what's outside our universe?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SirFshAlot

Elite Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,887
0
0


<< 'Outside' the universe? You're not a scientist, are you? >>





<< His science (he is a very smart ant) can say nothing about it. Therefore, it is a meaningless question >>



If scientists can't entertain the question, then they have closed themselves off by their own constraints and convictions, not unlike religious zealots that close their minds to science.


Good question to ponder outside the bonds of the scientific method, though.
It may be that there exists matter that follows completely different laws than within our universe.

How creative can we imagine this matter to be?

Could be that matter in the 'outside' universe had a "movement" which created a tiny void, which in turn sparked a little universe that we call our own.

Great science fiction fodder with topics like this.
 

aznspeed

Senior member
Sep 19, 2001
264
0
0
follow the lines of your hand,
there is no beginning,
there is no end,
to small to see,
infinity
is you and me.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Sorry to burst the scientific bubble, but a scientist had better close himself off. Otherwise he constructs an unverifiable belief system that he mistakenly calls science. It then becomes his religion. Is it legetimate to ask the question? Yep. Now construct a hypothesis and design an experimental protocol. Do the experiment and hope it works. Now if you are armed with a sufficient number of facts you can have a theory. That is the mechanics of science. If you don't like it, move on to metaphysics. Science will never answer all questions, because the beings using it are limited. Give a chimp a tool set and you arent going to get a Porche. And science cannot answer "why" just how. And that is exactly as it should be.
 

loudog9999

Member
Feb 19, 2001
151
0
0
I just happened upon this quote. Pretty good stuff.


?For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I?m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I?m much less certain about that. The expansion of the universe spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all back together again. Our destiny depends on which force will win.? ?STEPHEN HAWKING

 

killface

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2001
1,416
0
0
Yes, I've thought about it and researched it alot. I'm pretty into physics, but I'll try to be brief. I think Bozo has a good explanation of current time and multidemensional theory

The one theory I like is that the universe is like a 4 dimensional sphere. If you travel long enough and far enough in any one direction, you will end up right back where you started. Read "Flatlanders." It's a very short book, but it's good at putting the 4D in a perspective you can understand by equating it with a guy living in a 2D world who comes in contact with a 3D being.

As for your "if theuniverse is expanding" expanding question, this is Steven Hawkings' main area of research. Basically, the universe may begin contracting again once it cools off enough. This all depends how much dark matter there is in the universe. If there is enough, the universe may alternate between states of contracting to single point, and exploding.

Currently, the estimated amount of dark matter in the universe lead scientists to believe that there is only about 10% of the dark matter needed to cause another contraction.

Pick up a "A Brief History Of TIme" by Steven Hawking, or watch the "Cosmos" series by Carl Sagan (available now on DVD), or just read "Cosmos."

 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
An added twist to such metaphysics is that human consciousness is strained to the breaking point in even imagining enough of a picture to string together a hypothesis.

Since "whatever the universe is expanding into" strains the human consciousness, these type of meta-physics also invite questions about human consciousness and our perception of reality.

In other words, it may not be that the universe is expanding into anything that is clearly separable from the universe itself.

A previous poster mentioned using the example of someone trapped in two dimensions interacting with the third. These illustrations help, but in a practical sense it seems impossible to imagine anything that exist that is not at least four dimensional. Long before any real science can get going, something must have height, width, depth, and duration (although the duration can be very brief).

So, everything that is material has at least four dimensions.


But what if everything, or some thing, or some things, have more dimensions. We know that more dimensions exist. What if you do, but you lack the current consciousness to see it? Perhaps a part of you transcends the construct of four dimensional space? Perhaps this transcendant part, or this desire for transcendence, is what enables you, however faintly, to ask such questions in the first place?

The answer may be just as much a psychological one as it is a physics one. Or perhaps it is something that bridges both.

Don't let Elledan quench your thought by locking it in the realm of materialistic science. Materialistic science is the offspring of thought, not the generator of it.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
Well how about absolutely nothing. I mean that the emptiness of space is actually filled with stuff. All sorts of microscopic reactions and electromagnetic energy etc inhabit space but maybe outside of the universe there is nothing. No electromagnetic radiation or microscopic reactions not just a vacuum but nothing at all. There is no electromagnetic radiation or any of the stuff because it is bent by the shape of our universe it would have to travel outside of the dimensions our universe entails in order to leave our universe. There are an estimated 11 or so rolled up dimensions so as long as something is traveling in those 11 micro-dimensions or the 4 macro-dimensions we are familiar with it is a part of our universe.

