the infiniverse [eternity as a possible reality]

[Amorphos]

the infiniverse

· i have often ponder the how there can only be a ‘bubble’ of existence we call reality or the universe. consider that infinity must be all things and in being all things it has to arrive at things one by one, this we refer to as time and progress, and it must have already ‘found’ all things too. that is, if we extend the notion of ‘all-time’ to its infinite version, then all occurrences of all possible things must already be present.

· we could say that the universe contains all events, this though is not possible on an infinite scale. all events would equate as ‘everything that can be is’. the sphere of all-events would also necessarily contain infinite differentiation and within that infinite sets. our universe then may simply be one of infinite sets of events or infinite universes.

· now let us include a logical rule; all possible things belong to their set and no other.

· the other sets as compared to the set of our universe would have to be non finite/quantum. given then that upon this model there must be other sets ~ enough to fill infinity, i wonder at what other possible universes there may be, and if there is an infinite version of this universe in some way. what is the whole of reality as viewed on this scale...

· i will jump straight to the idea that there is one finite set of infinite sets [the universe], and one infinity of sets. any others would be drawn into one or the other sets [if there were any]. so we have three basic natures of reality, the quantum sets [the universe], the infinity of sets and infinity proper [statelessness].

we must now see what form and nature the infinity of sets has...

· if you threw a dice in infinity what number would come up? the answer must be that all 6 numbers would show, because all relative operations would occur in no time. we can use this metaphor to understand how all things exist at once in the infiniverse. as with the dice all possible events are ‘there’ as if like the dice in their shaker.

· this begs the question; must all possible dice and rolls of the dice be in the shaker, the sum of which is the universe. how then can there be another universe to follow [as with cyclic universe theories] after this one?

· equally so, we must ask what happens when time’s arrow hits the ground - so to say? i.e. when the universe ends. the contents of the shaker must remain as it is not part of time until rolled. thereafter we have a situation where all the ingredients exist yet have no means of finite expression, the only other means available to them is infinite expression!

· so lets put the two fields together and what do we have; there are both finite and infinite expressions of every possible thing. one expression mirrors its counterpart of differing dimension mapping each other reflectively.

Q. is it possible then that eternity exists and is equally as real as our universe? as i see it this would not initially be like some version of heaven, as due to infinite cardinality it would be empty or without ‘objects’ as such. it could be though that ‘you’ are mirrored as an infinite set of all that you are.

to this we may add that our universe would seam ‘empty’ in a manner, if we could not see it. the graphics card in our brains produce what we ‘see’ upon information from the senses. it is possible for blind people to see a little bit via hearing, it would appear that the brain just needs info to produce an image and hence see. if our source of info was only from infinity we could produce a vision of the infinite universe and hence ‘see’ eternity. curiously the ancient egyptian had a ceremony in the book of the dead called the opening of the eye’s, perhaps this reflects the act of seeing eternity!

[Kiljaden]

Infinity is a mathematic symbol that has little basis in reality. Even in mathematics (Calculus anyone?), there are limits to infinity.

[Chaigidel]

yes conditional limits but there are also infinite possible sets within mathematics so if you have an infinite ability to place infinity within certain sets you can be assured there is infinity within mathematics-- and if the rest of it is any indication I do indeed think that anything mathematically represented will have some physical identification in relation to our collective perception.

[Amorphos]

Even in mathematics (Calculus anyone?), there are limits to infinity.

it is that cardinality that is in question, with this idea i am giving infinite sets both ‘finite’ and infinite cardinality at the same time.

infinity is the full extent of reality [logically], the symbol represents it thats all.

chai, hi

agreed. a finite integer represents a finite thing so an infinite one represents an infinity, the math is metaphoric yet representative of reality.

perhaps it is so that as we can map ourselves as both a finite and infinite set, perhaps it is possible that infinity proper [not a set or set of sets] has a representative ‘you’ to it ~ god?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Eternity IS a possible, in fact in my opinion, THE only reality.

