ForumGarden

I'm not certain that's what it was called.

A few years back I read a [strike]theory[/strike] hypothesis that goes something like this:

If there are parallel Universes, then it could be reasonable to assume that the unfolding of each Universe would be pretty much copies of the first one. Which means you exist in each universe, only the time would vary.

All living things are made up of particles, and particles contain information about the organism they come from.

When an organism dies some of the particles release from the body. Some, or perhaps many of the particles are capable of entering into other universes. Some find the copy of the organism they came from and the information the particle possesses passes onto the organism's copy.

This could account for many of what we consider mysteries, or to what some attribute to a higher power. For example, this could account for deja vu, or say, inexplicably knowing something was going to happen before it did. It could also be why some believe in a soul.

It's assumed that the particles don't have any defined purpose in doing what they do, but that this process is merely a part of what life is and does.

I will award you an unlimited budget and set up a new department at Harvard to research on your behalf.

In exchange, you have to present the thread with a proposal on how your new department will test whether this mechanism exists in the real world.

Where would you like to start.

spot;1504263 wrote: I will award you an unlimited budget and set up a new department at Harvard to research on your behalf.

In exchange, you have to present the thread with a proposal on how your new department will test whether this mechanism exists in the real world.

Where would you like to start.


I don't know if I can do that.

I don't think we don't know whether or not there are parallel universes, so rather than looking for particles departing our universe we'd need to identify the incoming particles and somehow distinguish them from the departing particles. Since the organisms are dead it's doubtful we'd find incoming particles to a dead organism, we should however find particles, if detectable, exiting the body.

Do you have a method for detecting these kinds of particles?

Sorry......................I lost interest shortly after the first "If"..............it was the "could be reasonable to assume" part that did it.

Okay. So it's not a theory. Can we call it a hypothesis though? Or am I forced to go with hunch?

Bruv;1504266 wrote: Sorry......................I lost interest shortly after the first "If"..............it was the "could be reasonable to assume" part that did it.


Pity. You were the one sacred catch too.

As it turns out it is a theory of Robert Lanza's called Biocentrism.

Biocentrism / Robert Lanza’s Theory of Everything

As far as I can tell, Lanza is not known as any type of wack-a-doodle either.

Well, any argument that starts with a reference to the general assumption of a flat earth in the 15th century loses me fairly quickly.

Ahso!;1504252 wrote: I'm not certain that's what it was called.

A few years back I read a [strike]theory[/strike] hypothesis that goes something like this:

If there are parallel Universes, then it could be reasonable to assume that the unfolding of each Universe would be pretty much copies of the first one. Which means you exist in each universe, only the time would vary.

All living things are made up of particles, and particles contain information about the organism they come from.

When an organism dies some of the particles release from the body. Some, or perhaps many of the particles are capable of entering into other universes. Some find the copy of the organism they came from and the information the particle possesses passes onto the organism's copy.

This could account for many of what we consider mysteries, or to what some attribute to a higher power. For example, this could account for deja vu, or say, inexplicably knowing something was going to happen before it did. It could also be why some believe in a soul.

It's assumed that the particles don't have any defined purpose in doing what they do, but that this process is merely a part of what life is and does.


It could also explain the so called "Mandela effect"

Once these particles attach themselves to their opposing match, do they add anything ? Does the combination of matching particles increase the power of say, the sight, brain power or do they just make us fatter.

My brain particles seem to be drifting exponentially to other parallels as I grow older, while any attraction I have for any doppelganger bits and pieces I can calculate on the bathroom scales.

Snowfire;1504274 wrote: Once these particles attach themselves to their opposing match, do they add anything ? Does the combination of matching particles increase the power of say, the sight, brain power or do they just make us fatter.

My brain particles seem to be drifting exponentially to other parallels as I grow older, while any attraction I have for any doppelganger bits and pieces I can calculate on the bathroom scales.


I think I answered that in my first post. Lanza's actual theory is more complex. I'll be ordering both his books and I'll attempt to read them. If I understand it correctly, Lanza says that our perception of time/space and the universe are backwards.

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around that.

What bothers me is that according to Lanza we live on eternally, and I want out asap without having to hurt anyone in doing so. So I wait impatiently.

LarsMac;1504271 wrote: Well, any argument that starts with a reference to the general assumption of a flat earth in the 15th century loses me fairly quickly.


It might do you well to read on a bit further.

Ahso!;1504282 wrote: It might do you well to read on a bit further.


I probably will, but, I am still working on figuring this guy out. http://www.quantumjumping.com/products

LarsMac;1504285 wrote: I probably will, but, I am still working on figuring this guy out. Quantum Jumping by Burt Goldman


At a bit of a glance it appears he's selling success.

Ahso!;1504289 wrote: At a bit of a glance it appears he's selling success.


Yep. Aren't they all?

It must be in demand.

