Multiverse

Gravity is geometrical in nature and implies elasticity/plasticity, which infers a break- ing point to our universal fabric. The assertion of the author is that when a mass reaches its Schwarzschild radius, it has reached the breaking point of our universe and as a consequence, may puncture it. This may in turn expose our universe to the "Abso- lute Gravity" (g=c in all directions) of infinite space outside our universe (this does not take into account any other universe that may exist). Out of this process, a black hole forms from the point of singularity/puncture until the original point of the Schwarz- schild radius. We will discuss some of the possible consequences of this theory as well as its possible effects on universal expansion and its multiverse implications.

…в последние пару лет так много людей ухватились за термин «трансмедиа», исказили его, повернули к своей выгоде, что во многом стал он размытым. К тому же тер-мин «трансмедиа», подобно «мультимедиа», который сегодня ничего не значит, потому что мультимедиа стало всё, может оказаться временным.
Джеффри Лонг.

It is fair to say that the deepest mystery in our understanding of nature is the birth of our universe. Much of the dilemma over the last decades comes from the extraordinarily small probability that the universe started with the high energy Big Bang as compared to the chance of nucleating any other event. How can Big Bang cosmology be

Among all Borges’ brilliant ideas, the most famous is perhaps the one around which the short story The Garden of Forking Paths is constructed; in this short story is described the structure of an imaginary novel in which there is no selection between alternative possibilities and every possible thing is actualized in a different universe line: in some cases, these lines can rejoin after splitting and then break up again. However, even if the “forking paths” seem to be inextricably linked to Borges’ short story, in this case we can say that the Argentinian writer, rather than inventing something new, has contributed in great measure to fix in the popular imagination what appears to be an ancient topos. The main goal of this essay is to analyze how this topos is adopted and developed in its own expressive potential by a consistent number of postmodernist writers.

MANKIND’S MOST IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY!! --→
SKIP DIRECTLY TO MIND OVER MATTER. 
BECOME THE GOD THAT YOU ARE!!!

EUPHORIA, TELEPATHIC MOMENTS, HOMAGE BY NATURE, WEATHER CONTROL AND ALCHEMY / MANIFESTATION ARE NORMAL NOW AND WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN.

IS THAT HUMANS ARE THE CENTER OF AND MANIFEST THE ENTIRE MULTIVERSE

YA GOTTA LAUGH – HERE WE HAVE THE CREATOR GODS OF THE ENTIRE MULTIVERSE, WHO EVEN COLLECTIVELY ARE DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS.
OR
PHENOMENALLY CHIVALROUS – WELL IT’S BOTH.

This is an excerpt from the Pictorial Compendium of The Secret Doctrine
Volume IV, The Nature of Everything.

From Newton's mechanical calculations to Einstein's general and special relativity to the baffling indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, the discipline of physics has become increasingly arcane and complex, and less and less governed by orderly laws. This presents a problem for the layperson, who struggles to understand how Newtonian physics, with its predictable observations of physical forces, relates to the parallax and paradox of later discoveries. " If you don't already know physics, " says physicist Dominic Walliman, it's difficult sometimes to see how all of these different subjects are related to each other. " So Walliman has provided a helpful visual aid: an animated video map showing the connections between classical physics, quantum physics, and relativity.

We then delve into the Physics of NOE at a high-level.

The Quran has used the term ‘sama’ for space or heaven. It has used both the singular (sama’) and the plural (samawaat) form of it. In one of the verse it states that there are seven heavens and each one has its own earth. The objective of this paper was to explore what these two terms mean scientifically.

The analysis of the Quranic verses suggest that the Quranic term as-sama’-ad-dunya stands for the scientific term the observable universe. It is the innermost heaven (sama), which includes all the zodiacal signs/constellations (brooj), tracks (hobook), stars (kawakib), lamp (masabeeh), meteorites (shohoba) and etc. we observe or could observe in the future. On top of this heaven (samat) are staked six more heavens (samawat).  These could have been partitioned based on the horizons or dimensions.

The first horizon (sama) is called the event horizon. It is a conceptual boundary between particles that are moving slower and those that are moving faster than the speed of light. Since the light from the particles which are beyond it will never reach us, we would never be able to observe them. The particles that are within the event horizon belong to the observable universe (as-Sama-ad-Dunya). Beyond this horizon, there could be six more horizons (samawat).  In each of these the speed of the moving particles is faster than the speed of light. However, the speed in each of the successive horizons (samawat) could be faster than the speed in the previous horizon (sama). The speed of the moving particles within the seventh horizon (sama) could be the fastest. These horizons were probably partitioned after the universe  began to expand at a faster rate about four billion years ago.

Alternatively, the universe could have been partitioned in terms of dimensions. Just as our heaven has three dimensions, other heavens (samawat) could have four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine dimensions. Since we the humans cannot perceive dimensions higher than three, these heavens (samawat) with higher dimension will never be accessible to us.

