Teempakguy:
Evidence found is in favour of multiverses. The cause and effect law breaks down at the quantum level. That makes no sense unless we consider infinite possibilites. The weakness of gravity can be explained by a sharing of the force between verses. The universe is expanding,into something, which can contain other similar universes, no?
Why is there matter instead of antimatter? There is possibility of entire universes composed of antimatter alone. Membrane theory explains our world as a surface of a superdimensional membrane. And there are multiple membranes, which may contain other universes.

Don't even get me started on Quantum entanglement. That points to particles as manifestations of superdimensional objects. And where the hell do electrons pass through during tunneling??

There is possibly evidence that our space exists inside something else. After that,it's not much of a leap to conclude that the something contains other universes.

ValentineMary:

I doubt if there is a universe made up of anti matter because according to an experiment carried out in university of Liverpool, where they mimiced the original state of the universe, it was discovered that more amount of matter than anti matter was made. Thus all the anti matter were anhiliated leaving a fraction of matter enough to make a galaxy.

SidL:
What need would 'God' have for parallel universes.

SirWere:
Wait, I need to ask whether you ask for the existence of parallel universes or bubble universes, for both are different fundamentally.



Anyways, I personally doubt the existence for Multiverses; the circumstances leading to this observable universe is so "dicey" (Der Herrgott würfelt nicht" that the existence for a multiverse seems doubtful to me.




On the other hand, what if, what if our choices/certain circumstances decided a part of the universe, our observable universe What if there is another branch, a parallel branch that holds a parallel you that took another choice.

So, in another universe, we have an hitler who never hated jews, we have a nuclear, ravaged, war torn universe from Russia and USA, and so on.


Problem is, I doubt it can ever exist.

taurus25:

is it necessary for a neighbouring universes to be in anyway alike?....considering the fact our universe has all the necessary constants for star formation planetory formation etc.....now if we have a hypothetical multiverse where every possible combination is tried in each universe and ours was that which was suitable for forming stars and planets is it likely that if atall theres a multiverse all universes within would look thesame?...would it be neccessary have stars and planets or perhaps somethings else ........ heh there's only so much we can know

donnffd:

In my opinion, the multiverse hypothesis still wont answer the question of the beginning of reality.

donnffd:
In conclusion, i think there are some things about reality that we would never ever understand.

johnydon22:


This only holds true for this universe, Teems speculation in a case where these is an infinite number of universes (Multiverse)

One may produce more anti-matter than matter therefore all matter are annihilated.

so you see, if there is a multiverse all universes in it must not turn out like ours all will manifest in distinct ways in respect to the values of causality .

johnydon22:


This only holds true for this universe, Teems speculation in a case where these is an infinite number of universes (Multiverse)

One may produce more anti-matter than matter therefore all matter are annihilated.

so you see, if there is a multiverse all universes in it must not turn out like ours all will manifest in distinct ways in respect to the values of causality .

SidL:
What need would 'God' have for parallel universes.

SirWere:


so where the hell is alternate universe then, since thorectically we will never be able to contact them.



Seems like a Physicist's wet dream to me

LoJ:

Hello donnffd,
The hypothesis of a multiverse and the quest for a greater understanding of the beginning of what you call reality, are independent. For the hypothesis of a multiverse to be investigated, it does not HAVE to answer all other scientific questions. So I don't see the reason, why Multiverses should not be examined, just because according to some, it may not answer this or that other question, which they hold more imporant.


I mean no offence, but this approach is unscientific. When you proclaim right from the beginning that some questions do not have answers, or that we can't have the answers, you give yourself only one option: to give up.

Back in the middle age. the understanding of earthquakes or the lightning, were inaccessible to men. Today, such phenomenon can be well explained.

So we should not assume that what we don't yet, is unknowable. Whatever is still unknown is just that, unknown. Let's investigate, and with time, passion and consistent efforts, we get a clearer light.

Greetings.

johnydon22:

What is God (which ever one you are talking about) doing with this one?

SidL:


I merely used "God" since that is what most are familiar with. For the record, I am not religious, neither am I into aethiesm, a vibe I'm picking up here.

The source of creation, or what most think they refer to when they say "God" is the "blackness" of space itself. Space is everywhere and it is intelligent.
.
And so I asked, what need has "God" for parallel universes as touted by academia and supported by Hollywood of Jet li's The One type-fame?

Your arguments here are interesting, but you are arguing theories made up by people who pretend they know what they are talking about.

It has been said that every conclusion is only as good as the premise upon which it is based. If the premise is in error, so will the conclusion be. Now being that it is... 'human' to base one conclusion atop another, it is self-evident how humankind multiplies its errors in conclusions exponentially and predictably.

Source of Creation or the cosmos or space or God--whatever--is orderly and has no need for parallels of the sort you argue.