The Religious among us would attribute anything that is unknown to their God & other attributed events. One might even interpret these drifting particles as being the Souls. They could be those things considered to be Ghosts - this I have often believed to be some sort of 'Life Energy' - something that I don't see as being anything to do with the Supernatural - just something that is not, as yet, understood.

What I don't understand is why the exclusive concentration on particles coming from living sources - they would be far outnumbered by inorganic particles.

And, unless some specific mechanism can be shown, why would these particles enter the copy of the original self rather then one of the several billion other selves around?

Bryn Mawr;1504534 wrote: What I don't understand is why the exclusive concentration on particles coming from living sources - they would be far outnumbered by inorganic particles.

And, unless some specific mechanism can be shown, why would these particles enter the copy of the original self rather then one of the several billion other selves around?


The same might be asked of the elements of a crystal. Why do they gather to form such a mathematically precise shape. Plus, if a sponge (living variety) is put into a liquidiser, it will reform itself into its original shape. Furthermore, if 2 sponges of different colours are liquidised together, they will reform into their own constituent colours. Those particles rejoin to their predetermined positions in the grand order of things, when logic would seem to dictate that they just connect to the first other particle they encounter.

FourPart;1504535 wrote: The same might be asked of the elements of a crystal. Why do they gather to form such a mathematically precise shape. Plus, if a sponge (living variety) is put into a liquidiser, it will reform itself into its original shape. Furthermore, if 2 sponges of different colours are liquidised together, they will reform into their own constituent colours. Those particles rejoin to their predetermined positions in the grand order of things, when logic would seem to dictate that they just connect to the first other particle they encounter.


The crystal is not at all relevant as the precise mechanism for that process is known and understood. The sponge example, however, is new to me.

Bryn Mawr;1504534 wrote: What I don't understand is why the exclusive concentration on particles coming from living sources - they would be far outnumbered by inorganic particles.

And, unless some specific mechanism can be shown, why would these particles enter the copy of the original self rather then one of the several billion other selves around?Perhaps the particles of one person does affect others. I think the idea is that this is a fairly random process. What happens to one copy might not happen to another. Maybe the information is passed by contact kind of similar to exchanging information with cell phones by touching them together.

Not being a scientist all I would have to offer up is anecdotal, and I know you guys loathe that.

I seem to remember hearing that the presence of an alternate universe was suspected of being the reason the stars and galaxies are moving in the way they are - they are being pulled in a particular direction rather than just spreading out equally all over and it is theorised that it is the gravity of an alternate universe that is affecting them.

Not sure I've remembered right, but just chucking it in as possibly relevant.

I think at this stage it would be helpful to provide a definition of what a universe is. I had understood its boundary to include all that exists.

I do not insist that I'm correct, but I would ask those who regard that definition as wrong to provide their alternative.

Definition of a universe...wow...ok:

A universe is an area of space which operates under the same laws throughout and creates a something where there had been nothing before. It is a whole in itself and is separated from other universes by a nothingness we know nothing about.

Pretty vague, but the best I can do at present.

spot;1504872 wrote: I think at this stage it would be helpful to provide a definition of what a universe is. I had understood its boundary to include all that exists.

I do not insist that I'm correct, but I would ask those who regard that definition as wrong to provide their alternative.


I do not hold that your definition is wrong but, as I understand it, the popular alternative is :-



The Universe is all that exists "in this plane of existence"

The multiverse hypothesis posits that there are parallel planes of existence each of which holds its own universe.

Whether the extra planes of existence are separated by a forth spatial dimension or whether they are separated by a metaphysical boundary is a matter for conjecture.

Haven't the cosmologists gone a few stages further? I thought the planes of existence could be imagined as an infinite series of sheets of fabric hung incredibly close together but not usually touching. However, the sheets ripple and sway in some sort of metaphysical wind and on the rare occasions when neighbouring sheets touch, BIG BANG!

Clodhopper;1504880 wrote: Haven't the cosmologists gone a few stages further? I thought the planes of existence could be imagined as an infinite series of sheets of fabric hung incredibly close together but not usually touching. However, the sheets ripple and sway in some sort of metaphysical wind and on the rare occasions when neighbouring sheets touch, BIG BANG!


Well I know that they're talking in terms of eleven spatial dimensions but how those dimensions relate to the ones we know and love I never have managed to get my head round.

Chuckle. Wasn't that an incredibly brilliant American whose name I forget who took the various "string" theories and reduced them to an M theory? And no-one knows what the M stands for. My own suspicion is it's a cosmologist joke and the M is anyone going Mmmmmm and thinking about it...

Edit: Something in my head is telling me it was an Edward somebody...

Clodhopper;1504885 wrote: Chuckle. Wasn't that an incredibly brilliant American whose name I forget who took the various "string" theories and reduced them to an M theory? And no-one knows what the M stands for. My own suspicion is it's a cosmologist joke and the M is anyone going Mmmmmm and thinking about it...

Edit: Something in my head is telling me it was an Edward somebody...


Edward Witten but I think the eleven dimensions pre-date that.