Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Convergent universes

Yes, this blog is still about BiPolar. It's just that I have this HUGE appetite for philosophical speculation which I locked up in a back room a few years ago for fear that I would sit thinking for 10 hours a day instead of my current 4. But now it has been re-IGNITED, and although i am well aware that I will need to reign it in again sometime soon (before it wreaks total havoc in my professional life) I'm desperate to run with it for a bit. (Could even be a bit of hypomania involved... but shhhh don't tell anyone) Maybe I'll start a new blog sometime just for ontological speculations. "Lost & Profound" Like the name?

I took the pic above on Sunday morning where we went to breakfast at one of my favourite restuarants - Olympia Cafe. Whilst Mrs M and friends used the front entrance, BPG had to skulk through the side one. Dang!

Now to convergent universes:

In yesterday's comments Willbefine said:

"Breaking down anything to its smallest part there is always a finite limit"

I disagree. Finding a smallest part is like finding a smallest number. No can do. They swore that the atom was the smallest part. Then the electron. Then the whatever has come after (at least another 5 steps). Draw me a point on a page to respresent the smallest element. I'll take it, blow it up 10 times, cut the page in half - and hey presto, you've got a smaller one.

"I can propose a theory based on BPG’s infinite regression that within each of these particles contains an alternative universe. Who is to say that I am wrong?"

No, you are not wrong. You are totally right. Anyone who can't see the similarity between the solar system and the atom is just plain blind. "The earth is round, It moves in circles."

So yes, there are universes within universes within.... All on different scales. But have you ever considered that there might be universes right here and now, that are the same size as ours? And in the same space?

This is how: In much the same way as we divide space into smaller and smaller bits and then propose that these bits could contain universes of their own that we wouldn't even know about (YET!), we can do the same with time.

Maybe what is 50 billion years to us, is one zillionth of a millisecond to another universe. RELATIVITY remember. So that universe could have come and gone in the time that I've typed this right here, right now, right in the same space, without us even knowing. Hey presto - Convergent Universes.

And as to the proposition that a Ratio could be the divine force in the universe, it's not so far fetched. See below an excerpt from Mario Livio's excellent book "The Golden Ratio" about Phi. Here is why one dude said the ratio was "God":

So maybe god has gone digital too...

Man, I'm gonna have to stop this runaway horse soon.


  1. BPG dood, delete that paragraph about the atom model being oh-so-similar to the solar system model before your father sees it and disowns you!

    the way electron:z move around a nucleus hardly resembles the way planets revolve around a star. unless you wanna stretch it like the first guy answering your question below... i'm with the second guy.

    orbitals v orbits

    ps: look man, i keep telling you, ain't nuttin wrong with waxing philosophical, but please stop using math and physics to corroborate philosophical musing:z!

  2. z0tl, philosophy is the foundation of mathematics and physics.

    BPG, doesn't matter which way you cut it, I can't realistically see infinity and beyond (Buzz Lightyear). Theoretically, perhaps.

    I am only here for a finite time. I have a finite life with perhaps limitless possibilities on how I can live it. I can promise you now that I am making useful, less than 1% use of my current time.

  3. It's scary how much you and I think alike in this manner. I agree with everything that you've been saying on these topics. I just haven't been able to express into words the way that you can. That's a real talent mon ami.

  4. Anonymous06 June, 2007

    Atom, in its literal sense doesn't refer to something indivisible, or at the smallest possible state, it refers to something uncuttable. It might seem like semantics, but while the atom can be split or divided, we've not yet discovered a way to actually cut an atom (essentially, a knife sharp enough to do so doesn't exist); ergo it still lives up to its name. The other funny thing about atoms is that the elements they are comprised of (electrons, and the quarks comprising their protons and neutrons) technically do not themselves take up space.

    Traditional notions of space-time have Planck length (1.616 × 10−35 m) and Planck time (5.391 × 10−44 seconds) representing the smallest theoretically-measurable units of position and duration. Trying to measure smaller than this creates a miniscule black hole, which sucks up whatever you're using to measure with, and thus ends your attempt to measure smaller than Planck :-)

    "Anyone who can't see the similarity between the solar system and the atom is just plain blind. "The earth is round, It moves in circles.""

    A similarity of shape and movement doesn't mean that an atom represents its own universe, though ... it suggests that both may be subject to or governed by similar forces, which is in itself something worth pondering.

    "But have you ever considered that there might be universes right here and now, that are the same size as ours? And in the same space?"

    Yes, I have :-) Like you, I also considered time as the dimension that made this possible. Where you went with relative time, or even wavelength, I chose something else. Frequency :-) There is a point where matter is essentially energetic and, starting at the molecular level, matter begins to behave more like energy. One of the ways in which it does so is by oscillating at its own natural frequency. My take on the topic is that it's possible to have two objects share the same space, but at different frequencies (such as having something oscillate at a frequency we can detect, making it a part of our known universe; and having something oscillate at frequencies we can't detect). I've given some thought to the possibility that this explains so-called dark matter, and how we find ourselves moving through it.

    Regarding your last proposition, about whether or not it's possible that a ratio could be a divine force in the universe, I'll add my agreement. I think it's likely that such a ratio might very well exist, and that we understand that ratio to be the same 'Nature' that governs butterflies and black holes simultaneously ... and is the same governing force so many of the Pagan and Heathen gods in the description of humanity have themselves been subject to.

    Excellent post, and great blog! :-)


Recent Posts