It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is All Fiction a Reality in Parallel Universes?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Hi there,

This is only my second thread here so I hope this is good enough to add as a topic of interest.

I'm a 35 year old English guy who has a deep interest in our reality, why it is the way it is and so forth. I think it’s a common question to ask and a central one of all intelligence, why are we here and what is our purpose.

Having spent most of my adult life reading about advances in technology and science I believe we are close to uncovering an ultimate truth.

That truth will be both enlightening and also deflating at the same time, as I believe the answers to the questions above are that we are not as special as many may think, that we are not a chosen group of individuals that God has entrusted his likeness onto and that there are an infinite number of parallel universes out there.

Where does the concept of a parallel universe come from??

I guess it all started back in 1935 with a chap called Erwin Schrödinger who formulated the now famous gedanken experiment known as Schrödingers Cat.


Schrödinger wrote:


One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid.

If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.


Source: - SCHRÖDINGER'S CAT PARADOX PAPER



[edit on 17-1-2010 by Korg Trinity]




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   


Now this got me thinking... and it appeared after some research it got a lot of people thinking, including one Hugh Everett III who proposed that the wave function of the Schrödingers cat experiment did not in fact collapse when an observer looked upon the subject but it was a split off point where the universe split into two one where the cat was dead and another where the cat was alive. This is where the concept of many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics originally came from.




Many-worlds is a re-formulation of quantum theory [1], published in 1957 by Dr Hugh Everett III [2], which treats the process of observation or measurement entirely within the wave-mechanics of quantum theory, rather than an input as additional assumption, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett considered the wavefunction a real object.

Many-worlds is a return to the classical, pre-quantum view of the universe in which all the mathematical entities of a physical theory are real. For example the electromagnetic fields of James Clark Maxwell or the atoms of Dalton were considered as real objects in classical physics. Everett treats the wavefunction in a similar fashion. Everett also assumed that the wavefunction obeyed the same wave equation during observation or measurement as at all other times. This is the central assumption of many-worlds: that the wave equation is obeyed universally and at all times.

Everett discovered that the new, simpler theory - which he named the "relative state" formulation - predicts that interactions between two (or more) macrosystems typically split the joint system into a superposition of products of relative states. The states of the macrosystems are, after the subsystems have jointly interacted, henceforth correlated with, or dependent upon, each other. Each element of the superposition - each a product of subsystem states - evolves independently of the other elements in the superposition.

The states of the macrosystems are, by becoming correlated or entangled with each other, impossible to understand in isolation from each other and must be viewed as one composite system. It is no longer possible to speak the state of one (sub)system in isolation from the other (sub)systems. Instead we are forced to deal with the states of subsystems relative to each other. Specifying the state of one subsystem leads to a unique specification of the state (the "relative state") of the other subsystems.


Source: - THE EVERETT FAQ

Basically put, for every possible outcome the universe splits off into parallel universes where every possible event happens.



What we are stating here is that there are universes where you are the one reading this thread and then there are other universes where you were the one writing these very words just as you are reading them...

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
In my humble opinion there can be no such thing as fiction. If you can imagine it there must be some existence to it somewhere somehow. Thoughts are not just random accidents.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

But it goes further than that, because the total number of potential outcomes when taking into account all the variables that occurs within the total known universe.


What is infinity?? Well many people think infinity is really very large number... but in fact infinity isn’t a number at all. You can take infinity and add 1 to it and it is still infinity, if you add 1 and then take away half of it, it still is the same. So what do an infinite number of parallel universes mean??
It means that anything and everything that you or I or anyone else can image has and is occurring in some parallel universe somewhere.

So surely that means there are universes out there where the characters that you read about in the books are real, and maybe they are reading a story about you? Maybe that also means that the games we play and the films we watch are also real in a parallel universe somewhere?

So next time you read a story or even write one, watch a film or play a game, just think to yourself that the characters somewhere out there are real and you are their fiction.

All the best,

Peace out,

Korg.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Why does everything have to be fiction? I don't understand what you are trying to say. In a parallel universe everything has a probebility of happening and nothing is impossible. So everything that can happen happens in one of the parallel universes.

simple.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
As a semi-believer in parallel universes I believe it is impossible that all fiction could be a reality.

If there are parallel universes there may be some matches between fictional ideas and the reality of that universe but simply all fiction being reality is not feasible.

There would have to be an infinite number of universes. All of which contain the same people, places and things that this universe contains.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by colloredbrothers
Why does everything have to be fiction? I don't understand what you are trying to say. In a parallel universe everything has a probebility of happening and nothing is impossible. So everything that can happen happens in one of the parallel universes.

simple.


No you are missing the point and there was no way you could have read the entire post in the time it took to reply, so maybe go back a re-read to get the point.. if not then I will explain again lol ;p

simply put, I'm saying that all fiction is real somewhere in the infinate parallel universes that exist according to Everett.


Originally posted by Jedi411
There would have to be an infinite number of universes. All of which contain the same people, places and things that this universe contains.


You're thinking too big.

If there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of possible configurations of matter down to the quantum states and positions.

This means that whatever configuration of matter it would take to make say star wars a reality must in fact if there are an infinite number of realities be a reality if you follow me


Peace out,

Korg.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Double Post Sorry

Korg.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I had a dream once where I was trying to make a similar case. In it, I argued that every work of fiction happened on some other world/ reality and that the author of the work actually saw that work through a thinning of reality. I have strange dreams sometimes.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I read somewhere that dreams maybe a quantum flux state where consciousness is in itself in superposition and thus able to exist on multiple realities at the same time.. This is where the paper stated dreams came from, it was ages ago and I lost the link.

