![multiple_earths_resistance2010[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uVPreTX.jpg "multiple_earths_resistance2010[1].jpg")
So what's your theory: are there other universes like ours but with some small things different, or is this the only universe?
If there are multiple dimensions, how many? Infinite? If it's a finite number, why?
There are universes identical to ours, as well as with small differences. If you believe this is the only universe then I'd say you're just very focused on this one.
There are as many as you can imagine. In order for you to be able to imagine something your mind needs a reference to SOMETHING, so it exists somewhere even if only as a concept.
Logic dictates there must be some upper limit on the number of alternates, it's probably a very very large number. It's also possible there is no limit we can reach or even conceive of.
>>17916877
Is the number of existing universes dependent on my imagination? Do any exist outside of my own imagination, or before I imagine them? Why is my imagination required for the existence of a universe?
And by extension: what's the logic to an upper limit on alternates? That doesn't seem obvious to me.
Dimensions are physical simulations and illustrations of mathematical equations and sequences. They are I would say "far more real" than you actually are, just as you are "far more real" than a plane. The complexity escalates equally to the dimension in the matter of properties.
>>17916891
>Is the number of existing universes dependent on my imagination?
Possibly.
>Do any exist outside of my own imagination, or before I imagine them?
Certainly.
>Why is my imagination required for the existence of a universe?
It is and isn't. If you had no imagination then you wouldn't be able to conceive of alternates. They can still exist without you imagining them.
>What's the logic to an upper limit on alternates?
It's because everything everywhere seems to have a limit.
Conservation of energy and all that, energy is never made or lost just changing states, fast or slow.
It's still possible that there is functionally no limit, time + the possibility that space is limitless leads to a situation where either space or energy runs out long before we hit any limit. If time is limitless too, well...
>>17916924
>Dimensions are physical simulations and illustrations of mathematical equations and sequences.
I'm fascinated by your certainty. Sounds like you have a lot more to say... care to give a quick Existence 101?
>>17916945
>Conservation of energy and all that, energy is never made or lost
I strongly suspect this will be disproved in the next century or two. Newtonian physics is regularly shown to be a special case, rather than the general rule of things.
Also this notion of entropy and energy "running out"... more recently the expansion of the universe was shown to be accelerating. The ASSUMPTION has been that there was a finite amount of energy in the universe, but what if energy is being created as the universe expands? What if things are just heating up?
And... whether or not any of that is true... it stands to reason that there must be universes that operate on different rules, so how would any of these ideas impose limits on the number of dimensions?
>>17916967
Let's assume for the sake of example [time] is a property of a higher dimension, [possibility(or a difference)] property of even higher dimension,[universe with DIFFERENT fundamental rules (weak force/strong force/gravity aspects)] property of a 6d. For the sake of example and observation.I find your suggestion of limitations undoubtedly correct. The 3rd law of thermodynamics(entropy) itself contains a limitation. /on the edge of science: IF strings theory is right and every Nth string has a property then these properties hint for a higher Nth D. Then physics basics almost collapses, again.
>>17916860
The only parallelism I believe in is time travel alters.
Incidentally, when you layer metatime on top of metatime, you create extra dimensions that could easily be understood as spacial rather than temporal.
>>17916860
A bunch, but really small differences, though I guess if you go far enough in a direction you'll find the freaky shit
>>17916967
>>17916967
>but what if energy is being created as the universe expands? What if things are just heating up?
Great. A slightly more optimistic view of the future then.
>so how would any of these ideas impose limits on the number of dimensions?
If they operate on different rules it becomes complex quickly.
Do you have to be actively imagining/perceiving something for it to continue existing?
If yes, there is a limit. Limited only by the number of things capable of perceiving/imagining things, their capacity to do so and time available for them to do so. (Still a very large number most likely, as things inhabiting alternates you perceived/imagined would maintain them just by existing)
If no, then anything anyone perceives or imagines can spark off infinite alternates which themselves can spark off their own alternates and it will never stop even if you do. (No limit)
If alternates can interact directly in some way (like trading an object from one to another, or speaking with someone existing in one of these alternates) then does the object continue to operate under the rules of the system it came from, or the one it moved to? Is it something in between where the object would gradually denature and come to work under our systems rules?
The same with information/ideas passed between them, would that information be useless/nonsensical in the new system? Or could it enhance our own understanding of our own system to know the current working theories for another system?
An individual who managed to cross from one alternate to another? They would probably piss off a lot of people in every alternate they interacted with if they weren't careful. Working under models of systems which are not the one everyone else in a particular one is using. They would either have to work under the new systems rules, OR have a way to use their own systems rules inside another system (God mode activated, depending on what the rules were and what they can use it for)
is there an anime land universe where earth is exactly like my favorite animes? how would one go about entering said universe?
