Parallel Universes point to the Existence of God

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Parallel Universes our interesting and they actually point to the necessity of God.

While reading David Deutsch book The Fabric of Reality, I came upon an interesting admission. Deutsch is a strong advocate of Parallel Universes.

He says one of the reasons why he was attracted to Parallel Universes is because they take away the power of the observer and the observer is not easily defined.

So, the Parallel universes would actually be making the decisions for the observers. So when you flip a coin and it lands on heads, that only occurs because in a parallel universe another version of you did the same thing and the coin landed on tails.

So the observer is regulated to a helpless bystander.

Parallel universes is wrong because of TIME.

Time is what points us to the existence of God.

In physics we know that time is relative to the obsever. So these local realities do not share the same local time.

In other words, these universes don't occur parallel to one another.

So you can have 2 events happen at different local times. So you can flip heads and there doesn't need to be a universe where you flip tails. Maybe a universe will form where that event occurs but it doesn't need to share the same local time.

This only can occur because there's a Grand Observer that's independent of time and can act outside of these realities.

I think bubble universes occur all the time but they don't share the same time because they are coming from a Grand Observer that's independent of the time within these local realities.

It's what Stephen Hawking calls real time and imaginary time. He said imaginary time is more real than the time that we experience.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by polomontana]




posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
An infinite number of monkeys theorizing into infinity will eventually arrive at the truth. It's gets frustrating watching them get a glimpse and then going off on some tangent where a truer picture of reality slips away from them.

No interference other than screaming from the nosebleed section will be done though. Hopefuly they'll hear the call.

'Nuff said.

Edit: The above comment isn't to be critical or anything. It just slipped out of my brain when I went to pick up my keys. The utmost affection for humanity was intended.


[edit on 8/4/2008 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by polomontana
 



Great post Polomontana, i just hope to god your not the type to imply that the creator of these universes is anything remotely like the fairytale homocidal maniac of the bible.

I would highly rcommend a book Conversations With God by Neale Donald Walsche, as a segue to your post, given your obvious intallect you may find it intersting.

If however your a christian , if you havent allready been tod you probably will be told not to ead it as its the work of satn or wizards etc.

Could it be then that we are infact the observer and the observed ? Of course you relise what this would imply?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Do you really want to limit "God" to being a Grand Observer, though? Because generally a couple of the fundamental qualities most people like to attribute to this entity are the abilities to choose and create. An Observer, something that sits back and allows all virtual possibilities to exist, isn't really doing anything. It's not acting to create the world, or deciding that a man should be "in his image" or in the image of a crawdad or something. An external Observer, which sees all virtual possibilities as equal, isn't going to listen to your prayers, or care whether you live or die. It's all the same.

This kind of God you're talking about is more like the "God with no name" of the Gnostics, which is infinite and so undefinable and incomprehensible to human beings that it might as well not exist, and in many ways doesn't exist in any way we could possibly understand.

Most people like their God to be more of a jolly Grandpa who lives in the clouds.


P.S. -- Just want to add... Parallel universes is an interesting concept except for one little thing. We only seem to exist in the one. We only have one point of view, not an infinite number. So if anything, it is our own consciousness, interacting with the consciousnesses of all other living things, that seems to define our reality. So we don't really need any kind of "God." This universe and reality seems to be "Do It Yourself."

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
An infinite number of monkeys theorizing into infinity will eventually arrive at the truth.
To quote Jorge Luis Borges, "Strictly speaking, one immortal monkey would suffice."


As to the OP, with an infinite number of universes, some percentage (another infinite number, by definition) would be lock-sync parallel in time to our own, while the rest could merely be concurrent, consecutive, running backwards or at right angles to our own time.

I don't really see God as being a requirement for any of the above.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Truth is god is a human archetype its not tangible, If you would like to broaden your perspective god per say, you could infer that the inter universe and all other reality's are god =D



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Do you really want to limit "God" to being a Grand Observer, though? Because generally a couple of the fundamental qualities most people like to attribute to this entity are the abilities to choose and create. An Observer, something that sits back and allows all virtual possibilities to exist, isn't really doing anything. It's not acting to create the world, or deciding that a man should be "in his image" or in the image of a crawdad or something. An external Observer, which sees all virtual possibilities as equal, isn't going to listen to your prayers, or care whether you live or die. It's all the same.

