Can We Access Parallel Universes Through Theories of Dimensional Avenues?

[phoenixthoth]

while i think the very name is a misnomer, let me appeal to your intuition on what that means: parallel universes.

what theoretical thoughts are there on accessing and penetrating and crossing over into parallel universes, if they exist?

thanks.

phoenix

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
while i think the very name is a misnomer, let me appeal to your intuition on what that means: parallel universes.

what theoretical thoughts are there on accessing and penetrating and crossing over into parallel universes, if they exist?

thanks.

phoenix

Well, it's generally thought that it is impossible to enter a parallel Universe, since it would be separated from us by absolutely nothing at all, but would be incapable of any energetic reaction. IOW, there'd be no space between the two Universe's but they would still remain distinct.

 

[phoenixthoth]

let me make a proposition, a conjecture:

consciousness is the vehicle for crossing into parallel universes.

i've been told that we cross over ALL THE TIME wihtout being aware of it. there is no scientific way to prove or disprove this as far as i can tell, except, perhaps, within the realm of psychology, which is in its infancy, unfortunately. right now, it's about labelling and categorizing and not understanding.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[FZ+]

You mean perpendicular universes? The "parallel" wording is very misleading, and unrepresentative of the scientific theory that created it. Multiple universes - if they exist - do not run alongside like train tracks.

 

[phoenixthoth]

well the discussion forum itself uses the term "parallel dimensions." talk to the administrators about changing that to orthogonal universes within a multiverse separated by p-branes or whatever else you feel like calling it at the moment. I'm just trying to speak in your language so that you'll understand me.

the lable is a minor detail not leading one into insight on the matter. what do you think of the CONJECTURE?

consciousness i define as being our vehicle for perceiving, processing, and, "finally", understanding reality. and in the conjecture i propose that consciousness can penetrate the barriers to coexisting universes.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what do you think of the CONJECTURE?

consciousness i define as being our vehicle for perceiving, processing, and, "finally", understanding reality. and in the conjecture i propose that consciousness can penetrate the barriers to coexisting universes.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

One possible problem with this is that consciousness is directly tied to sensory experience, (according to most philosohpies). One property of parrallel universes (of the type described in the Everett interpretation) is that a cause from one universe can have no physical effect in any other universe. Your appear to be proposing the idea of circumventing this limitation by using a non-physical form of detection, namely "consciousness". But if consciousness is largely based on the effect of physical phenomina on the senses, this penetration of barriers to a coexisting universe would fall outside its range of abilities.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i agree that consciousness is largely influenced by sensory data. for example, a baby born with complete sensory deprivation would have an entirely different consciousness to ours. i wonder what it would be like (not a young question).

i find it interesting to note that by daydreaming, the body gets fooled into thinking it is really happening. arousal, for example.

leads me to CONSIDER the possibility that there's more to it than what our senses tell us; in some sense, imagination and dreams are "real." what is that tool we have that knows the difference between a dream and reality? what if that tool gets lost or ignored? (I've had dreams that were lucid and felt real and I've had waking experiences that felt like dreams...)

would there be differnent laws of nature within the "parallel dimensions" or who is to say they would be? we haven't been there, after all. maybe gravity repels in other universes.

can someone out there explain to this layman what causality violation is in layman terms?

thanks.

phoenix

 

[garys_2k]

The type 3 multiverse is suggested to be in the quantum domain and is responsible for some of the weirder two-slit experimnet results. Those where a single particle at a time are sent through two slits and we STILL see interference patterns. It is suggested that similar particles in other universes are interacting with our single particle to make those interference patterns.

 

[FZ+]

the lable is a minor detail not leading one into insight on the matter

Er... no. The label, or rather sorting out the distracting connotations of it, is a fundamentally important part of understanding Everett's many worlds hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on the idea that the universe branches into two universes at right angles to each other with every quantum interaction, and interfere with each other ONLY at that moment to produce the probabilistic effects, so that the superposition exists. After the event, the universe-branches continue to spawn more universes and so on, remaining completely separate. To allow interuniversal travel in the Everett universe, it is necessary to travel back in time to the original event, and then go on to the other branch.

At any point, an almost infinite number of universes exist and your consciousness is restricted each to the appropiate copy of you on each universe.

Yes, I know parallel universes is more or less the common term now. But it is very important to know the deceptive nature of the wording.

 

[KennethV]

I started a thread dealing with a similar topic. I too am interested in the ways consciousness ties with space, time, and beyond. Good points about the rewording of parallel (which i even used in my thread, mostly because those words are more commonly associated).

The universes I think are at more of a skew then a right angle though, given the chaotic randomness most things interact with.

 

[raidan1]

super gravity and string theory explain the 11th dimension(parallel universes)and the other 10 dimentions, but super gravity and string theory do not explain why or how these "other" universes came to be EXCEPT ours.yet again the "big bang" could have started a multiverse and the shockwave causeed smaller "big bangs" creating ours and parallel universes.and one thing is, if the multiverse big bang is true then what is holding the multiverse.if u think it could end up being infinite universes all starting with a BIG bang...sorry 4 gettin off the subject

 

[mrmaster]

View from a 90 degree angle



Parallel is of course incorrect. Dimensional avenues being discussed exist but in a more complex fashion. Classic X Y Z axis time and dimensional points assume fixed point interpretation and observation. Again, fundamentally incorrect. Observation and existence rely in reality upon a sliding bubble of linearity which moves along those axis constantly in lesser and greater degrees of fluctuation. The supposed fixed point is only true in a relativistic sense. Time travel is in fact constant. The perception of linear motion is in fact a fallacy because while time, in fact does not move backward per se, the supposedly fixed points of the past become fluid in a relative term, since a moving fixed point of present will change the outcome of all axis in all directions. Accept this as a fact. The question afforded is a simple one, Control?