»Is our current universe the 6th version?«

I'm theorising that our universe is just and 'explosion' in infinite space along with millions of other explosions happening all the time. We think of our universe as so big but what if in reality to the'whole' picture it is just a speck of dust. These explosions in space exist in the same plane or reality, think of it as the millions of gallaxies in our milky way except they are not gallaxies but 'big bangs'. If two 'bangs' overlap over time then it doesn't matter as they exist in the same 'universe' and are subject to the same laws. see what i mean?

Triple-Geek

Sorry, I didn't actually think you were mistaking the Matrix for the real universe. I deliberately misunderstood you as a joke. I think this was a really interesting thread even though it wandered off the actual Matrix topic for a while.

Hi CrossFade,

Ah! Then our views about the possibility of multiple universes (or a multiverse) are actually QUITE different! We are using the term "multiverse" or multiple universes to mean different things, it appears to me. If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I am not), then there is a multiverse, a very very very big space, and all over this big space, big bangs happen. Each big bang result in a universe. Our universe is the result of one such big bangs. There is not much difference between one universe from the other universes. It is like an ocean with many islands. Each island is separated from the other islands. But otherwise, these islands, aside from their size (some are bigger, and other smaller), obey the same laws of physics.

In my view (speculation) of the "multiverse", it is quite different. Again, there are multiple universes. Our is one. But each universe differ fundamentally from any other universe because the laws of physics (the laws of science in general) are different from one universe to the other.

Now, the REASON that I would speculate on the multiverse is my intense curiosity as to how the Big Bang sets the parameters of our universe, like the mass of electrons, the strength of Gravity compared to nuclear strong force, etc. My speculation is that there are many many Big bangs, and each bang sets its own parameters. Thus the result is entirely different universes. Thus if we ever come into contact with another universe (and I don't think that is possible, but if it could), there would be a huge paradox, for the electron that crosses over from one universe to the other would be utterly confused as to how it should behave.

Finally, is my thread off-topic? If the Matrix is just a movie, then we are all over-analyzing the movie. But I don't think the Matrix is just a movie, it is BIGGER than Einstein's theory of relativity, bigger than quantum physics, bigger than Modern mathematics (including topology and abstract analysis), bigger than Skakespeare, and the philosophy of Kant ... Okay, certainly I am stretching this just a little bit. No, I don't think I am off topic with the Matrix, for it touches on religion, philosophy, meaning of life, and yes, metaphysics (beyond physics).

triple-geek wrote:

I mean if our universe ever come into contact with another universe, which law would come into play? (the law of our universe or the other universe?) That would lead into a contradiction! Or in Scribe's model that our universe is one big Turing Machine, the machine will crash! It would not be able to decide should an electron obey the law in our universe or the other universe!

Hi triple-geek

I don't think the machine will crash. I believe the parallel state machine is driving the entire multiverse. Each universe in the multiverse exists apart from each other because when a Turing Machine is in a particular state in our universe that same state may appear and mean something very different in another universe. Same state but different meaning hence different laws of physics and multiple universes that are mutually exclusive and different! Because you can have almost infinite interpretations of the same thing then almost an infinite number of universes may exist!

I have also been giving this a bit of thought and as a speculation just assume that every string (i.e. super-string theory) in our universe is a separate TM (Turing Machine). Combining all the strings togeather gives the parallel state computing platform needed for the virtual world. Where physicist "see" little stringy things I think they are looking at the result of TM computations. Physicist are looking for something tangible i.e strings are things we can identify with, but then they say it is the resonance of theses strings that account for particles etc. In my book resonance <-> state = same thing.

I'm not a physics person, I'm a music person. Carl Sagan's Cosmos is my reference when I need to check up on how stuff works in our universse.
That and a really cool book by Arthur Koestler called The Sleepwalkers where I first found out about the direct relationship between music and numbers. However, I digress.

I still remember why M1 completely BLEW MY MIND and still does.

I had read a layman's book on Super String theory ( got the book from a local university book store). And when I finally got around to watching M1 I got shivers at the end where Neo after resurrecting from the dead looks around and he sees life as superstrings ( that's how I understood it anyway).

It was fantastic and the main reason I got hooked on the trilogy. At that point, for me, anything was possible.