This kind of God you're talking about is more like the "God with no name" of the Gnostics, which is infinite and so undefinable and incomprehensible to human beings that it might as well not exist, and in many ways doesn't exist in any way we could possibly understand.

Most people like their God to be more of a jolly Grandpa who lives in the clouds.


P.S. -- Just want to add... Parallel universes is an interesting concept except for one little thing. We only seem to exist in the one. We only have one point of view, not an infinite number. So if anything, it is our own consciousness, interacting with the consciousnesses of all other living things, that seems to define our reality. So we don't really need any kind of "God." This universe and reality seems to be "Do It Yourself."

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Nohup]


First, nobody is trying to limit God, you are trying to limit the observer.

You tried to define an observer as one who just sits back and watches. This is the same mistake that's made with parallel universes. You want to limit the observer because what the observer points to.

The Grand Observer is within you. In other words,"ye are gods." Didn't you choose to create the post you wrote? We are Awareness experiencing Consciousness.

Consciousness is a product of decoherence. When decoherence sets in the observer becomes conscious of things.

We are an undivided whole experiencing it's parts. We know this through things like metaphysics as well as non-locality and entanglement.

So the whole goes from coherence (all possible states existing at once) to decoherence (one possible state being observed).

What you did was try to define reality in the terms of our local reality.

The math tells us that this is not the case. This is why physicist point to things like parallel universes, the multiverse, m-theory, string theory, extra-dimensions and more.

These things didn't come about because someone was writing a science fiction novel, it's where the math was pointing.

Think about the double slit experiment. Different possibilities can exist but one possibility is measured and observed by you. The mistake your making is trying to define reality within the context of the one possible state that your observing.

God is the Timeless Observer, we are observers bound by time in our local realities. We are the same thing. The Spirit of God is within you.

Why would you want to limit yourself, when there's limitless potential within?

[edit on 5-8-2008 by polomontana]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I think this begs elucidation of the (only seemingly unambiguous) concept of »observing«.
What EXACTLY does it entail?
Which part of the Mind (please, note that I am not referring to the brain) qualifies as »observing« as a (co)creative action?
What - which cognitive processes - does it take for such »observation« to reach critical mass and collapse a »time-line«?

Or, put differently, how and when does awareness (i.e. »sensing« it, as opposed to intellectual awareness or mere acceptance of the concept) of a parallel time-line reach the point of »observing« it?

Obviously, I am basing these questions on the assumption – just an assumption (for the sake of the argument) - that parallel time-lines not only exist but that the »I« inhabiting each one of them shares certain awareness with the selves inhabiting other time-lines.
(If it didn't, it wouldn't really be »I«, would it?)


Sorry if it sounds simplistic.
On the other hand, a theory, any theory, that cannot withstand "simplicity" is bound to be flawed.








[edit on 5-8-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Wouldn't the idea of parallel universes be contrary to the Bible in every way? So if Jesus died on the cross for our sins in this universe, then in another universe he was a pot smoking hippie, thereby causing everyone in that time line to suffer an eternity in hell. Also, if there were other versions of myself for example, would that mean that in this universe I go to hell, but in another universe, I go to heaven? Wouldn't that be akin to God flipping a coin on our eternal souls? Sorry but I don't buy that and I wouldn't buy it if I was a Christian either.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Wouldn't the idea of parallel universes be contrary to the Bible in every way? So if Jesus died on the cross for our sins in this universe, then in another universe he was a pot smoking hippie, thereby causing everyone in that time line to suffer an eternity in hell. Also, if there were other versions of myself for example, would that mean that in this universe I go to hell, but in another universe, I go to heaven? Wouldn't that be akin to God flipping a coin on our eternal souls? Sorry but I don't buy that and I wouldn't buy it if I was a Christian either.
The bible is complete junk, man made so its not very credible to how things could and actually are. No evidence that Jesus ever existed,all religion is and will be what it has always bin a political mind control tool for the masses.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
So parallel universes point to the existence of God.

But do parallel universes exist?

This thread is about using one theoretical object to prove another.

'The existence of the Yeti points to the existence of the Loch Ness Monster'.

Only on ATS...



