Parallel universe proof boosts time travel hopes

The Telegraph ^ | 9/21/2007 | Roger Highfield

[MarkBsnr]

I would have to agree with you.

The multiverse expanding with every single decision point in every single of its universes sounds like sophomores at a late night keg party in the John W. Campbell world of the 1950s.

[betty boop]

Contrary to your supposition, RipSawyer, the most open-minded people I have run into, who have been willing to challenge their own assumptions about the nature of creation and their cherished scripture have been people of faith.

Amen to that, shibumi! We try to understand the Book of Creation as it actually is, not as we would have it to be; i.e., as a reduction to our own preferred theory or level of intelligence and experience. We know the Book of Creation is much more than that! That Man is not the Measure.... He is only an observer.

[Enchante]

"Perhaps you do!?"

:^) That's why I put "I" in quotes, it's a philosophical issue, because if there are infinite worlds then there must be other worlds where "I" seem to exist with nearly all the same attributes except that things go much better or worse in terms of achieving goals, enjoying success or failure, experiencing (or not) pleasures with the "Jessica Alba" etc. of those other worlds. But how can "I" in this world really be the same as, or even care about, the entity that seems much like me in those other worlds. I really don't care at all about the nearly-MEs in other worlds that I have no knowledge or experience of. Besides, this world seems quite absobing and challenging enough without worrying about how "I" am doing in an infinity of other worlds......

And as soon as we take it beyond one individual, to consider the multitude of fate awaiting all of the people we love and care about in an infinity of other worlds, it seems that every possible permutation of hope and despair, benefit and catastrophe, etc. must exist for all of our loved ones in those infinite other worlds. We might light to contemplate only the pleasant outcomes, but there must also be every possible bad, even hideous outcomes, if there really are an infinite number of worlds. Otherwise, we're not really talking about infinity, right?

[Old Professer]

While the author may truly mean that this notion has serious lab cred, to me it sounds more like dachshund crud.

[Coyoteman]

>Contrary to your supposition, RipSawyer, the most open-minded people I have run into, who have been willing to challenge their own assumptions about the nature of creation and their cherished scripture have been people of faith.

Amen to that, shibumi! We try to understand the Book of Creation as it actually is, not as we would have it to be; i.e., as a reduction to our own preferred theory or level of intelligence and experience. We know the Book of Creation is much more than that! That Man is not the Measure.... He is only an observer.

You folks actually believe that "people of faith" are willing to challenge their assumptions and beliefs? Sorry, I don't believe a word of that.

Take a look at the following Statement of Belief from the Creation Research Society. They don't seem to be very willing to let anything challenge their beliefs, not even evidence that is all around them (and there are many more such examples on the web).

The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your wonderful post, dear shibumi!

Indeed, the most open minded (fearless) people I've engaged on science threads are people of faith.

And frankly the most closed minded (fearful) posters on either side of the crevo wars seem to seek each other out.

Perhaps they consider the extreme view on the other side to be an easy target - or perhaps they are afraid that the consequence of an open discussion might 'rock their world' - or perhaps their purpose is but to preach?

[onedoug]

...a highly respected proponent of quantum theory....

Who isn't?

Hugh Everett bump.

When they get there, I'm sure they'll let themselves know.

[betty boop]

Coyoteman, The Creation Research Society is entitled to its view, and so are you. And so am I.

Rather than take their stance -- which seems devoted to proving the doctrine of "special" creation -- I'm happy to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Because I am a person of faith, I have no worries about what science may eventually turn up.

I know you probably don't "get that"; but there it is.

[Scythian]

Parallel universes do not exist, nonsense, sheese, I wish I could get some startup money for my business as easy as these jerks get grants for thier stupid research.

[Scythian]

Oh, But Dr. Who is my favorite show, very entertaining.

[Alamo-Girl]

We try to understand the Book of Creation as it actually is, not as we would have it to be; i.e., as a reduction to our own preferred theory or level of intelligence and experience. We know the Book of Creation is much more than that! That Man is not the Measure.... He is only an observer.

Truly, the words of God are spirit and must be spiritually discerned.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

Jesus spoke in parables to hide Truth in plain sight.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matt 13:10-13

When man attempts to discern Scripture by reason alone, he invariably anthropomorphizes God into a small 'god' his puny, mortal mind can comprehend.

This, IMHO, is the most insidious of all the "observer problems."

[jonathanmo]

"Contrary to your supposition, RipSawyer, the most open-minded people I have run into, who have been willing to challenge their own assumptions about the nature of creation and their cherished scripture have been people of faith."

Holy cow ! You have just proven the Parallel Universe theory, because you would have to be reading posts on a Parallee FR to reach that conclusion!

[mnehring]

You a physicist? That is a bold statement that contradicts many top physicists including Hawking and Einstein. I glad to know you are an expert who has a greater knowledge than them.

[shibumi]

"Holy cow ! You have just proven the Parallel Universe theory, because you would have to be reading posts on a Parallee FR to reach that conclusion!"

You have made four assumptions that are not supportable. (Possibly a record for one sentence!)

First, you assume that the posts you have read and reacted to are the only ones available on FR.

Second, that I have read and am reacting to those same posts.

Third, that my interaction with FReepers is limited to public postings.

Fourth, that my experience in discussing these matters is limited only to this forum.

[shibumi]

I have never quoted CRS in any post, nor have I read their material, except for what has been posted and reposted on this forum.

Please, do not make assumptions about what I believe or do not believe, except for what I post in my own words.

(.....AND, if, by chance, I do quote a source, it does not mean that I endorse that source in its entirety. I believe that many sources can yield parts of the puzzle, without possessing the whole truth. .....nor do I claim to have the whole truth.....)

[geopyg]

As a spirtual person I have no problem dealing with a parallel universe. However, I must not have the brain to understand why this parallel universe would have a “me” in it.

[Enduring Freedom]

Thank you for the suggestion.

I already spend more time elsewhere as a result of recent FR editorial ‘campaigns’.

In fact, insinuating any kind of bloc following comprised of FR posters is insulting beyond belief to a self-directed independent free will Conservative. We’re not the ‘black’ vote, and JR is not Jesse Jackson.

I, along with most everyone here, are offended by poor leadership, but especially a lack of humility.

FR’s success is that it is a well-managed forum for open and civil debate on Conservative issues, not a proxy for JR’s personal ambitions.

You won’t miss me anymore than I’ll miss you.

[Enchante]

"I must not have the brain to understand why this parallel universe would have a “me” in it"

It all depends upon what assumptions are used and whether we are talking about a limited number of parallel worlds, or a truly infinite number (in which case every possible permutation of "me" and the possible cause-and-effect sequences that could lead to "me" living or dying, succeeding or failing, etc. in every possible circumstance would exist). The original article talked of "me" either living or dying in a particular auto accident etc. but there have to be an awful lot of parallel worlds to take account of every possible variation on every person's experiences, actions (and omissions), not to mention the billions of other people and all their experiences, acts and omissions, not to mention the natural variations in cause-and-effect that go so far beyond trillions that I don't know what such numbers would be called short of infinity.

[Enchante]

I want to live in the one where I never heard of the Clintons because of that angry husband, where Bill Clinton never made it out of Arkansas politically speaking......

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Yeah, that’s a good one to. I’ll take that one!