The tricky thing is that the term universe implies everything. So to say what is outside our universe is a bit like saying what is outside of everything even if we know everything is bounded.

Now what if there are other universes whose shapes give them a whole different kind of physics then we are familiar with and probably for the most part could even possibly comprehend. But I think the only way to say that something that exists outside our universe isn't a part of our universe is if it is comprised of a different set of dimensions which might make everything in that universe 'incompatible' with everything in our universe. Imagine if we tried to travel to a 2 space dimension universe what would happen to us since our bodies and even our atoms occupy 3 space dimensions. What if we traveled to a 4 space dimension universe would we be ok then? maybe, but if something from there was brought back to our universe what would happen to the 4th dimension.

Frankly it all hurts my head and I seem to have a hard time saying what I'm thinking but I guess this will have to do.
 

BreakApart

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2000
1,313
0
0


<<
1. what's outside the solar system?
2. what's outside the galaxy?
3. what's outside the entire universe?
4. if the universe is expanding constantly, what's beyond infinity?
5. what's the meaning of life?
6. is life real itself?
>>



1-Ice Cream Truck
2-Ice Cream Factory
3-Ice Cream Supply store
4-Rainbow Sherbet
5-which meaning are you meaning?
6-how do you define "real"?

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The one problem here is that that there is no way to visualize what we are talking about and no words to describe the indescribable. It's like trying to tell someone how an electron really moves through space. It's not like a ball flying through the air, since it can interfere with itself. Oh well wondering out loud can be a good thing, and it's kinda fun.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
<<what's outside our universe?>>

"The universe extends to a place that never ends, which is maybe just inside a little jar." - The Animaniacs.

ZV
 

Beau

Lifer
Jun 25, 2001
17,730
0
76
www.beauscott.com


<< Steven Hawking "said" once that asking about what is outside the bounds of the universe is like asking what is the surface of the Earth like 2 miles north of the north pole >>


S.Hawking is a genius in his thought processes and ability to theorize, but I disagree with his opinions from time to time, usually because comments like the one quoted are (or appear to be) easy ways for him to get beyond the fact that he is not all-knowing (is it me or does he seem a little full of himself?). This is one of them. Denying the idea that there is nothing outside of our universe without substancial, proven evidence is just plain foolery. Who are we to say that there is nothing outside. It is wiser to say that it is beyond your current comprehension to even begin to grasp the ideas/possibilties of what could be beyond.
Edit: Spelling and addtional comments.
 

Redwingsguy

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2000
3,967
0
0
How many donuts are in a bakers dozen?

If I have 2 bags of jelly beans, and eat one, how many are in the other bag?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
 

DavidTigerFan

Senior member
Nov 13, 2000
474
0
0
For all of you physicist-wannabes like myself, let me recommend a few great books I read.

Arthur Clarke and Steven Baxter's The Light of Other Days
Stephen Baxter's Manifold Time
Michael Crichton's Timeline
Stephen Hawking's book that I can't remeber the title of...

I have always been fascinated with Quantum Physics and time theory and these books were great reads for me.

-D
 

Beau

Lifer
Jun 25, 2001
17,730
0
76
www.beauscott.com
Another work of fiction based on quantum physics is "Over His Shoulder" by Dean Koontz. Really good read with some interesting theory. Although Michael Crichton is my favorite author, Timeline sucked! Good theory though, just a boring story.
 

SirFshAlot

Elite Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,887
0
0
CountZero,



<< There are an estimated 11 or so rolled up dimensions so as long as something is traveling in those 11 micro-dimensions or the 4 macro-dimensions we are familiar with it is a part of our universe. >>



I'm sure what you meant to say was; String theorists speculate/believe/have faith that there are an estimated 11 or so rolled up dimensions.

Right?

Don't let mathematics force you into accepting what science hasn't substantiated through it's methodology.
That wouldn't be........scientific.



[edit]
another good layman's source for amusement is Timothy Ferris' video Creation of the Universe
he also wrote a book; The Whole Shebang, which I am halfway through
[/edit]
 

DannyLove

Lifer
Oct 17, 2000
12,876
4
76
whats outside "our" universe? i thought the universe was the entire space, you're telling me there are more universes outside this one :Q well, we don't know. and we might never know, but i am very intrigued by the fact that you asked this question, i sometimes ponder these type of questions myself. especially when the shower of rocks and dust was around 3 weeks ago?

but like i always tell myself, never ponder them too much. the answer won't be around anytime soon.

danny~!
 