Due to our relativistic and Duality laden minds, we see things from an:
Us/Them instead of a "We" declaration
Me/You instead of a "We" declaration
Me/(Fill in the blank) instead of saying and perceiving "The universe"
Ad infinitum.

Since science has discovered that time didn't always exist, we must definitively posit an "Eternal" and "Non-Corporeal" beginning to that which is time bound.

Can something come from nothing? No, this is called "spontaneous generation."

A "Big Bang" theory without a creator is merely a magnified version of Spontaneous Generation= Utter Stupidity!

hellas1

[Amorphos]

hellas, hi

Eternity IS a possible, in fact in my opinion, THE only reality.

‘reality’ is distributed equally in all cases’ - i state.

Since science has discovered that time didn’t always exist, we must definitively posit an “Eternal” and “Non-Corporeal” beginning to that which is time bound.

as i see it, time does exist, it is the continuum of infinity expressing itself, time is only ‘relative’ when considered up against the abstract world of the physical. it is quite logical that an abstract would give fragmented readings when observed. as for Einstien’s ‘all-time’ it only exists as a rather rounded up version of infinite potentiality.

A “Big Bang” theory without a creator is merely a magnified version of Spontaneous Generation= Utter Stupidity!

the big bang is not an absolute beginning, it is merely the renewal part of the cyclic continuum. sorry still no creator, even if we envision creation as continual, we still must ask where there is evidence for it, and there is none. eternity is to me more like an ‘empty presence’ and god, if existent, ...is not part of anything!

perhaps he is more of a guide than some nazi judge of what he made. i am happy with god the yogi lols.

[Broken Pope]

A "Big Bang" theory without a creator is merely a magnified version of Spontaneous Generation= Utter Stupidity!

A 'Creator' theory without a creator is merely a magnified version of Spontaneous Generation= Utter Stupidity!

(Except it is, if anything, more stupid because the sudden emergence of an infinitely powerful supreme being beats the sudden emergence of simple matter all-ends-up on the improbability scale!)

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Hope this doesn't count as necro-posting, but I stumbled upon this thread from the Helios, and damnit, Quetzalcoatl made me think... It's now half past midnight, but I'm still here trying to understand the mind-bending lyrics of the OP... needless to say it is a phenomenal thought-train. I think Quetzalcoatl is playing "mind games" here... but not literally

I am trying to understand Quetzalcoatl's thinking, without trying to force my preconceptions on the discussion. So let's try it.

Q. is it possible then that eternity exists and is equally as real as our universe?

Well, it depends on what do you mean by "eternity" and "universe".

we could say that the universe contains all events, this though is not possible on an infinite scale. all events would equate as ‘everything that can be is’. the sphere of all-events would also necessarily contain infinite differentiation and within that infinite sets. our universe then may simply be one of infinite sets of events or infinite universes.

I can't grasp the transition here, when the finite becomes infinite. If there are finite sets, let's say stars and planets, there must be infine sets of them, otherwise this set of finite sets would constitue a new set, too, and so on. So this creates an infinite space where the borders open up the unlimited itself. By this time it is unimportant that we call this infinite set of finite sets 'universe', might as well call it 'multiverse'. But these are just due to the limits of our own thinking: we think in numbers (uni, multi) when in theory and in fact there is infinity, where numbers don't count.

· i will jump straight to the idea that there is one finite set of infinite sets [the universe], and one infinity of sets. any others would be drawn into one or the other sets [if there were any]. so we have three basic natures of reality, the quantum sets [the universe], the infinity of sets and infinity proper [statelessness].

Let me bind this thought even further: how would you describe these intertwining realities if you would imagine them put at the side of each other? Or if they are tuck up in each other - the finity-infinity problem arises again, as the outer sphere of what we call "statelessness" defines a new border, which opens up to infinite space again...

· this begs the question; must all possible dice and rolls of the dice be in the shaker, the sum of which is the universe. how then can there be another universe to follow [as with cyclic universe theories] after this one?

