Big Bang. The simple fact is that LQG is only one model amongst many, all of which are empirically equal at this point.

Think about it.

I've given it a good deal of thought, thanks, and you still haven't addressed the post I discussed, or in fact even read it, based on the above misunderstanding, because you wouldn't still be under the misapprehension concerning what is being referred to if you had, because it's all dealt with therein.

Again, unless you have a valid logical objection to the content of that post, you don't actually have anything. Let me know when you've read it and understood the points made, ad then maybe we can make some progress. We can make none until then. I'll link it again for your convenience.

hackenslash @ If a intelligent creator is discarted, what is left ?