Beau

Lifer
Jun 25, 2001
17,730
0
76
www.beauscott.com
Here's another question for ya: If we only had eight fingers instead of ten, would the bulk of our mathematics be in octal form rather than decimal? Or what if we had six? Hexidecimal?
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
Also, a couple of books that explore the link between psychology/consciousness and physics:

The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot
The Einstein Factor by Win Wengner and Richard Poe

But the second one only flirts with possible links and focuses more on human consciousness.

Of course the questions are currently unanswerable, but consider this: does the human imagination really create anything? Can you imagine a new primary color? What I am saying is that imagination may not be pure fantasy. It seems to me that fantasy and imagination are more like an eclectic grabbing of existing pieces of reality that combines them in new ways that allure or terrorize. But the pieces of reality have some genuine correspondence to reality itself. They are not completely isolated and independent from it. They are not pure illusion/delusion.

So, the mere imagining of something "outside" the current universe might be a gleam of genuine reality peaking through. Is not human consciousness one facet of "everything that exists"? If so, then the ability to imagine something suggests a corresponding reality upon which that image is based (however twisted the image may be once the genuine reality is discovered).
 

Bozo Galora

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 1999
7,271
0
0

is your future already set?

A major task taken on by Dennett in Elbow Room is to clearly describe just what people are as biological entities and why they find the issue of Free Will to be of importance. In discussing what people are and why Free Will matters to us, Dennett makes use of an evolutionary perspective. Dennett describes the mechanical behavior of the digger wasp Sphex. This insect follows a series of genetically programmed steps in preparing for egg laying. If an experimenter interrupts one of these steps the wasp will repeat that step again. For an animal like a wasp, this process of repeating the same behavior can go on indefinitely, the wasp never seeming to notice what is going on. This is the type of mindless, pre-determined behavior is what people can avoid. Given the chance to repeat some futile behavior endlessly, people can notice the futility of doing so, and by act of free will do something else. We can take this as an operational definition of what people mean by free will. Dennett points out the fact that as long as people see themselves as able to avoid futility, most people have seen enough of the Free Will issue. Dennett then invites all who are satisfied with this level of analysis to get on with living while he proceeds into the deeper hair-splitting aspects of the Free Will issue.

From a biological perspective, what is the difference between the wasp and a person? The person can, through interaction with its environment, construct an internal mental model of the situation and figure out a successful behavioral strategy. The wasp, with a much smaller brain and different genetic program, does not learn from its environment and instead is trapped in an endless and futile behavioral loop that is strictly determined by its genetic program. It is in this sense of people as animals with complex brains that can model reality and appear to choose among several possible behaviors that Dennett says we have Free Will.

The deeper philosophical issue of Free Will can be framed as a paradox. On one hand, we all feel like we have Free Will, a multitude of behavioral choices to select among. On the other hand, modern biology describes humans as mechanisms that follow all of the same deterministic rules as wasps or inanimate objects. How do we reconcile our feeling of Free Will with the idea that we are mechanical components of a mechanical universe?

What about determinism? When we say that a person chooses among several possible behaviors is there really a choice or does it just seem like there is a choice? Do people just (through the action of their more complex brains) simply have better behaviors than wasps, while still being totally mechanical in executing those behaviors? Dennett gives his definition of determinism on page one: all physical events are caused or determined by the sum total of all previous events. This definition dodges a question that many people feel should not be dodged: if we repeatedly replayed the universe from the same point in time would it always reach the same future? Since we have no way of performing this experiment, this question is a long-term classic in philosophy and physicists have tried to interpret the results of other experiments in various ways in order to figure out the answer to this question. A related current fantasy game for physicists is to imagine that there are multiple universes and every time there is quantum indeterminacy each possibility occurs and new universes branch off. Since the 1920s physicists have been trying to convince themselves that quantum indeterminacy can in some way explain Free Will. Dennett dismisses this idea as silly. How, he asks, can random resolutions of quantum-level events provide people with any control over their behavior?

Since Dennett wrote Elbow Room in 1983 there has been a futile, but still on-going attempt by some physicists to answer this question by assuming that the brain is a device for controlling quantum indeterminacy so as to construct behavioral choice. Dennett argues that such efforts to salvage Free Will by finding a way out of the prison of determinism are wasted.

