Parallel Universes Theory

[Jack]

What is Parallel Universes Theory?Do you know a good webpage which describes it with details?

[Brutha]

When there is an quantum event that can have two outcomes there exist a new world for each of those outcomes.
Those two universe are nearly completly isolated from each other, expect for a few very narrow quantum interactions with nearby (not so different) universes.

[responsibility]

Originally Posted by Brutha

When there is an quantum event that can have two outcomes there exist a new world for each of those outcomes.
Those two universe are nearly completly isolated from each other, expect for a few very narrow quantum interactions with nearby (not so different) universes.

The theory seems a bit too farfetched for it to be true. But then again, I don't know much about Quantum Physics. I wonder if this relates to anything metaphysics-wise.

[Acting Like Godot]

The proper name is the Many Worlds interpretation.

If you click on the link, you'll see that "Many worlds"-like interpretations are now considered fairly mainstream within the quantum physics community. For example, a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded that nearly 60% thought many worlds interpretation was "true".

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by responsibility

I wonder if this relates to anything metaphysics-wise.

Metaphysics-wise, you may be interested in checking out the Seth material. Seth was a non-physical entity purportedly channelled from another dimension by a famous alleged psychic Jane Roberts.

Jane Robert did hundreds of channelling sessions with Seth over the course of 21 years. Among other things, Seth explained that there were numerous multiple universes, and went to very great lengths to elaborate on the how's and why's.

Jane Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[responsibility]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Metaphysics-wise, you may be interested in checking out the Seth material. Seth was a non-physical entity purportedly channelled from another dimension by a famous alleged psychic Jane Roberts.

Jane Robert did hundreds of channelling sessions with Seth over the course of 21 years. Among other things, Seth explained that there were numerous multiple universes, and went to very great lengths to elaborate on the how's and why's.

Jane Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just finished reading it. The part that caught my attention was when Seth mentioned that Christ is returning to the 21st century to fix the mistakes he made that sent Christianity into the wrong direction. I just hope that I'm not that incarnation .

If he really is coming, then this is going to be a very interesting century .

[cameroncameroncameron]

i belive in the dimensional theory, were there are infinite numbers of different dimensions, now i might have changed it up, but thats what i belive, i also belive in chi, wich is the same thing as ki or qi, its term for being used is usually qigong. i definitly belive in that, ive worked it and done it, i also belive thers an after life were we are spirits, then we are able to roam and explore other dimensions freely, and then your time comes in the afterlife where you die again, but this one is painless and beautiffull, then after your 2 death, you are reincarnated into any dimension you or they or it chooses, and that if you mistreeted something like a dog that you enslaved alot, then you will become an enslaved dog in the afterlife, see, you will be what you mistreet and then you will be mistreeted. what im not sure of though, is if you have any choice in if you start your new life in another dimension, or if you even do, also, maybe your able to choose the animal you start out as, but i doubt it. what do you guys think this theory is like, hinduism or what? i just said what i belive, i didnt learn it from anyone, but maybe its actually a religion. is it?

[TonyRush]

Originally Posted by responsibility

The theory seems a bit too farfetched for it to be true.

Actually that reminds me of a quote from Michio Kaku, a renowned physicist who said, "It is often stated that -- of all the theories proposed in this century -- the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct."

In other words, as silly as it sounds, quantum theory provides a 100% accurate explanation for why particles behave as they do.

If you're interested, there are some particularly good books around that talk about quantum theory in layman's terms. I particularly enjoyed "The Divine Matrix" by Gregg Braden. It provides a lot of hard science (explained in layman's terms) but also offers a perspective that shows you why quantum theory matters in our personal, day-to-day lives.

Tony Rush

[Jack]

Is "Parallel Universes Theory" related to "everybody have their own universe"?

cameroncameroncameron,i don't belive it.I believe that our beliefs will affect our afterlife choices,but not sure.I don't believe that we will pay the bill in afterlife for what we have done in this world,what u say is like going to hell for our sins.

[Brutha]

The theory seems a bit too farfetched for it to be true. But then again, I don't know much about Quantum Physics

It's only one of multiple theory out there about quantum physics.

In other words, as silly as it sounds, quantum theory provides a 100% accurate explanation for why particles behave as they do.

At present quantum theory doesn't explain everything. There are a lot of open questions in physics.

I particularly enjoyed "The Divine Matrix" by Gregg Braden. It provides a lot of hard science (explained in layman's terms) but also offers a perspective that shows you why quantum theory matters in our personal, day-to-day lives.

If I wanted to read something about hard science I wouldn't pick a book with "Devine" in the title. The most quntum physicists don't believe in a LoA like interpretation that seems to be in that book (according to amazon reviews).

[TonyRush]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If I wanted to read something about hard science I wouldn't pick a book with "Devine" in the title. The most quntum physicists don't believe in a LoA like interpretation that seems to be in that book (according to amazon reviews).

With respect, I don't know that reading Amazon reviews is a good way to find out what most quantum physicists would agree with. I DO agree that the term "Divine" in the title (and the word "Matrix", for that matter) was probably more geared to an audience of non-physicists than to getting approval from people who make their living studying that branch of science. (Incidentally, one of the best books I ever read on economics was horribly titled "God Wants You To Be Rich" by Paul Zane Pilzer. I avoided the book for years. LOL)

Anyway, next time you're in a bookstore, if you'll pick up "The Divine Matrix", I think you'll find that he's done a very good and thorough job of explaining the science and experiments in layman's terms. The book is also pretty well-documented with references throughout to more than just the most-commonly-quoted experiments.

It's true that the book is NOT a science book. Once he's laid a fairly thorough scientific basis, he explores how the science relates to things like LoA, prayer, synchronicity, etc. And, you're 100% right: I doubt most quantum physicists would consider those parts of the book to be "scientific" enough for their tastes.

Anyway, the amount I've written here to defend the book might make it seem as though I care one way or another what people think about it. I don't. It's just a book that I saw many times before I opened it because I had some of the same reservations you had and I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

Another book that I'd recommend for laymen wanting to understanding something about quantum physics and how it relates to our perception of reality is Lynn McTaggart's "The Intention Experiment".

She has become a bit of a clearinghouse for notable science experiments around the globe that relate to these ideas. In fact, my wife and I attended a talk she did in Australia when we were there last year. She's an excellent speaker and also has done a good job of basing her thoughts on documented and published science.

Anyway, I hope that is of value to someone.

Tony Rush

[cameroncameroncameron]

hey man, i definitly dont belive in hell or heaven, maybe good and bad universes and maybe even rulers of some of those universes,but no devil, and about paying the bill in the afterlife, is that realy what you belive, that we can do what we want and have no repercussions, or is that what you want to belive?

[Brutha]

With respect, I don't know that reading Amazon reviews is a good way to find out what most quantum physicists would agree with.

Ah, my fault. I meant that I got the impression that it is about the LoA from the amazon reviews.
The fact that most scientists don't believe in the LoA came more from other science reading.

I think you'll find that he's done a very good and thorough job of explaining the science and experiments in layman's terms.

As being a layman myself I can't judge whether he is right in his descriptions and explanations.

If he want to read something about the scientific field, it should come from a mainstream scientist in that field. You can also read other people who criticise the mainstream view and offer other explanation but you shouldn't take what they write as mainstream science.

(and the word "Matrix", for that matter)

Matrix is okay, it is a basic mathematical concept. But the author should understand the mathematica concept

[Jack]

Cameron,it's my belief,but i can't say that i am sure of course,noone can be sure about this.I got this conclusion from the books and texts i have read up-to-date.If our beliefs create our reality,then why can't they affect our afterlife?Also,good or bad is a viewpoint,they are not facts,you may call something "bad",but i may call the samething as "good".I believe that they are comments,they are subjective,they are not really "good" or "bad".Whose standards determine the "goods" or the "bads"?A person's standards?a group's standarts?A country's standard's?"God"'s standards?If in real,there is no good or bad,then why do you think that we will get punished for what we have done bad?I don't agree to you...You may not believe to hell,but seems like you still believe that we will get punished for our "sins" or "bad" behaviours,it's a very similar belief like going to hell i think.