>>17917147
lmao
>>17917147
So other posters are struggling with the idea of other dimensions being something generated from within this one... adn teh way they're approaching it, no that dimension absolutely does not exist.
HOWEVER... for the sake of argument, let's say that all things are possible, all possible combinations and volumes of energy and matter currently exist in a dimension somewhere, and that no matter what you imagine there's a universe where it's true... if you accept that theory (which incidentally I happen to agree with) then yes the universe you're asking about exists... EXCEPT for one thing: the 2D world. I have no idea how that would work and even as open-minded as I am I think you'd be stuck in something more 3D and less cartoonish... but outside of that yeah, you can have all the elements, including "magic" and bodies that don't bruise or break when merely falling out of a 2nd story window. All things are possible.
How would you get there... that's an entirely different matter.
In part it means accepting the enormity of existence. You have to "get it" first. You have to have massive existential crisis after massive existential crisis. You have to watch Rick & Morty and just fucking marvel at its genius. You have to go through weeks and months of depression at not only the insignificance of you as a person, but the insignificance of experience and relationships and the utter meaningless of it all in the face of infinite universes...
If you can really, really dive in, totally transcend your need to believe this existence "matters", you'll be ready to begin.
>>17917147
>how would one go about entering said universe?
theres only one way my friend
>>17916860
There is an infinite amount of alternative dimensions. But, there not all the same. Only seven of them are of any real significance.
>>17916860
>So what's your theory: are there other universes like ours but with some small things different, or is this the only universe?
There are probably other universes.
>If there are multiple dimensions, how many? Infinite? If it's a finite number, why?
Infinite. All possible universes are probably actual universes. Why?
Because our universe being the only actual universe has more kolmogorov complexity than all possible universes being actual universes.
It's a simple (though unintuitive) application of Occam's razor. Unintuitive because people will tend to assume that multiple universes would automatically be more complex than one universe. However, a simple understanding of what Kolmogorov complexity is (look it up), and how it relates to Occam's razor, is enough to recognize why this is erroneous.
>>17917221
For a quick demonstration of kolmogorov complexity:
A = { 7618056128934763291874361289464691853483257 } (A is a set of this one arbitrary integer)
B = { Z } (B is the set of all integers)
The set B contains all elements of set A and is infinite in size, however it is vastly simpler to define. It has less kolmogorov complexity.
>>17917196
Fix'd
they're not all the same
>>17917196
There are infinite dimensions but only 7 of them are of significance? Why 7?
Because, infinity being... infinity... aren't there infinite dimensions that are almost identical to your magic 7 in every way?
>>17917221
>Occam's razor
That's an explanation heuristic, not an existential qualifier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpk2tdsPh0A
>>17917305
>That's an explanation heuristic, not an existential qualifier.
Sure. What I said can be rephrased to apply it as an explanation heuristic:
How is it that this particular universe is an actual universe?
A: This is the only universe that is real.
B: All universes are real.
B, of course, being the simpler explanation.
An interesting challenge one might pose to the idea that there are infinite universes:
Let c be the complexity of a universe.
The set of universes of any complexity greater than c would outnumber universes of complexity c.
Therefore, given any universe of complexity c, one would more likely find oneself in a universe of complexity c+1. And more likely still in a universe of complexity c+2, etc.
My rebuttal to this:
Any universe of complexity c will be fully described within multiple universes of complexity c+(1 or more). So, amongst all possible universes, simpler universes are described proportionately more often than complex universes.
In other words, Occam's razor as an existential qualifier is an intrinsic property of this explanation.
>>17917341
And to follow this up:
Given that our universe, whatever complexity it might have, is not just one amongst infinite possible universes, but is itself described infinitely many times amongst all possible universes, which one of those instances are we, therefore, in?
Well, from your limited subjective point of view (filtering the limited sensory experiences of a very tiny region of the universe through a consciousness of heuristic pattern-matching and classifying that abstracts even the complexities thereof into a relatively simple narrative), you could take a set of instances of our universe with a great many variations, and they will be completely indistinguishable to you. There is no meaningful way of being in just one of those instances: What makes up 'you', and the entirety of your experiences, exists simultaneously amongst an infinite number of instances of our universe.
You, your present subjective experience, are simultaneously within infinite universes already.
>>17917266
Dimensionally, it became perfect once it became the "Seven Sided, Lotus Flower". Infinitely it stretches forth across all time and space, like that of the sun's many rays. It is a closed system, yet it is also an open system. Creating with it a myriad of different possibilities.
Not all are equal though, basically it's a simple splinter effect. The point of origin always being the strongest one.
>>17917341
>>17917379
>I dun some math.
Hmm ok.
>>17917785
>Religion.
Oh.