Dennett discusses many types of Free Will. Many philosophers have claimed that determinism and Free Will are incompatible. What the physicists seem to be trying to construct is type of Free Will that involves a way for brains to make use of quantum indeterminacy so as to make choices that alter the universe in our favor, or if there are multiple universes, maybe brains can choose among the possible universes. Dennett suggests that we can have another kind of Free Will, a type of Free Will which we can be perfectly happy with even if it does not give us the power to act in more than one way at any given time. Dennett is able to accept determinism and Free Will at the same time. How so?

The type of Free Will that Dennett thinks we have is finally stated clearly in the last chapter of the book: the power to be active agents, biological devices that respond to our environment with rational, desirable courses of action. Dennett has slowly, through the course of the book, stripped the idea of behavioral choice from the idea of Free Will. How can we have Free Will if we do not have real behavioral choice? Dennett tries to substitute control for choice. If our mechanical brains are in control of our behavior and our brains produce good behaviors for us, then do we really need choice? Is an illusion of behavioral choices just as good as actual choices? Is our sensation of having the freedom to execute more than one behavior at a given time really just an illusion? Dennett tries not to beat his readers over the head with this issue, but I think he should have.

If all people have is an illusion of behavioral choice, if people are just machines behaving in the only way they can, then what about personal responsibility? How can we hold people responsible for and punish them for their behaviors if they have no choice in how they behave? Dennett gives a two part answer to this question. First, we hold people responsible for their actions because we know from historical experience that this is an effective means to make people behave in a socially acceptable way. Second, holding people responsible only works when combined with the fact that people can be informed of the fact that they are being held responsible and respond to this state of affairs by controlling their behavior so as to avoid punishment. People who break the rules set by society and get punished may be behaving in the only way they can, but if we did not hold them accountable for their actions, people would behave even worse than they do with the threat of punishment. This is a totally utilitarian approach to the issue of responsibility, there is no need for moral indignation when people break the rules of proper behavior. Is it, then, moral to punish people who are unable to do other than break a rule? Yes, people have the right to come together and improve their condition by creating rules and enforcing them. We would be worse off if we did not do so. Again, an argument for utility.

One final issue, if people do not have real behavioral choices, why not collapse into fatalism? Again, Dennett's argument is that we may not have behavioral choice, but we do have control of our behavior. Dennett asks us to look around at the universe and ask, can I even conceive of beings whose wills are freer than our own? For Dennett, the answer to this question is, no, not really. In Elbow Room he tries to explain why all the attempts that people have tried to make to prove that people have behavioral choice have failed and are, in the final analysis, not really important anyhow. As humans, we are as much in control of our behavior as anything in the universe. As humans, we have the best chance to produce good behavior. We should be satisfied with what we have and not fret over our lack of behavioral choice.

As usual, I find it very hard to disagree with Dennett. My largest complaint about Elbow Room is that it does not satisfactorily deal with the issue of why we feel so strongly that we do have behavioral choice. I agree with Dennett that we do not have choice, but why do we feel like we do? My answer to this question is that our sensation of having behavioral choice has been carefully selected by evolution. The well developed human sensation of having Free Will and being able to select among possible behaviors has strong survival value. People who loose the feeling that they can plan alternative behaviors and execute their choice of possible behaviors tend to become fatalistic and stop struggling for survival. As Dennett writes, Belief in Free Will is a necessary condition for having Free Will. When we are planning for the future and thinking about possible actions to take in the future, we are expending considerable amounts of biologically expensive resources (brain power). Evolution has designed us to feel strongly that all of our effort of planning pays off, that we control what we do. If this connection between our brains efforts to model reality and predict the future and so make possible good outcomes is disconnected from our sense of self and our will, then fatalism and self-destructive behaviors are close at hand.

So at the end of our philosophical hair-splitting, we reach the same conclusion as the average man on the street, but we have some additional baggage. If we accept Dennett's arguments, then we recognize that we have no real behavioral choices, but we continue to behave as if we do. I would say that when we feel like we are making a behavioral choice, this is a very convenient way for a brain to make sure that it keeps planning and struggling for survival. Our conscious thoughts never see the detailed working of our mechanical brains, we can never directly sense that we never really have behavioral choice, that our brains are deterministic machines. Our brains are designed to present us with a tantalizing array of apparent possibilities and the sensation that we have choice, while in reality there is only one way things will work out in the end. So, at the end of our philosophical journey we must be satisfied that our brains are in control and we must content ourselves with behaving as if we have behavioral choice, even though we know we do not. Nature has played a devious trick on us. Grin and bare it. It could be worse, think what it would be like to be a wasp.
 