If we stick to the dice metaphor, we must ask first: is this really a metaphor (symbol of infinity), or are those dice the part of reality? If they are symbols, they don't have to be thrown as they are transparent and show all numbers at all time... if they are the part of the reality, you are probably referring to the phrase of Einstein, that God is playing a dice game, and the random sum shown by the dice will constitute the universe. However in this case, the dice were not part of the reality in real, but were devices of the infinite again... so either way reality is part of eternity. Reality exists, cannot cease, and as there are no limitless finite bodies, reality exists in infinity.

Btw how could nothing exist?

[Amorphos]

powerwizard, hi

i am glad you brought this one back to life, i expected a bit more of a challenge from others. lols

mind-bending lyrics

thank you, i do write i hope in a poetic style ~ something the bible writers could have learned from eh!

Well, it depends on what do you mean by “eternity” and “universe”.

well of course there is only one universe, but within that perhaps many levels. we can conceive of parallel universes, it is then only one step further to consider different levels of reality. it all depends upon what basis we use; firstly we say that energy is infinite and can be used by anything and everything ~ ergo nothing exists without it. then that the way it is used is by principles ‘shaping’ it! eternity [infinite based] would simply be a different set of rules from those utilised in the finite based universe.

If there are finite sets, let’s say stars and planets, there must be infinite sets of them, otherwise this set of finite sets would constitue a new set, too, and so on.

yes, nicely put.

> we think in numbers (uni, multi) when in theory and in fact there is infinity, where numbers don’t count.

well they are ways for me to encapsulate evolving principles into a mathematical chart which ‘represents’ the universal ‘order’. the main point is that each and every ‘tree’ of change and evolutions runs parallel to a single universal version. this i represent with numbers to show how infinity acts on reality, for example, note how 3 and 7 continually pop up when looking at the construction of the universe. 7 for example is the amount of colours in a rainbow and the amount of different note types in an octave ~ the 8th note is a repetition of the 1rst. on the periodic table 1 and 8 make water, the medium of life. it would appear then, that ‘something’ is saying that ‘8’ is fundamental to primary sets i.e. that it shows a principle or set of principles which denotes that aspect of the universal tree, once you reach 7 aspects of such a thing, one can only repeat that with things that work by them. the same applies to other numbers and their principles e.g. 3, there are many threes in atomic [and quark] construction and evolution [periodic table].

this is just a rough outline, it is very much a theory in progress.

> so yes we only have infinity and its universal effect; principles ~ energy, thats the whole shebangle.

Let me bind this thought even further: how would you describe these intertwining realities if you would imagine them put at the side of each other?

‘now’ in time would produce events on earth which are duplicated in eternity. the effect could be one of two; a, we just imagine an old fashioned vision of eternity like elysium, or b, that the flip side of the coin has no form or substance. i prefer the latter, then i can simply imagine myself as literally being the infinite reflection of holistic form.

Or if they are tuck up in each other - the finity-infinity problem arises again, as the outer sphere of what we call “statelessness” defines a new border, which opens up to infinite space again...

statelessness is a complete lack of borders. there is just a trinity of basic reality types, all things fall into one or the other categories.

If we stick to the dice metaphor, we must ask first: is this really a metaphor (symbol of infinity), or are those dice the part of reality?

both! in context to infinity the dice are metaphors, but to the universe they represent the act becoming real, or an event.

so either way reality is part of eternity. Reality exists, cannot cease, and as there are no limitless finite bodies, reality exists in infinity.

in a nutshell yes. reality is infinity and its expression, as so, we are mind/being/consciousness entangled in body.

Btw how could nothing exist?

it cannot, but ‘everything that can exist must’ is the rule. an existence is a thing [an expression] nothing is non expression or statelessness. reality is aportioned equally so both are equally real even though on exists and the other does not.

thanks for your reply

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

powerwizard, hi

Heya. *waves into the infinity*

well of course there is only one universe, but within that perhaps many levels. we can conceive of parallel universes, it is then only one step further to consider different levels of reality. it all depends upon what basis we use; firstly we say that energy is infinite and can be used by anything and everything ~ ergo nothing exists without it. then that the way it is used is by principles ‘shaping’ it! eternity [infinite based] would simply be a different set of rules from those utilised in the finite based universe.