There has been some excellent theories and experiences thanks to the Matrix trillogy Triple-geek, so i would'nt worry about this thread being deemed off-topic(if knnknn decides it is he will move it and we shall continue this dabate there ) Your analogy of islands in an ocean was spot on and this is my take on space as a whole. Super strings is something i have tried to study and the more i read the more it seems possible but as with all theories, it's all down to math and in some cases belief. which strangly i feel is what the Matrix is all about

Scribe if you think philosophy is so pointless then why are you in a forum of fans devoted to a film renowned for its Cartesian themes. Many if not most of the topics on this forum are about ideas discovered somewhere in Descartes Meditations. Ideas like scepticism, dualism, religion, free will to mention but a few.

I'm studying philosophy at the moment and I take offence at being told that my interests are pointless. Especially from someone discussing stupid theories about multiple universes! I have never heard such rubbish. How can you possibly talk about multiple universes when every time there is a new universe the old one dissapears without trace. There is certainly no evidence that there is more than one big bang within the universe we are in. All of these ideas are pure speculation based on less proof than the most ridiculous philosophies.

HI,
Talking about other universes before this one:
There is no point in asking if there were other universes before our own, because, as you know, our time dimension was created 15 billons years ago, so there is no before for us. Other universes are so isolated from our that there is no way of saying if they existed before, after or if they existed at all.

Pablo.

Thanks for all the inputs and please do feel comfortable to share any opinion, theory (either substantiated or pure speculation). BUT ... before continuing, I want to stress, as a REQUEST folks, please try NOT to take comments from others as personal attacks. I read all of the replies to my original question, and no matter any difference of opinion, I do not believe anyone is purposely attacking or condemning any school of thought.

I am not a moderator to maintain peace in this forum, just a guy (who is also a geek) with strong intense curiositiy. I like to assume all of you who could come to this forum and have the brainpower to chew upon all the puzzles brought upon by the Matrix, are smart and civilized.

Okay, sorry, with that big speech about peace behind me, let's dive in.

If I could summarize about some current thoughts ... about whether our universe is the 6th version ... here are some possibilities:

1) Stephen Hawking and others who hold to that consensus: There was a Big Bang, that happened roughly 15 billion years ago. Anything that happened before the Big Bang could have no effect on our current universe. Hence the idea of time and anything before our current universe could have no relevance or any meaning. Hence that would be the end of discussion. Using geeky language, there is a point of Singularity that erased all previous information and the universe is reloaded, but we are not allowed to ask anything about what happened before the universe.

2) Second view is universe (or multiverse) is a big Turing machine, or a series of parrallel turning machines. There is a self-evolutionary program being run in each universe. The universes could possibly come into contact.

3) Third view is also a mutiverse. Space, being very very big, is like an ocean. Individual universes are like the islands on the ocean. The islands (the universes) are essentially obeying the same laws of physics. Big bangs happend from time to time in this ocean of big space to create islands of universes.

4) Fourth view is like the Third view, with one CRUCIAL difference. Each big bang that happen from time to time sets the parameters of that particular universe. Hence each universe could obey dramatically very different laws of physics.

5) Fifith view is that there is no evidence of a multiverse and those current scientists who believe in superstring or multiverse are possibly smoking potsl. (the part about smoking pot is not serious). I should mention not all who believe in superstrings believe in the multiverse (and not all of them are smoking pots).

6) The Universe is a donut with the empty hole represting stuff we could never know. The donut is also a torus and mathematicians know that there are all kinds of strange topology associated with a torus (that is beyond our discussion to talk abotu topology here). I am not sure whether universe is a donut has anything to do with whether our universe is the 6th version.

7) Another view, implicitly suggested by someone, and triggered my interest is that I have no idea how time behaves in the earlier part of the universe. If time is "uniform", then 15 billion years old is the consensus view by most scientists. If, however, time behaves VERY differently in early part of the universe, then perhaps 15 billion years turns out to be a lot longer than 15 billion years, possibly infinite time.

Yet another view, related by Stephen Hawking's hypothesis, is that the universe go through expansion, then contraction. Each universe (no multiverse here), expands but then eventually contracts (falls upon its own graviity). This leads to a collapse of the universe, thus the universe is reborn again, a Big Bang.

9) Finally, a Hindu view, related to the view just above, the universe is an organism (not literally, but as a metaphor), as such it periodically gives a rebirth. In this sense, perhaps a bit mystical, the universe is "intelligent". This is an intelligent universe who is self-conscious (!). I assume this is different from the Turing Machine view because I normally assume a machine is not self-conscious (Okay, I know the Matrix trilogy tells us otherwise).

