Re: virus: real world?
Mon, 30 Dec 96 14:18:01 GMT

S. Atkins wrote:

> I have been asked to forward this message from an anonymous poster.
> **********************Is the world real?
> Theoretical physicists have developed a parallel universe hypothesis to
> account for the various ghostlike, unexplainable effects resulting from
> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This hypothesis stems from the need
> to
> give Heisenberg's quantum mechanics a physical expression. Hence, a
> system
> of parallel worlds. These worlds would be alternative dimensions
> superimposed upon our own in which every single potential condition
> contained in quantum mechanics actually existed. This model of reality,
> if
> confirmed, might help us form an image of Heisenberg's mathematically
> abstract atom.

Wouldn't this theory mean that matter does not exist as a "solid" if you
understand what I mean? It's a difficult thing to explain, but I'll
have a go. Matter exists, so we are told :), as an actual presence in
space, that is rigid at it's basic form (ie molecular level) and there
is something that can be "touched" present. If MWH is correct, then
surely this matter theory is incorrect, as presumably matter exists
unconditionally. It would be, in my mind, impossible to have multiple
Universes Co-existing with our own in the same part of space, due to the
fact that if matter is "solid" then *all* Universes matter would be in the
same parts of space as in the other dimensions. Does that make sense?
This would result in us being able, quite easily - by touch alone - to
detect the presence of other universes. Presumably the other "you" is
just as real in that dimension as in this, so why can we not see him if
matter is real, and he co-exists in the same space, but another dimension
(what definition would "dimension" take in this case?)?

The only way I can see this theory being possible is by matter actually being
made up of Photons, and thus no more "solid" than light. If a Photonic basis
is what matter is built from, then maybe different wavelengths/frequencies
interact well with eachother, to produce our universe, and other combination
produce other universes. In this way, "matter" could be present, but we would
be unable to see or touch it.

Appologies for the somewhat fuzzy explanation. I hope that someone can see
what I'm getting at. Please feel free to interpret what I've said in a
better way.

> According to the parallel universe hypothesis, there is only one
> universe at
> the beginning of time, but each atomic event causes it to split off into
> two
> or more parallel dimensions, so that we soon have a continuous branching
> pattern like in a hierarchical communications network or a tree.

What is an atomic event classed as? Is it something fairly major, or is it
something as simple as decision making?

> What it all boils down to is that according to physical evidence,
> reality
> depends on the observer;

Agreed. This ties in nicely with the virtuality thread.

> we can only consciously inhabit one of these
> parallel worlds at a time.

Does this imply that unconsciously we can access them?

> This may have consequences for memetics,
> particularly if we consider that observations effect experimental
> results
> and that consciousness plays a role in reality.
> According to quantum mechanics, "Cogito ergo sum" may have a physical
> basis.

I still don't know what that means. Someone /please/ enlighten me :)

> At a certain point the question is this universe real becomes
> irrelevant:
> like an atomic particle it can be rendered real or imaginary precisely
> at
> the moment the question is posed.
> Reactions anyone?

Interesting. I can't see it being correct, myself, but I do enjoy debating
these kinds of things.

Richard Jones "We are the New Breed We are the Future."