I would argue that the finite and the infinite universe would have totally different set of rules, it is simply impossible, based on the following. If there is a set of rules for infinity it must be valid within the finite universe as well, unless we separate the finite and the infinite; which would be also impossible, as separating the finite creates a new, wider space, which opens up to infinity again etc.

If we use the energy metaphor, we can say that energy - in its several forms - is not the source of multiverses, but the actual medium that transmits the vibrations of the different worlds. Quantum theory says that energy is the time derivative of the wave function in any physical system, but if we consider that principle, that energy in any isolated system remains the same, we may ask the question: how energy is capable of spreading over the multiverses, from the infinity to the finity and vice versa, if infinity per definitionem cannot be imagined as an "isolated system".

ell they are ways for me to encapsulate evolving principles into a mathematical chart which ‘represents’ the universal ‘order’. the main point is that each and every ‘tree’ of change and evolutions runs parallel to a single universal version. this i represent with numbers to show how infinity acts on reality, for example, note how 3 and 7 continually pop up when looking at the construction of the universe. 7 for example is the amount of colours in a rainbow and the amount of different note types in an octave ~ the 8th note is a repetition of the 1rst. on the periodic table 1 and 8 make water, the medium of life. it would appear then, that ‘something’ is saying that ‘8’ is fundamental to primary sets i.e. that it shows a principle or set of principles which denotes that aspect of the universal tree, once you reach 7 aspects of such a thing, one can only repeat that with things that work by them. the same applies to other numbers and their principles e.g. 3, there are many threes in atomic [and quark] construction and evolution [periodic table].

Again, numbers could only serve us metaphors when addressing the infinity-finity paradox, such as the notes in a sheet music only indicate what has to be played, but not how, which is far more important. And what if God is (or the gods are, may it please the court ) improvisating when playing on his instrument? What if God is really placing a dice game?

> so yes we only have infinity and its universal effect; principles ~ energy, thats the whole shebangle.

What is shebangle?

‘now’ in time would produce events on earth which are duplicated in eternity. the effect could be one of two; a, we just imagine an old fashioned vision of eternity like elysium, or b, that the flip side of the coin has no form or substance. i prefer the latter, then i can simply imagine myself as literally being the infinite reflection of holistic form.

Beautifully put. I agree that common conceptions about afterlife are utterly oversimplified and sometimes overhyped. I don' think anyone can believe in the clichéistic descriptions of heaven or hell anymore in the 21st century, but this - at least pops up the Big Questions again.

it cannot, but ‘everything that can exist must’ is the rule. an existence is a thing [an expression] nothing is non expression or statelessness. reality is aportioned equally so both are equally real even though on exists and the other does not.

I must challenge the word 'reality'. Because what is 'reality'? Is there an objective reality, different from all the realities we perceive through our sensory organs? Yes, there is, but we conceive of all the outer world through our mind. F.e. no one has ever touched or tasted the Sun, but we know it is there, nonetheless we only see it rising and setting at the start and the end of day. Humankind has figured out ways to transcend reality through its ability to think, which requires living outside your body. Imagination.

If ‘everything that can exist must’ is the rule, then in a parallel universe, I reach out my hands from your monitor you are watching right now, and I punch you in the face. Then you react by sending back two green elephants who trample me to death. We both imagined this picture. Now how can we claim this must exist, if everything that can exist must, and thinking is an imagination of reality?

[Amorphos]

powerwizard, hi

>I would argue that the finite and the infinite universe would have totally different set of rules,
>If there is a set of rules for infinity it must be valid within the finite universe as well,

agreed, universal principles must apply to all ‘where relevant’.

unless we separate the finite and the infinite; which would be also impossible, as separating the finite creates a new, wider space, which opens up to infinity again etc.

true yes.