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LeeHawt
 


Er... I agree. I think you misread my post. I'm an atheist, I was simply stating that if you do believe in the Bible, it would seem to contradict the idea of parallel universes.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Actually, none of this points to God.

Your OP is flawed because you're using an apparent incongruity with "parallel" that is itself made congruous precisely because time is relative.

A parallel universe doesn't have to exist relative to our own universe's time, precisely because time is relative.

There is no need for a grand observer to balance things out: relativity has shown that they are balanced already, because they're relative.

For example: one might argue that you could escape aging by traveling at near light speeds. After all, the faster you travel, the more you depart from "local" time. Let's assume that you jump aboard a space vessel that can travel at 99% of light speed. A mere year of your local time would equate to much, much more of local Earth time, so according to Earth time, you're actually living longer.

But here's where relativity comes into play. Based upon your local time aboard this spacecraft, you're living business as usual. You're aging as you normally would. You're not really gaining anything, relative to yourself.

Now switch back to Earth time....not only would it appear that you've lived longer, but it would also appear that you've lived slower. All of your actions, your movements, your words, would be slower in exact proportion to the apparent time you gained.

So it is truly relative. It automatically balances itself out. So you don't need a God to be a definitive "time keeper" in order to balance two apparently disparate local times.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


No, there has to be a Source of All Things in order for these things to exist. There has to be something independent of time dependent universes.

Science just gives God different names just like religion. They call it the Bulk in M-Theory, The Wave Function of the Universe in Quantum Cosmology, a superstring in string theory, hyperspace, superhologram, zero-point energy and MIT Professor Seth Lloyd calls the universe a quantum computer.

These are just different names for the Source of All Things. Religion does the same thing. They give the Source of All Things different names.

We can see some of the characteristics of the Source of All Things through things like quantum physics. We know this Source is everywhere at once. We know this Source contains all probable states, this Source would be All Powerful because it's not bound by time or things like the Uncertainty Principle.

This Source would know the position and velocity of every subatomic particle so it would know everything throughout the multiverse.

The Source would be Heaven so to speak and perfect Symmetry would be there. It would be total coherence. This would mean all energy states would be equal from each point of view. In the Source you would know everything because it's where every energy state exists.

If we go by what your saying thrashee, that would mean universes would pop up out of nothing at the same time. We know through things like non-locality and entanglement that everything is connected. When things get bigger so to speak the connection becomes less apparent and this is called decoherence.

Science looks at things like gravity for instance. Why is gravity so weak? Look at the magnet. All the gravity on earth can't pull a magnet to the ground. This small magnet on a fridge is more powerful than gravity.

It make sense when you talk about gravity sipping into our universe or brane from the bulk as Harvard Theoretical Physicist Lisa Randall talked about in her excellent book Warped Passages. Gravity would be diluted so to speak and spread out on different brane worlds and the bulk. Gravity would not be bound to these brane worlds like other subatomic particles. Gravity would be able to travel from brane to brane or different dimensions through the hypothetical graviton or gravity waves.

So religion and Science are both describing the Source of All Things. One calls Him God the other the wave function of the universe.

Think about your computer and your TV. There both made up of the same thing but there seperate in our eyes. It's like a puzzle and the puzzle pieces. The puzzle contains all of these pieces and paints a picture. When you remove the puzzle pieces then they are seperate and each piece is seperated from the whole.

That's like us. We are the pieces who are under the illusion that we are it. We lose our connection to the whole because of decoherence. The pieces are still connected by a Source or the Whole that would be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.

The Source would be aware also because the pieces are conscious of themselves.

This is why Deutsch likes parallel universes because it would take away the observer and all these events would have to occur at the same time because events in one universe are the cause of events in other universes. So if you flipped a coin and it was tails that would mean in a parallel universe another version of yourself would get heads.

With a time independent observer these two events do not need to happen parallel to each other because the observer can cause these events to occur without the opposite events happening in parallel universes and this is exactly what Deutsch and others want to avoid.

They can't describe the Observer and that sounds like God.



[edit on 19-8-2008 by polomontana]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
You know what is wrong with this theory? TIME

Its not real, it is just an illusion. Time is something we invented to help us describe and understand certain aspects of our lives, however it is not a set interger as it is subject to perception. It is a hard concept to grasp, but time is nothing more than a creation of man like the alphabet etc. It is not universal.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join