I hope that is a good summary (I know it does not do full justice to some of the views). Now, I have NOT mentioned anything by Kant ... (skip the paragraph below if you want to avoid Kant).

The ultra-enigmatic Philosopher Kant, with all due respect to him, would tell us there can be no such knowledge to our questions, since we can have no knowledge of things-in-themselves. What he means, by ONE possible interpretation, is that things-in-themselves, when they are removed from our experience, or when there is no such possibility to experiece the things, are things that we can have no knowledge about. If you are fans of Kant, please forgive me for my pseduo-paraphrase of what Kant is trying to say.

That's it folks, thanks for your patience.

Ok the Hindu one looks worth exploring - any more ideas on this? I know that within our current cycle we are in the third and final stage, the age of Kali. Eeeek!

I didn't think the Hindu universe cycles necessarily needed a complete destruction of the universe (like a big crunch), but simply required enough destruction for the world to start fresh.

Fatpie42 wrote:

I'm studying philosophy at the moment and I take offence at being told that my interests are pointless. Especially from someone discussing stupid theories about multiple universes! I have never heard such rubbish. How can you possibly talk about multiple universes when every time there is a new universe the old one dissapears without trace. There is certainly no evidence that there is more than one big bang within the universe we are in. All of these ideas are pure speculation based on less proof than the most ridiculous philosophies.

Dear FatPie42,

I have never suggested that Philosophy is pointless, I only suggested that the ideas that these so called "Classic Philosophers" came up with may be valid but the are buried in a jumble of egotistical mumbo jumbo. If you distill a 1000 page book on philosophy you would probably get one or two workable ideas.

When you study Philosophy the entire field has its own baggage, I hate that baggage I just want the core ideas. And the core idea I think is most important is the one of virtual worlds (i.e. brain in a vat etc I dont care who though of it first it could have been Great Uncle Bulgaria for all I know) and the Turing machine and it's extrapolations.

And as for my belief in the Multiverse I did not say I believe it just that if there were a Mutiverse it would not be such a strange thing in the context of a Parallel State Machine. I.e if they did exists then I it would not invalidate my model! By the way why do you think they are spending millions on massive colliders in Texas and Switzerland: TO PROOVE STRING THEORY AND POSSIBLY THE CONCEPT OF THE MULTIVERSE, so not such crack pot (wow two drugs in one phrase!) ideas!

PS I was talking about the state machine suporting multiple concurrent universes co-existing simultaneously not one dying before after another starts.

Hello, folks, just when I think that all our theory of "is our current universe the 6th one?" begins to get even more speculative then X-files, guess what? In bookstores today, I saw the "special collectors edition" of US News (display until Dec 2). The special edition is on the mystery of our universe. On page 14-20, contain a few "theories" regarding what happened *BEFORE* the big bang? (assuming there is only one big bang leading to our current universe).

What is remarkable about that article is not just the plethora of highly imaginative ideas (they are no more speculative than the ones we have suggested in this thread), but rather the hall of fame of scientists who have proposed them (and backed them). No less than Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth (who proposed far more implausiable ideas than Hawking), etc.

I actually thought at one point, that there does not seem to be much difference between a Ph.D with 200 papers published, than a 6-year old with lots of imagination in grade 1. (!)

One scientist suggests there is a Mother universe which gives birth to many baby universes and ours is one. Another suggests that from Nothing, there is fluctuation. Most of the time flutuation is little, but once a while, you get huge fluctuation and that huge fluctuation gives rise to a big bang, leading to a universe. Of course, I have no idea what Nothing means if there is flutation, and if there is Nothing, then what is flutuating? I assume by Nothing, the scientist means a big empty space of energy. And positive energy + negative energy = 0. But the energy level flutuates around the zero level.

The article seems to make it sound like the idea of multiverse is now accepted by mainstream scientists!

Of course, we may never know from TRUELY nothing, how did we ever get the whole game to start in the first place, but apprently some scientists DO believe that the Ultimate Cosmological Quest may no longer be a mystery and one day we could uncover it.

Hum, do I hear Sherlock Homes saying, "My dear Watson, the clues are always there. When you have considered all the possibilities, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the possible."