In 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', by Douglas Adams, the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is found to be 42 { but
the meaning of this is left open to interpretation. We take it to mean that there are 42
fundamental questions which must be answered on the road to full enlightenment, and we attempt a first draft (or personal selection) of these ultimate questions, on topics ranging from the cosmological constant and origin of the universe to the origin of life and consciousness.

IT'S HERE NOW!!! 
IT’S GOING TO BE REAL STRANGE.  PEOPLE MUST NOT BE AFRAID, IN FACT, ALL PEOPLE NEED TO BE REAL HAPPY ABOUT THIS EVENT AND BE READY TO GET OUTSIDE. GROUNDED.  THIS IS MEANT TO CLEAN ALL OF THE POLLUTION AND PROBABLY EVEN THE RADIATION FROM THE PLANET.

SOLID EVIDENCE OF THE INCOMING WAVE

“THE GALAXY DISTRIBUTION IS IN CONCENTRIC CIRCLES AROUND THE EARTH.  A SITUATION THAT DOES NOT OCCUR AROUND ANY OTHER POINT IN THE UNIVERSE.”  IS RATHER OBVIOUS.  ALSO THE ONLY TWO ANOMALIES IN THE UNIFORM BACKGROUND RADIATION FORM AN X MARKS THE SPOT RIGHT ON EARTH!!!!  THUS, WE ARE THE CENTER OF THIS UNIVERSE & THUS, THE MULTIVERSE.

WE DO NOT WANT US TO KNOW THAT WE ARE GODS

ALL HUMANS ARE GODS IF EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF OUR MINDS IS A HOAX (ILLUSION) AND IT IS THEN US TALKING HUMANS CREATE IT EVERY MICROSECOND, AND WE DO. WE PLANTED THE HOAX SO THAT WE WILL WAKE UP THIS TIME DUE TO THE INTERNET

The late reflections of G.W. Leibniz on eternal return have often been dismissed as insignificant as regards his wider philosophy. This may be due to the prevalent championing of his optimistic views on the continual progress of humanity, which seem to contradict the notion of eternal return. Walter Benjamin and Gilles Deleuze both put forward concepts of eternal return that form part of their respective critiques of historical progress, yet these have rarely been read in conjunction with their views on Leibniz. This article argues, first, that for Leibniz progress and return are not contradictory, and second, that Benjamin’s and Deleuze’s concepts of return were informed, in different ways, by their readings of Leibniz, and specifically by his conception of multiple worlds as the spatial equivalent of eternal return. In doing so I will shed light on the contribution of Leibniz’s philosophy not only to the progressive theories of history put forward during the Enlightenment, but also to the critique of these very visions.

• -          Am inteles ce frumos este SA FIU OM, si sa fi putut experimenta tot ce am experimentat si voi mai experimenta. Desigur, cu aceste intelegeri cred ca si viata va fi altfel. Deja este.

• -          Am reusit SA MA INTELEG PE MINE. Si SUNT FERICIT! Toate cele scrise mai sus sunt experientele prin care am trecut eu si intelegerea la care am ajuns. Cu siguranta tot ce am inteles va fi publicat intr-o carte. Luati ce va place din ele, restul dati-le deoparte. Ele sunt o parte din drumul meu catre intelegere si intelepciune. Dar stiu oameni care s-au facut bine avand intelegerile de mai sus, stiu oameni care sunt mai fericiti si mai sanatosi. Atat ei cat si cei din jurul lor.

В статье рассматривается роман Н. Стивенсона «Анафем» как с одной стороны, историко-философский квест, который позволяет лучше понять и усвоить историю западной философии, с другой – как кейс, который позволяет подойти к решению амбициозной и фантастической задачи: решить платоновскую проблему причастности через концепцию «сложного протесизма». Оба этих пути прочтения романа заставляют относить его скорее к жанру фэнтези, чем научной фантастики.

"Abstract: This paper introduces foundations for a new kind of cosmology. We advocate that computer simulations are needed to address two key cosmological issues. First, the robustness of the emergence of complexity, which boils down to ask: “what would remain the same if the tape of the universe were replayed?” Second, the much debated fine-tuning issue, which requires to answer the question: “are complex universes rare or common in the space of possible universes?” We argue that computer simulations are indispensable tools to address those two issues scientifically. We first discuss definitions of possible universes and of possible cosmic outcomes – such as atoms, stars, life or intelligence. This leads us to introduce a generalized Drake-like equation, the Cosmic Evolution Equation. It is a modular and conceptual framework to define research agendas in computational cosmology. We outline some studies of alternative complex universes. However, such studies are still in their infancy, and they can be fruitfully developed within a new kind of cosmology, heavily supported by computer simulations, Artificial Cosmogenesis. The appendix [section 9] provides argumentative maps of the paper’s main thesis.