If we use the energy metaphor, we can say that energy - in its several forms - is not the source of multiverses, but the actual medium that transmits the vibrations of the different worlds.

yes, its ‘several forms’ are expressed infinity. ultimately there would be one unexpressed form of energy which gets utilised differently on the relative levels.

if we consider that principle, that energy in any isolated system remains the same, we may ask the question: how energy is capable of spreading over the multiverses, from the infinity to the finity and vice versa, if infinity per definitionem cannot be imagined as an “isolated system”.

energy is conserved so it should be limited to this universe, but it is not hence presumably there is a means by which it is used in ways that don’t effect this universe.

may i diverge here for a moment...

the mirror of infinity

if we are saying that principles are what shapes reality, then we should look to what they are as compared to infinity. for example; we can say balance is a universal principle, we see it reflected in everything from atomic structure to electrical circuits, magnets and anything with polarity. we also see it reflected in laws like ‘for every acyion there is an equal and opposite reaction’. it is clear that this one principle has a dramatic effect on reality, and it has many other interesting properties esp, when compared to infinity...

if we take balance from a different perspective, we may see it in terms of reflectivity. here we go from the image in our mind of scales and three way polarities [positive, negative, neutral][‘3’ again] to something far more profound. firstly we would perhaps visualise infinity as a vast mirror, then that it may be seen from all angles, from there in our minds we go to the idea that it doesn’t just reflect light but it reflects everything!

without going to much further into this idea, we can see how the ancients viewed deity as reflective of their humanity. where the chinese would see the tao, buddhists, buddha being, hindus brahma and godhead, druids, the awen and christians would see god. these are our natures reflected in the infinite mirror, infinity itself they do not define yet i feel we have been on a journey to find that truth.

Again, numbers could only serve us metaphors when addressing the infinity-finity paradox, such as the notes in a sheet music only indicate what has to be played, but not how, which is far more important. And what if God is (or the gods are, may it please the court ) improvising when playing on his instrument? What if God is really placing a dice game?

well that is the matrix god theory, that everything is god acting like the aliens in the matrix films, but that its subjective world inhabited by humans is the creation. kinda like gods imagination. its a kinda hollow view of reality as being empty of itself - so to say.

i agree that numbers are metaphorically representing principles, indeed that they are composed of those principles, in other words, numbers exist as everything else, because the principles make them so.

What is shebangle?

sorry it is a common euphemism where i live meaning ‘the whole thing gathered in one place’.

I don’t think anyone can believe in the clichéistic descriptions of heaven or hell anymore in the 21st century, but this - at least pops up the Big Questions again.

indeed, buddhism is i think the nearest to what i am saying here, again it is our reflection on infinity but has problems in its ultimate answer i.e. its lack of universality [it doesn’t include existence, consciousness and ‘you’/being as reality etc].

I must challenge the word ‘reality’. Because what is ‘reality’? Is there an objective reality, different from all the realities we perceive through our sensory organs? Yes, there is, but we conceive of all the outer world through our mind. F.e. no one has ever touched or tasted the Sun, but we know it is there, nonetheless we only see it rising and setting at the start and the end of day. Humankind has figured out ways to transcend reality through its ability to think, which requires living outside your body. Imagination.

ah, the matrix thing again. sure our brain produces an image of reality based on sensory input, just as a graphics card does on a computer. so everything we believe, [evolution, nature etc] could merely be a program. so our world is apparently divided into the objective and subjective if empiricism is held to be true. [?]. but what is ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’, we say that we can only perceive a subjective reality because it involves interpretations of the input provided by our senses. yet info may be seen in as the fundamental nature of existence just as principles are, they are ultimately the same thing. where principle is the ruler, info is its agent and basis in potential, so they may be viewed as objective too! our thoughts also are composed of these different kinds of objective realities, even imagination and illusion are objective in a sense. what we have then is correct info and interpreted or incorrect info rather than the objective, subjective thing.

the main aim for me is to find a ‘scheme’ which minimises the role of the subjective by stating that logic [order, patterns] in its many wonderful forms, exists with our without our interpretation of it. ...and hence so does reality!