What I see here is arguments for arguments sake, more so on conjectures. I mean no disrespect in so saying.

Perhaps if science and religions would be so kind as to extract their heads from their collective rectums to work together as two equal and necessary halfs of a sphere, we as a species would be much further ahead in discovering Truths of Existence.

I initially wrote a long response to this thread in the particlar post your have quoted but scrubbed it. Just fyi. We indeed have much to learn as a species. Religions and science have failed woefully in that regard. It is little wonder why people tell themselves that are atheists, the theologies are truly sickening, but... unfortunately, so is science.

johnydon22:


what from whence came all this unnecessary banter and who in the world said i was arguing for a multiverse.

everybody knows when i argue..

and what in the world brought atheism into this..?

This is a discussion on what people think on the Hypothesis of multiverse not an argument please do not go about jumping into what is not there.

from the OP

So now our subject of discussion is, what is your personal opinion about the
state of nature, is it only restricted to 1 universe or is our universe 1 out of
many?

Give your reasons and points for holding such speculation..

Is our universe alone or One out of many??

Now i'd appreciate next time you don't go jump conjuring up arguments where there is none, read things and try to comprehend before meshing up unrelated posts in response, and if what you wrote above is supposed to be an argument then it's totally a pity.

johnydon22:

What is God (which ever one you are talking about) doing with this one?

SidL:


Ok, first of all, don't be rude!

Second


You asked a question, and I answered. Who now is bantering? Who is jumping in? Understand that you are talking to a person next time you say such nasty things.

Thank you.

johnydon22:


I asked a question and that post was your answer? then obviously you have a rather convoluted way of bringing up an answer that goes round and touches unnecessary things and doesn't still answer the question.

SidL:


I merely used "God" since that is what most are familiar with. For the record, I am not religious, neither am I into aethiesm, a vibe I'm picking up here.

The source of creation, or what most think they refer to when they say "God" is the "blackness" of space itself. Space is everywhere and it is intelligent.
.
And so I asked, what need has "God" for parallel universes as touted by academia and supported by Hollywood of Jet li's The One type-fame?

Your arguments here are interesting, but you are arguing theories made up by people who pretend they know what they are talking about.

It has been said that every conclusion is only as good as the premise upon which it is based. If the premise is in error, so will the conclusion be. Now being that it is... 'human' to base one conclusion atop another, it is self-evident how humankind multiplies its errors in conclusions exponentially and predictably.

Source of Creation or the cosmos or space or God--whatever--is orderly and has no need for parallels of the sort you argue.

What I see here is arguments for arguments sake, more so on conjectures, and I mean no disrespect in so saying.

Perhaps if science and religions would be so kind as to extract their heads from their collective rectums to work together as two equal and necessary halfs of a sphere, we as a species would be much further ahead in discovering Truths of Existence.

I initially wrote a long response to this thread in the particlar post you have quoted but scrubbed it. Just fyi. We indeed have much to learn as a species. Religions and science have failed woefully in that regard. It is little wonder why people tell themselves that they are atheists, the theologies are truly sickening, but... unfortunately, so is science.

SirWere:

The OP simply asked where GOD factors in all this....


I was expecting you to say some deep stuff like the universe is God, or we are all interconnected....


Or some other stuff like God rules over us and the like




But instead, you ran about babbling some incoherent nonsense about the two great pillars on which mordern life stands upon.




Damn

SidL:
Folks, ultimately. The question to be asked is what is Truth of Existence. I think it's time to abandon theories, for the TRUTH of the matter is not beyond our understanding. I believe the academia is ill qualified to broach the things they do.

Everything from the model of the atom to the question of what electricity (which is front us) is, isnot true.

What, if I may ask, is the premise of claims to parallel/multi universes? Is there even one?

taurus25:

lol.........can you expantiate

LoJ:

Hello donnffd,
The hypothesis of a multiverse and the quest for a greater understanding of the beginning of what you call reality, are independent. For the hypothesis of a multiverse to be investigated, it does not HAVE to answer all other scientific questions. So I don't see the reason, why Multiverses should not be examined, just because according to some, it may not answer this or that other question, which they hold more imporant.


I mean no offence, but this approach is unscientific. When you proclaim right from the beginning that some questions do not have answers, or that we can't have the answers, you give yourself only one option: to give up.

Back in the middle age. the understanding of earthquakes or the lightning, were inaccessible to men. Today, such phenomenon can be well explained.

So we should not assume that what we don't yet, is unknowable. Whatever is still unknown is just that, unknown. Let's investigate, and with time, passion and consistent efforts, we get a clearer light.

Greetings.

donnffd:

What makes you think our brain has enough matter to understand some concepts the same way a chimp can't grasp quantum mechanics? Imagine a species with a DNA difference of 2% ahead of us, do you think we can grasp concepts those guys would?