You Are Significant in Your Insignificance!
That’s what they’re selling you with this graph. This is a ruse used very often by hucksters and snake-oil salesmen. They offer you the sugar with their ‘bitters’.
Problem: The ontological scope of the graph does not account for all of the aspects of being human (that we are aware of at this time). Of course you’re supposed to know that.
“We didn’t mean it that way.” they’ll tell you…
How many unsuspecting people believe this sophisticated form of lying? Now, see it with ‘new eyes’.
There Is Only Now
Here they confuse the issue… Badly!
More psyence mumbo jumbo to get you confused. If you would have said this before publication, you’d have been called a ‘nut job’ or ‘wacko’. But as you see, dogma does change.
They have time and space all whacked out and call people who have better explanations wacko!
The idea of a parallel universe does have uses. For example when we decide something or imagine how something may be different. We construct them in order to compare outcomes (or other aspects) with each other.
The problem with the article, for me, is that today’s science use them to reduce possibility and novelty to outcomes (or other aspects) that must preexist in some form!
They want everything to be non-personal 3rd. person ‘its’ running around interacting from some set of initial conditions! That’s one of the reasons why these parallel universes need to exist for them.
Otherwise they would have to account for some creative or imaginative process which would require a thinking being and not some 3rd. person ‘it’.
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?
Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
Here we go again! Psyence at its ‘best’!
I wonder; if we do have parallel universes, then where is the coordination of quantum events being arbitrated/managed/coordinated? What functions as a substrate?
Isn’t the idea of a set of parallel (NOT multiverses which is something quite different!) begging the question?
Even Set Theory warns us of a contradiction that also arises, should we take this idea seriously.
Quick! I need my street address! In which universe do I look?
If I look in the one I think I’m in I could be wrong, because I just made a decision on which one to look at! 😦
The good ol’ bunk-o-meter pegged full on this one!
We reduce possibility to predictability (and justifiability) and don’t even notice the change!