Keywords: artificial cosmogenesis, cosmic evolution, computational cosmology, digital physics, Drake equation, Cosmic Evolution Equation, robust- ness, fine-tuning, multiverse."

In this paper, a simple model for a closed multiverse as a finite probability space is analyzed. For each moment of time on a discrete time-scale, only a finite number of states are possible and hence each possible universe can be viewed as a path in a huge but finite graph. By considering very general statistical assumptions, essentially originating from Boltzmann, we make the set of all such paths (the multiverse) into a probability space, and argue that under certain assumptions, the probability for a monotonic behavior of the entropy is enormously much larger then for a beha-vior with low entropy at both ends. The methods used are just very simple combinatorial ones, but the conclusion suggests that we may live in a multiverse which from a global point of view is com-pletely time-symmetric in the sense that universes with Time’s Arrow directed forwards and backwards are equally probable. However, for an observer confined to just one universe, time will still be asymmetric.

Slides del seminario che ho tenuto all'Università S. Raffaele di Milano il 21 maggio 2019 nell'ambito del corso di Logica filosofica della prof.ssa Francesca Boccuni.

Il seminario ha toccato temi di (filosofia della) teoria degli insiemi, in particolare questioni concernenti l'alternativa fra monismo e pluralismo in teoria degli insiemi (in particolare, la dicotomia universismo/multiversismo) e ha fornito un'analisi di alcune delle più rilevanti teorie del multiverso, e di una possibile interpretazione platonistica del multiverso (radicale).

Although the concepts of Interdependence (as in Ontology of Knowledges (OK)) and of grounding are in many ways very different and probably not compatible, similarities of vocabulary could lead to confusion between the notions that both theories handle. These confusions would ultimately impair the proper understanding of the OK.
The purpose of the article is to dispel these possible confusions, for the benefit of a better understanding of the OK and, as much as possible, without value judgment on grouding.
This article may also provide answers to some topics still debated by the theorists of grounding.
The issue 2021 completes the definition of non-foundation acc. to OK
A note relative to the Existence of multiverse is also included

When and how did the universe begin? Why are we here? Is the apparent 'grand design' of our universe evidence for a benevolent creator who set things in motion? Or does science offer another explanation?

In The Grand Design, the most recent scientific thinking about the mysteries of the universe is presented in language marked by both brilliance and simplicity. Model dependent realism, the multiverse, the top-down theory of cosmology, and the unified M-theory - all are revealed here.

This is the first major work in nearly a decade by one of the world's greatest thinkers. A succinct, startling and lavishly illustrated guide to discoveries that are altering our understanding and threatening some of our most cherished belief systems, The Grand Design is a book that will inform - and provoke - like no other.

Publisher: Stamen (https://www.edizionistamen.net/)
Series: The Human and the Divine
Edition year: 2018
On sale from: December 22, 2018
Pages: 206 pp., Ill. , Paperback
ISBN: 9788831928304
https://www.ibs.it/fisica-moderna-coscienza-multiverso-azione-libro-paolo-di-sia/e/9788831928304

We argue the thesis that if (1) a physical process is mathematically representable by a Cauchy sequence; and (2) we accept that there can be no infinite processes, i.e., nothing corresponding to infinite sequences, in natural phenomena; then (a) in the absence of an extraneous, evidence-based, proof of 'closure' which determines the behaviour of the physical process in the limit as corresponding to a 'Cauchy' limit; (b) the physical process must tend to a discontinuity (singularity) which has not been reflected in the Cauchy sequence that seeks to describe the behaviour of the physical process. We support our thesis by mathematical models of the putative behaviours of (i) a virus cluster; (ii) an elastic string; and (iii) a Universe that recycles from Big Bang to Ultimate Implosion, in which parity and local time reversal violation, and the existence of 'dark energy' in a multiverse, need not violate Einstein's equations and quantum theory. We suggest that the barriers to modelling such processes in a mathematical language that seeks unambiguous communication are illusory; they merely reflect an attempt to ask of the language chosen for such representation more than it is designed to deliver.

Quantum physics has disturbed our conception of reality: matter has become all at once a wave and a corpuscle and can only be apprehended through observation. We now propose to show that the world we experience is not reality, but a projection amongst many of an unknown reality on a multitude of macroscopic and microscopic perforated screens. These projections constitute an infinite number of parallel universes, tied as clusters through interpenetration on a microscopic scale. According to our theory, real matter only exists in two states: a free state and a fixed state. In its fixed state, matter behaves as a corpuscle submitted to the laws of general relativity, which rule interactions of matter elements from the same universe. In its free state, matter behaves as a wave obeying the laws of quantum physics, which rule not only interactions of matter coming from the same universe, but also interactions with matter originating from universes which are parallel to ours. The wave-like aspect of a particle is only an illusion, a human interpretation of what is, in fact, a corpuscular multiverse-particle resulting from the interaction of many parallel universes. This interaction is made possible by the presence of perforations on projection screens. In this article, we shall demonstrate these assertions, and rid ourselves of the concepts of gravitation, dark matter, dark energy and of the idea we have as to the nature of black holes. We shall offer a new approach, in order to explain phenomena such as superconductivity, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation. Finally, with the possibility of modifying the state of real matter and creating macroscopic quantic objects, we shall open a perspective for time travel, teleportation, antigravitation and movement from one universe to another.