SirFshAlot

Elite Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,887
0
0
Bozo,

do you think you made a conscious choice in placing that somewhat irrelevant post in THIS thread?
lol

interesting read

I've often pondered the role of consciousness..........
Is it necessary, or simply a patronizing screen to give us the illusion of controlling our thought processes?

Our self-talk, and observational senses that we are aware of, are only the tip of the iceberg.
Every sentence we make, every phrase we utter, involves the extraction of words that come freely to our awareness........why?
We don't think ourselves into the vaults of our brain, hand picking the words to express. Our brains are already programmed through our lives to run on cruise control.
When punished, our brains process the event, in spite of our conscious attitude of pain, and alter information to set up avoidance behaviors for future consequences.


nice topic
maybe it should be in it's own thread, though
 

Bozo Galora

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 1999
7,271
0
0

(by Jean Moisset)



Mankind has always dreamed of another type of world which would permit him to escape the constraints and difficulties of life as well as the inevitable physiological and mental degradations of aging. In such a world, all would be in synchronicity: all desires would be fulfilled , love, friendship and fine sentiments practiced by all; disease would not exist and immortality would be the normal rule. In other words: Paradise ! The myth of paradise lost is in effect an archetype well anchored in man's collective subconscious. In a perspective which has no rapport with the above, we note that recently scientists have postulated the existence of universes parallel to the one in which we live. Before further discussion, we must make clear the distinction between the great universe composed of the innumerable visible and invisible galaxies and our local galactic island-universe we call the Milky Way. The other island-universes are certainly not very different from ours. Their distribution is of a fractal nature and must be auto-similar, which will probably be confirmed by more precise astronomical observations in the future.
The creation of multiple universes
According to Guth, the emergence of high energy physical processes between 10 and 15 billion years ago could explain the creation of the universe. At that time the universe was probably the size of a particle in 8 or more dimensions (4 of which are those known to us : 3 of space: length, width, height and 1 of time; the 4 others having remained withdrawn in forces (the theory of supercords). The universe formed spontaneously from this apparent void (a sort of cosmic egg) at the same time as space and time. The astrophysicist, Trinh Xuan Thuan thinks that our universe, which contains dozens of billions of galaxies, was at the beginning only a tiny bubble lost in a meta-universe made of billions upon billions of meta-universes billions upon billions of times larger. This meta-universe was probably a part of a quantity of innumerable other meta-universe created during the inflationary period of the Big Bang and gave birth simultaneously to each of the myriads of worlds analogous to or different from ours, but will always remain unknown to us.
By coincidence
Today, based upon the inflationary theory, physicists think that life and conscience appeared in our universe by chance or coincidence because of the existance of favorable conditions and physical constants, and that the other universes are sterile . But of course there is no proof that it is so. Some scientists have speculated that the universe is self productive, that is, a sort of enormous fractal bubble which continually regenerates itself. It would be composed of numerous bubbles which would then generate other bubbles ad infinitum. The universe would then be eternal and life would appear in all possible forms (Andrei Linde - Pour la science, January 1995). Other worlds probably exist which could be called anti-universes because there characteristics would be just the inverse of the those we know.
The antimatter universe
When the universe began to form it contained both particles of matter and particles of antimatter. The difference is due to the fact that the particles of antimatter have an electric charge opposite to the particles of matter as we know them. Thus, in our universe, an electron has a negative charge while an anti-electron given the name positron is charged positively. When they meet they are mutually annihilated. At the time of origin of the universe, the particles of matter were more numerous than the particles of anti-matter thus after mutual annihilation only the particles of matter remained to form our present universe. By this reasoning, it is possible that other universes formed of ant-matter also exist. The bizarre consequences of the existence of such worlds have been exploited by science-fiction authors. Thus, the inhabitants of a planet made of anti-matter would fall upwards, time would flow backwards and clocks move counter clockwise ; the day would begin in the evening and finish in the morning ; the dead would rise from their tomb, grow younger and return to their mother's womb , etc (Les 24 coups de minuit, a novel by Louis Andr?). Other extraordinary science fiction type hypothesis' concerning multiple universes have been described by physicists.
Multiple divergent universes