If ‘everything that can exist must’ is the rule, then in a parallel universe, I reach out my hands from your monitor you are watching right now, and I punch you in the face. Then you react by sending back two green elephants who trample me to death. We both imagined this picture. Now how can we claim this must exist, if everything that can exist must

haha, everything that ‘can’ exist must e.g. if ‘1’ exists and reflectivity exists, then ‘2’ can exist etc, etc, ad infinitum. first you must have singularity before you can have duplicity. firstly your mother exists then you do. you see its a relative thing, everything must exist respective to one another. perhaps the result of this equation is ‘time’.

thanks for some interesting feeback there mate, it is good to have people around one can bounce ideas off of.

quetz

[Yaga Shu Ra]

the infiniverse

· i have often ponder the how there can only be a ‘bubble’ of existence we call reality or the universe. consider that infinity must be all things and in being all things it has to arrive at things one by one, this we refer to as time and progress, and it must have already ‘found’ all things too. that is, if we extend the notion of ‘all-time’ to its infinite version, then all occurrences of all possible things must already be present.

Current models of the universe like the big bang or God(s) for example "reverse engineer" reality back to one singularity (at t=0). How does this allow for time being infinite?

[Amorphos]

yaga

Current models of the universe like the big bang or God(s) for example “reverse engineer” reality back to one singularity (at t=0). How does this allow for time being infinite?

in its cyclicity, the universe begins ends and repeats according to the same universal principles derived from infinity. you are right ‘time’ cannot have infinite duration, but as it derives from its source ~ infinity, it may be of an infinite continuum. the trick is as i see it, that there must come a point when there is ‘nothing’ or ‘expressionlessness’, some scientists in spain have a theory that time slows dawn the further back you go, so to continue this, there would be a point where there are no distinct events hence no expressions and no ‘time’. this is perhaps how the paradox is broken. hmm not sure if it needs that, can we not simply say that time is a cyclic continuum?

all other theories btw seam to add up to a bubble of existence, this is why i feel we have to think of reality in infinite terms.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

I don't think time, the messure of change, can carry over from one cycle of the universe to the other.
When one existence ends, it's time ends. When one existance starts, it's time stats. There is nothing inbetween, thus time cannot be messured relative to the previous or next "bubble". (it does not even get "cut off" for a while)

To sum it up: As one existance does not relate to the other, there would be no actual cyclicity.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Hands down, Quetz, you are truly a philosopher. These are very interesting, deep and original thoughts...
it delights me to fill up with fresh ideas.

[Amorphos]

yaga, hi

To sum it up: As one existance does not relate to the other, there would be no actual cyclicity.

from an existential perspective yes, we can only truly understand our reality by contrasting it with the infinite.

the main thing is that much of what our world is about is universal and is always applicable, its like a skeleton which the flesh of each universe may fall from. so even if ‘existence’ ends, the infinite reality remains ~ and that is what makes it cyclic!

powerwizard, hi

thank you very much! the infinite genie shall provide eh.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

the main thing is that much of what our world is about is universal and is always applicable, its like a skeleton which the flesh of each universe may fall from. so even if ‘existence’ ends, the infinite reality remains ~ and that is what makes it cyclic!

Howdy Quetz,
Infinite reality would mean we can (partially) predict the makeup of the next universe.
Yet when existence ends, the rules of science break down, predictions become impossible. The next universe starts with a clean slate. The past ceases to exist, it cannot effect the new present.

How would universal rules, the skeleton of one existance (/universe/reality) cary over to the next? (it carries but the flesh of one particular existance and is lost together with that existance)

It doesn't seem like there could be something spanning the non existant gap between what is unconnected and unrelated.

[Amorphos]

powerwizard, hi

no problem mate, i know it is hard to think of this stuff sometimes. in my next thread i will try to speak more plainly about ideas rather than try to qualify everything, it could be fun to just bounce ideas of each other.

playfishpaste, hi

I am quite confused about several things here, particularly “finite sets of infinite sets”. Possibly due to how I’m trying to lace this into the known stuff. We already have an infinite amount of universes, so are you getting at each of these universes have infinite amounts of space-time?

sorry i didn’t explain myself very well, i meant infinite sets [which we already have] and an infinity of infinities. the latter is based upon the hindu vision of infinity which the maths is derived [15th century i think] e.g. “you can take an infinity from infinity and still be left with infinity” this and other such ideas have taken us nearer to understanding infinity.