Honestly /x/ disappointed me here. I was really hoping someone would chime in with a personal experience or something. Oh well.
>>17917266
The 7 major realities are the 7 most interesting.
All of them end in catastrophe except the 7th.
The 7th is an iteration where evil is finally expelled, once you live a 7th life you reset back to 1.
All great beings with honor, courage and respect that will not deplete until death even through torture are existing on the 7th.
7th is finally pure goodness without ego.
6th is a full and primed evil with power, evil without ego, but full of rage and causes suffering just the same as petty egoist evil
5th is egotistical good, the prodigy of the 7th dimension that ultimately fails into the 6th before becoming bored of ultimate power and becoming 7th.
4th is egotistical weak evil for selfish gain, this is the schizophrenics delusion, evil but weak and needing a 5th, 6th or 7th being to parasitically bond with
3rd is nonevil human clayborn life which is swayed into evil invariably
2nd is pure evil incarnate, simplistic life form
1st is pure goodness incarnate. simplistic life form
>>17917799
It's not really religious specific, and you would find out that it's true if you look more into it. Seven is an important number, it carries a very deep occult meaning. But, symbolism is used as a way of explaining it to people using a more simplistic means.
But, I could go on to explain it more. However it's late, and I don't think you're really that interested, sadly. You're not willing to understand, which I won't judge you.
One thing I do hope you do understand from this. It's literally perspective, angle and interpretation. You'll find that each one explains that of the other, and are all equally valid.
>>17917807
Truth: I'm not ready.
When I'm ready it will re-present itself to me.
And I will laugh at the wasted years where I could have moved forward earlier had I paid more attention.
But then I'll remember
I wasn't ready
All in its own time
THank you
>>17917810
Alright, I honestly and sincerely wish you the best. Never lose hope in your endeavor of the truth. Let it set you free, and may those it who would hide it from you ultimately fail.
>>17916860
Yes, an infinite amount of realities and universes exist throughout creation and is bigger than what we could imagine.
Whatever we think or will ever think already exists because of a few paradoxes. Yes we draw our imagination from 'other sources' in the hopes of creating the source in our minds through art,music or a movie. Essentially we created it so it can come back to our past selves to create it so we can create it to send that information to us before we create it to create it, an infinite loop.
Yes, with each decision we make creates another universe(timeline) and it applies to everyone and everything to waking up at 8 instead of 7 to the left leaf of a small flower falling off instead of the right one, same with our thoughts. The moment we think of something another universe is created inside our minds and is stored there and itll continue to grow subconsciously.
As for dimensions, there are many more than 3D both scientifically and spiritually. But that only applies to this universe and every timeline that branches off from the 'original' branch(parallel universe).
There are no restrictions and there is no such thing as a limited number of universes. However if a reality existed so that there would only be one universe...than its beyond my understanding.
Thats the simplest way of describing this.
I find it funny that people have existential crisis over the fact that we are less than dust of a infinite existence. We all live in our own worlds and will continue to do so and the amazing thing is we'll never grow bored of it. Think of it like this, your a small fish in a big pond, while you continue to grow so does the pond and as the pond grows your view gets brighter and discover new things. Thats how it all works in the end. The bigger you grow the bigger the universe expands, not just this one but all that exists and will ever exist. You grow, the universe grows.
>>17916860
I guess there could be potentially infinite dimensions, but humans couldn't comprehend it so it doesn't matter. We are incapable of comprehend 4th dimensional motion, or spaces altogether, so why bother trying to determine how many there are?
>>17916860
There is no more reason to believe in parallel universes than to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Btw, my iPhone just capitalized Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>>17916860
I think the universe could be infinite and so the singularity was infinite. As space stretches it fragmented into infinite visible universe from every central point. All the universes interconnected via relay but the exponential expanse of space creating a kind of energy level filter for information at each visible maximum distance, or something.
There are infinite universes and they are all exactly the same
>>17916860
There's some actual reputable recent scientif evidence that suggests that multiple dimensions/universes exist, but we have nothing on what they're like.
>>17917801
oh. yeah. that totally holds water in my book.
>>17916860
Dimensions are conceptual in the same way numbers are you morons.
>>17917031
You didn't really add to the discussion, you simply dumped the answer into the pot of confusion and didn't think once outside of your own box. You yourself are not equipped with the appropriate degrees of mentality to see beyond the causality of your proposed string theory, which is wrong by the way.
>>17917079
You are seriously the type of person I need to find. There is something I've been working on that needs your kind of questioning. I will find you. Please , please email me smilecharms627@gmail
Well if we assume Bioshock is right and there are constants and variables, then there is a finite number of parallel worlds. Why? Because things like gravity remain the same. The planets are all in basically the same position because of the big bang, etc.
