.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, November 27, 2006

collision of minds

So I have been doing flaky reading and "research" into flaky spiritual stuff. One of the key ideas I have recently come across is the Multiverse.

Then I come across this post about the Many Worlds Interpretation (aka Multiverse) of Quantum Physics (thanks Chefen!).

I adore synchronicities and I have always been very fond of what I think quantum physics is (which may be completely different from what it actually is because I find all those articles and books about it quite tiresome to wade through).

Now I admit that I didn't carefully read the "flaky" theory of the Multiverse either. It seemed rather tedious as well. I just made up what I thought it sounded like and added it to my philipsophy/cosmology. Details schmetails.

Yeah. So I guess this is a post about nothing really. I guess I just like my idea of the multiverse and like that it has come up synchronously and I like it when spirit and science collide. Or at least when I imagine they do.

Labels: ,


Comments:
yes, the many worlds interpretation has been around for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

It's generally (I think) not the most favored of theories, but it has the added benefit of being pretty much non-refutable / non-falsifiable, so it may be true, it may not be true, but there's no way of knowing.

Another theory which is pretty cool is Andrei Linde's theory of eternal chaotic inflation, in which our universe is really just one of many (possibly infinitely many) universes, some of which are much much older (Linde says effectively infinitely older) than ours, some are just now being born, some will be stillborn, and each may end up with completely different laws of physics than ours. There was a really good article in Scientific American a bunch of years ago about it, but I can't find it. Here's an article on Slate about it though:

http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?