i don’t know about an infinite amount of universes, this would be a logical impossibility ~ ‘a finite amount of infinite’ always is. it works in calculus as it is mathematical, but physically there are many problems with an infinity of universes. for example, each universe occupies a finite amount of space, no matter how many of them you add we are always left with an infinite remaining.
secondly i wonder if we would have to have infinite diversity with infinite universes, the problem there is that everything you could possibly think of must be a universe or part of one [as infinity = all in that sense]. so you would have universes of black holes that devour all other universes and green candyfloss universes that eat them ~ infinite variety y’see lols.

yaga, hi

Infinite reality would mean we can (partially) predict the makeup of the next universe.

good point! i am of the opinion that there is a set of principles and infinite natures which surpasses the transition of universes. i think in any universe we would end up with intelligent life because what composes us would compose all others, at least in terms of fundamental ‘elements’.

Yet when existence ends, the rules of science break down, predictions become impossible. The next universe starts with a clean slate. The past ceases to exist, it cannot effect the new present.

‘one existence cannot effect another’ could be the rule here, remember though that existences are abstract expressions of infinity [transience] and they belong to the infinite in origin, so to do all universal principles. so one universe would collapse and the next would rise with the exact same fundamental laws. they could however be arranged in a different manner perhaps.

the notion behind this thread allows for a single instance of the universe also. it makes a lot of sense to me that another universe would have to have a different base to this one, i.e. an infinite basis rather than finite. if so then it would not happen say before or after this universe, it would occur forever ~ in a manner. in other words eternity is always there. may we ask then if all finites are represented in eternity?

thanks for replies chaps. this theory is growing with us i feel!

[Playfishpaste]

From quantum mechanics we know that whenever we do anything or anything happens, there is another universe in which the opposite, or other things happened. For instance if I opened a ketchup bottle, there is a universe in which I didn't, there is also a universe in which my fingers were oriented differently, also a universe where there were different amounts of dust on the ketchup bottle, also a universe where I hit a different electron, etc. etc. ad nauseum. There are infinite amounts of possibilities for "events" that can happen in this universe, and therefore there are infinite universes.

Now, this universe is finite, so I get your argument there, it's just that that doesn't always have to be the case. If there were an event that could make this universe infinite, or cause a big crunch, or destroy this universe (of which there are many) then that would have a bunch of alternate universes too. So the infinite set of universes is not limited by the finiteness of one, because it is only falsely finite.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

[quote=Quetzalcoatl;3722883]yaga, hi

good point! i am of the opinion that there is a set of principles and infinite natures which surpasses the transition of universes. i think in any universe we would end up with intelligent life because what composes us would compose all others, at least in terms of fundamental ‘elements’.[/qoute]

Hi quetz.

Intelligent life is so undefined though. What makes you think these lifeforms would be able to perceive thus experience matters like we do? What effect does this have on their intelligence perspective to us?
What if their capacity to abstract thought rivals ours, but never equates to ours?
How would we know they are intelligent to begin with, when our frames of reference could be so different?

[quote=Quetzalcoatl;3722883]
‘one existence cannot effect another’ could be the rule here, remember though that existences are abstract expressions of infinity [transience] and they belong to the infinite in origin, so to do all universal principles. so one universe would collapse and the next would rise with the exact same fundamental laws. they could however be arranged in a different manner perhaps. [/qoute]

Principles do not belong to the undefinable, they belong to the definable instead. Infinity does not have any principles we could pin-piont, as it could contain all possible principles.
Stating the universe is infite seems like a bit of a cop out if you kniw what i mean.

the notion behind this thread allows for a single instance of the universe also. it makes a lot of sense to me that another universe would have to have a different base to this one, i.e. an infinite basis rather than finite. if so then it would not happen say before or after this universe, it would occur forever ~ in a manner. in other words eternity is always there. may we ask then if all finites are represented in eternity?

Problem is, when there is no reference between two universes.. wich one occured before the other?
What principles carried over? Where is the change?