Why should the concept of Imperatively Hidden Elements (IHE) become common knowledge, especially in machine learning and feature selection? Did everyone, except for me, knew all along that our scientific progress-rate limiting bottlenecking factor is proper feature selection but not the lack of advances in improving our machine learning algorithms? I assumed that this could not be the case because most publications present improvements in machine learning algorithms, but neglect to even mention that lack of progress in better feature selection is preventing us from making any significant progress but not poorly performing machine learning algorithms. I thought that if I did not know that until my defense, then most others, especially those who don't know much about machine learning yet, i.e. most of our wet-lab biologists, who need to design their experiments accordingly, are not aware of this problem either. Then I thought I must tell them or else they keep mistakenly misinterpreting unpredictable outcomes as unavoidable noise instead of correctly realizing that still imperatively hidden elements (IHE) affect our predicted outcome in manner, which we cannot yet explain, unless we start observing the last temporal visible object/observation/event, after which we can no longer correctly predict the chain of subsequent events or observations, from many different perspectives and angles in order to really scrutinize it legitimacy, because most likely, it is composed of more than a single visible object (VO), of which we are already aware, because an undetermined number of distinctly different, but yet still imperatively hidden; thus inevitably for us still imperceptible, but nevertheless fully legitimate and truly existing yet invisible objects look too similar to our only visible object, which tricks us into the illusion of erroneously believing that it's only a single object. But the truth is that it is actually 2 or more objects, between which we cannot yet distinguish. Nevertheless, the number of possible outcomes depends on the number of truly existing objects, regardless whether or not we can distinguish them from their background. For example, until this morning, I was not aware of the difference between Python and Cython. Cython was for me in imperatively hidden object, which to me looked exactly like Python, because Cython is almost identical to Python, except for, that its variables must be of a specified type, e.g. string, vector, list, numeric, data frame, etc., which is not the case in Python. This led to my observation that some Python packages run fine on Windows whereas other never worked. Since the PyAffy.py library must have been written in Cython, it tricked me into the illusion that the only way to use a Python package, which fails to run under Windows, is to use Linux. It took us 3 months to set up a Linux laptop I could see. Now I discovered that we could have copied the Cython code and save it as a Python file by omitting specifying the variable type and run it just like a Python file. If we had used machine learning to discover the reason for some Python packages, specifically the PyAffy-package not running under Windows, could machine learning figure out that the feature " variable type selection " , which is a Boolean of present or absent, can be used to distinguish between Python and Cython? If we just gave the programming code of Python libraries and the outcome of running and not running as training data for supervised machine learning, could it figure out without any prior knowledge about Cython, that a programming language other than Python is causing problems under Windows? Can machine learning learn programming? Can it learn to conceptually understand the differences between variable types, If the concept of IHE is true, then most graduates are not well prepared to deal with imperatively hidden elements (IHE), because they appear to be totally left in the dark about this dangerously unnecessarily very time-consuming temporary progress-preventing nettlesome barrier, which can halt progress for many years, because nobody ever shared with them (i.e. our future wet-lab scientists, who must choose wisely, which data they collect for the computational analysts, to reach valid conclusions) the concept that the risk for misinterpreting poor outcome predictability as unavoidable background noise instead of getting alerted that a still imperatively hidden element (IHE), which we cannot perceive yet, creates a much bigger and more dangerous obstacle, than any visible element, which has at least one feature that causes it

The most common objection to the Fine-Tuning Argument for the Multiverse is that the argument commits the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy. Simon Friederich has recently composed an interesting version of this fine-tuning argument that avoids this fallacy and better-matches important scientific instances of anthropic reasoning. My thesis in this paper is that this new argument, while it may avoid the fallacy, contains a disputable premise concerning the prior probabilities of the hypotheses at issue. I consider various ways to modify the argument to avoid this problem, but I argue that plausible replacements render other lines unjustified. I also briefly compare 'indexical' fine-tuning arguments such as Friederich's, according to which our universe permits life, to `existential' fine-tuning arguments, according to which some universe or other permits life. I conclude that while Friederich is correct that the new fine-tuning argument avoids the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy, the argument nevertheless depends on an unjustified premise, and this is further reason for proponents of fine-tuning arguments for the multiverse to employ existential arguments rather than indexical arguments.