This strange theory, based upon quantum physics, was presented by Everett in the 1950's, then extended by Wheeler and finally by Graham and de Witt in 1970. It was an attempt to find a solution to the difficult problems posed by quantum processes , notably formulated by Schrodinger in his famous Paradox of the Cat : He had imagined an experiment to demonstrate the dead-end into which the position of idealistic physicists had placed themselves when explaining that the micro-physical processes of reduction of wave packets of a particle is triggered by the conscience of the observer. A cat is enclosed in a box for one hour with one chance in two of of being killed by a poisonous gas triggered by a chance radioactive source. Thus the chat finds itself in a superimposition of states. As long as we have not provoked the reduction of the wave packet and observed the results by openning the box, there is 50% living cat and 50% dead cat. It is only at that moment that we find the cat dead or alive. According to this theory, the universe is divided in two at each wave packet reduction , that is, each time there is an alternative of action, choice or decision. In one universe the cat would be alive in another, the cat would be dead. Each universe would be real but find it impossible to contact each other. As a consequence, there would be an infinite number of universes where in some we would be alive and in others dead, and still others where we will never have existed. In certain universes Hitler would have won the war, in others General Charles de Gaulle would have never existed.
A voyage in time
In spite of its surprising aspects, the theory is based upon a solid mathematical formalism and is still being actively discussed. For example, there is the interesting article by David Deutsch and Micheal Lockwood, professors at the University of Oxford, in the magazine Pour La Science of May 1994 on this subject of a voyage in time. According to a recent poll made in the USA, 58% of the physicists believe in this theory (An article on parallel worlds by Paul Loubi?re and Sylvie Rouart in Science et Avenir of January 1998). The theory of multable divergent worlds would resolve the paradox of a voyage in time. An explorer travels in the past and kills his grand-father. This seems to be impossible since he could not have been born. As we have explained above, the universe would be divided in two each time there is an alternative action, choice or decision. The explorer in time would also be divided in two . In one universe he would renounce his excursion in time and would live. In another universe, he would have killed his grand-father during a voyage in the past and therefore could not have existed. In order to attempt an approach in keeping with reality, scientists have imagined multi-dimensional universes or transcendent the conditions and constants of our universe.
Hypothetical universes conceived by physicists
A hypothesis by David Bohm is one of the most interesting. According to him, our entire universe is just a simple quantum excitation trace in the form of a wave, a ripple in an immense ocean of cosmic energy. It is this hidden energetic background which engenders the three dimensional projection composing the phenomenal world perceived by us. According to David Bohm, there exist two sorts of reality : - The implied order which is imperceptible to our senses and to scientific study and is the primordial reality beyond space-time. Conscience and matter would come from the implied order which would be the common field. - The opened order, which corresponds to the world which we perceive through our senses, would represent only the emergence of the implied order which would be its source and matrix. According to professor Dutheil, There exists another universe which is symmetrical to ours, where the speed of light is always superior to our speed of light. In this universe, the notion of time as we know it would disappear since we could move in an instantaneous manner in the past, present and future. This universe, baptized "Superluminous space-time" would be formed of only information and conscience : all information past, present and future and the conscience of all of humanity.
A hologram ?
Thus, our sub-luminous universe would only be a hologram, a poor reflection of the super-luminous universe which would be the fundamental universe. In our universe, information is in general at the base of causal sequences, while in the super-luminous universe information always ends in the creation of synchronicities. Moreover, several physicists have imagined theories on the subject of parallel worlds which could explain PSI phenomena, in particular materializations and dematerializations. Professor Hastad considers that the phenomena concerning the disappearance and reappearance of objects could be created by a quantum transition. Ernst Mach, Hans Walkoff and Petzold have suggested the hypothesis of a hyper-space, while the physicist Elisabeth Raucher suggests a universe in 8 dimensions, 4 of which would be space-time as we know them and 4 imaginary ones of psychic nature. An object would disappear in our universe to reappear in another universe, then leave it to reappear in ours but not exactly at the same place.
The spiritual and superior worlds
With these worlds we enter into the metaphysical domain and the mystical, spiritual, esoteric and occultist traditions. The evolution of beings toward the superior immaterial spheres or a reintegration into the divine would take place progressively in general by a passage into more and more subtle intermediate worlds, in accordance to a outline more or less like the one we present below, based essentially on the teachings of the oriental metaphysics and philosophies (Vedanta, Yoga, Tao, Bouddhism...).
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |