Re: Parallel universes proven by Quantum Computers

"marsrules" <wetrover@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a9cca4e5.0404161909.62750ff4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "cesar" <cesar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:<zKIfc.39503

>>> snipped<<<

> > Yeah but how do you know there are other 'observers' in other
universes?

> That hasn't been proven yet. So at this time we can not say with
> certainty that there are observers in other universes but there must
> at least be particles of submatter.

Yes, since it has been observed (though I don't beleive yet proven if in
fact provable) that quarks seem to 'phase in' and 'phase out' of this
universe, we can surmise that they exist in parallel universes during the
phase out period.  I think another postulation held that they are
constantly
being created and destroyed by its anti-matter so that it looks like it is
phasing in and out but I'm not too sure about that.


> > It's purely theoretical and exists only "on paper".   Yet, if someone
from
> > this universe 'observes' what's happening in another universe, then
that
> > universe would really be in 'this universe' wouldn't it be?
>
>
> Yes and no.  A virtual photon can be sent to another universe to learn
> something aboout that universe through quantum entanglement. Remember
> that the observed photon will have the anti features of its
> counterpart.
>

And does that photon come back to tell the story?  If not, it would be the
equivalent of death.   If it dissappears and come back, it would be quite
interesting where it went.  That might sup****t the parallel universe
theory.
For that to happen, a photon has to appear from no where after
dissappearing.


> Let's say for
> > argument's sake, the future of this universe, tomorrow, is a parallel
> > universe today.  Someone who is 'psychic' who can see tomorrow, the
parallel
> > universe, sees a person dying in a car accident.  By your argument,
that
> > world is real, especially since it has been 'observed' by the psychic.
> > Now, knowing that there will be an accident, the subject stays home
the
> > entire day, thereby avoiding the accident and none occurs.
>
>
>  He lives.  In
> > one universe he dies.
>
>
>
>   In another, he lives.
>    What gives?
>
> To psychically view something is untestable and not in the realm of
> science.  If parallel universes exist as real as this one then you can
> die in one and live in another no problem there. The old time travel
> problem which is similar to your psychics vision may be a good
> example. If you travel to the past and kill your father then you were
> never born. In parallel universes there is no conflict, transversing
> time creates a new universe.

This reminds me of that movie with Tom Cruise, Minority Re****t.

 >>  The fallacy is
> > in the trans-dimensional observation.   That which is not observed
from
> > within the same dimension (universe) is not valid.  It is a
'probability'
> > that collapses upon observation.  It's that old Schroedinger cat
theory.
>
> Remember in Quantum theory Schroedinger's cat is both alive and dead.

Or neither alive nor dead.  i.e. the cat does not exist until observed.

> Hawkins says there is no wave collapse just a spliting of observer
> into seperate universes.

Did he substantiate it using math, or just speculating like the rest of
us?

> >
> > Now, quantumly speaking, particles are appearing and disappearing all
the
> > time.  One might argue that when a particle is in a state of
disappearance
> > (none existence in this universe), it may be existing in another
universe
> > occupying the same space and time.   Now, let's say that the particle
has
> > been annihilated by a nuclear transformation into pure energy.  What
> > happened to it in the other universe?
> Maybe nothing maybe annihilation.
>
>  Does it fizzle out mysteriously?
>
> I see what you are geting at now. If one observer dies what happens to
> his counterpart. They are independent.

They cannot be independent.  It is one and the same but in different
milieus, penetrating the dimensional veils.  If they they were
independent,
then they were two different entitites to start with.   The whole premise
of
the parallel theory is that it is 'real' in our universe but 'virtual' in
other universes to us but 'real' in those universes seen from those
perspectives.

>If the particle dies in this
> universe then we have no way to observe it's counterpart. That doesn't
> mean the counterpart is dead as well.

Well, we won't know because we cannot observe anything that is not within
our universe.  The theory that it continues to exist in another universe
has
to be proven by the logic of math, without violating existing theories or
laws.

> > Yet, it requires the power of a nuclear transformation to fizzle out,
so
> > would a nuclear explosion in one universe permeate through all
parallel
> > universes so the particle is annihilated from all universes?  That
would
be
> > chaos especially if you factor in time dimensions.
> >
> Remember that time and space are elastic. Our universe is being
> stretched, bent, folded, but from our point of view everything is
> normal.  Do you feel the Earth twirl?  Imagine all matter in all the
> universes as a pond, you throw a rock into the water(your nuke
> explosion). One universe can be ripped apart by the rock. Other
> universes feel nothing but the shockwave is still there.

> > I would not describe it as Nihilism.  Rather, it is more like
illusory.
> > All material universes can be argued to be an illusion of the observer
since
> > we have yet to define what 'quantum matter' is, because it 'is' yet
'is
> > not'.  If observable matter is made up of quantum matter, then
observable
> > matter itself is an illusion.

> I agree. Matter is made of quantum bits. Space time matter are
> illusions when you get right down to it.

The thing about QM is that it is basically the science of metaphysics.
Metaphysics is esoteric and ethereal.  When we say it is all an illusion
because basically everything is virtual and becomes reality only when
observed through our sensory organs. Yet, how is it that sensory organs of
'normal' people all observe the same thing, while those of 'abnormal'
people
(autistic or those characterized as "insane"), observe it differently?  Is
it in fact the sensory organs that are doing the observing or could it be
something else that is doing the observing 'through' our senses?   That
"something else" is the Universal Consciousness.   We may be indeed of One
Mind, a Massive Quantum Entaglement.  We delude ourselves into thinking we
are 'independent' but in reality, we may be thinking with a common
'brain',
that Huge Cosmic Computer.  Our minds may be nothing more than that remote
terminal and it doesn't know that the Mother Board is somewhere else.

From another esoteric angle, the Gnostics believe that the Reality we are
so
accustomed to is nothing but an Illusion created by the lesser gods who
infused God Consciousness into what is basically Stardust.

cesar