I'll try and find it.

all the best,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
I had a dream once where I was trying to make a similar case. In it, I argued that every work of fiction happened on some other world/ reality and that the author of the work actually saw that work through a thinning of reality. I have strange dreams sometimes.


Found something along the lines, though this is not the paper I read it is close enough and a very interesting read.


n the one hundred years since the beginning of the science of the unconscious in Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, there is very little that has changed in that science. It was Freud’s dream that this new science, which he called psychoanalysis, would someday take its place among the other sciences, with which it could be freely integrated.

The problem that has frustrated attempts to integrate psychoanalysis with the rest of science is this fundamental principle of mind: Unconscious events are not observable. And what kind of scientific principle is this, that there are certain events that cannot be observed?

There is only one such principle in all of science, and that is the principle of the quantum wavefunction. The quantum wavefunction cannot be observed, it can only be inferred from observable data. The quantum wavefunction cannot be observed because it is a superposition of possibilities. Only one possibility out of all the possibilities of the wavefunction can be observed.

If we observe the same wavefunction over and over again, we will eventually sample the full range of possibilities, and be able to determine the frequency of occurrence of each one. In this way, we can infer the wavefunction, y , from the observable data. Everything that we observe arises out of the possibilities of the quantum wavefunction of the universe.

The process of consciousness arising out of the unconscious is the very same process as the process of observation of the wavefunction. This leads to the inescapable conclusions that the unconscious is the wavefunction, and that consciousness is what we call reality. But the events of the unconscious are no less real than the events of consciousness. The possibilities of the wavefunction are real.


Source: - On the Quantum Psychodynamics of Dreams

Peace out,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Imaginnaaaaaaaaation land........Southpark anyone?
I'm not buying what you or Hugh is selling. Live cat/dead cat....It's a cartoon, not reality. Just as the things that I do and decisions I make are reality. The things I don't do and things I decide against do not happen and therefore are not reality. We can all play in imagination land all we want, but at the end of the day, we still end up in boring ol reality...sux don't it



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Can't say taht i yet buy into the multiverse theory. Especially the many worlds interpratation. Theres just to much fancy mathematics.

At this point any multiverse is nothing more than mathematical construct.

Anyway I just did a thread about the multiverse aswell


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dangerish
but at the end of the day, we still end up in boring ol reality...sux don't it


The question really is did you decide to do or not to do or did you just do because you had no choice or free will?

If there are an infinite number of realities and thus an infinite number of you out there then who is to say that you decided the way you want and not the other you deciding to go the other way??

Peace out,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Yes I was simply replying to your title
, but in any event. What you say is true. Because everything is possible, there are no impossibilities only improberbilities.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Validation I guess. I mean I am talking to you right?...We both can see this...I decided to talk to you. I'm not not talking to you right?...this is proof of reality. But I can't buy into it because I did decide to talk to you...I had a choice to respond or not and I did. Now you can go on about "...but what if you didn't" and i understand that there was an oppurtunity for me to not respond, but the fact that I did is right here. I made the decision to type this very sentence. Sorry buddy but It's right here... no blur of me typing/not typing. I am typing. There is nothing else but that. And you can't prove otherwise. We are given the free will to make choices. I can imagine what would happen if I had picked the right lottery numbers but here I sit pennyless. It's fun to pretend though isn't it.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dangerish
Validation I guess. I mean I am talking to you right?...We both can see this...I decided to talk to you. I'm not not talking to you right?...this is proof of reality. But I can't buy into it because I did decide to talk to you...I had a choice to respond or not and I did. Now you can go on about "...but what if you didn't" and i understand that there was an oppurtunity for me to not respond, but the fact that I did is right here. I made the decision to type this very sentence. Sorry buddy but It's right here... no blur of me typing/not typing. I am typing. There is nothing else but that. And you can't prove otherwise. We are given the free will to make choices. I can imagine what would happen if I had picked the right lottery numbers but here I sit pennyless. It's fun to pretend though isn't it.


Its fun to contemplate, but you are missing the point. This is not all made up what ifs, it is a very real possibility based upon strong maths and physics. There are very real experiments that prove entanglement are real.

In fact Quantum Cryptography which relies upon the non observed data to be able to be read.

The Quantum computer is also a reality though only at a very low power rating. the Qbit as it is known works based upon switches being in superposition both on and off at the same time.

These are actual realities that exist in our world today.

You responded to this thread and for that I'm very grateful thank you, but I also pose the idea that although you feel you chose to do so, that in fact was an illusion and that you may have had no real choice.

There is another way to look at this, and that is that you did in fact have a choice and free will and that your choice shifted you into a reality where you did. If you look at it this way then we are all shifting through realities all the time every time we do anything.

Peace out,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I understand. I'm still not buying it, but I understand. I find that alot of times math is used to provide an explanation for things that cannot otherwise be explained and also to prove theories that otherwise cannot be proven. Numbers aren't gonna do it for me Korg. I'd have to visit the other dimension to believe...but i'm a meat and taters kinda guy. I guess when it boils down to it, I believe in God and free will....Belief in multi-verse and a God that judges you on your actions kinda clash. But if you can get some video of me not typing this in a parallel universe...my hat would be off.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dangerish
Belief in multi-verse and a God that judges you on your actions kinda clash. But if you can get some video of me not typing this in a parallel universe...my hat would be off.


o.k. how about this.

I'll get you a video if you not typing in an alternate universe if you can get me a video of god assessing your judgment


All the best,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
haha...deal. I'll see if I can't call in a favor from the big guy.
Hey i've heard of something along these lines maybe you can help me with. I heard something about electons vibrating and disappearing/reappearing..I don't remember exactly where I heard this, but the speculation was that it was moving interdimensionally. I think Tesla and Einstein had to do with the experiement....ring any bells?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join