Thursday, June 25, 2015

The Coincident Multiverse, part I

Physics has proposed a model of the universe which suggests that there are infinite number of universes —that is, the multiverse —which differ from one another in the makeup of their physical laws.

 In general, when we think of such a concept, we think of these other universes is quite different than ours and existing in some other place and time, even though this can't really be the place — after all, the universe itself, for each one that exists, defines place and time within itself, so place and time within one universe cannot, approximately, be place and time and another.

It's useful to examine this idea in light of Ibn al Arabi's discussion of the nature of the mind of God — in which he explains that all thoughts which can ever be had, as well as all thoughts which we are not capable of having, are all contained within the mind of God, which transcends all conceptuality,  while at the same time containing it. These ideas find consonance (not resonance, a word often used but generally misunderstood in context) in the teachings of Meister Eckhart. The ideas behind them are, in fact, quite ancient, and relate to a dialogue between the nature of transcendence and immanence that dates back to the earliest histories of philosophy.

In any event, the metaphysical ideas coincide quite neatly with the idea of the multiverse, since the multiverse not only solves some of the more vexing problems in physics, it also provides a distinct mechanism whereby all of the thoughts in the mind of God — even ones that are impossible in this universe — can be realized, as the masters say they must be. One could spend a great deal of time explaining the details behind this one large concept, but it's necessary to ingest it — inhale it, so to speak — as a single thing in order to appreciate the fact that it manifests the Dharma in a very active way. This may not be the way that everyone prefers to encounter the Dharma, but for those who find thinking and its attendant manifestations in feeling and the body fulfilling, it is a bracing and exhilarating possibility.

In any event, I do not intend to do the reader's thinking about it for them. So think about it.

What I want to get at in today's post is that this idea of the separation of the multiverse — the idea that such multiple universes are irrevocably separated from one another — clearly has to be a false one. There is no distinct law that says multiverses cannot communicate; and indeed, I think there is scientific and physical, as well as metaphysical, evidence (of the kind naysayers claim cannot exist) near at hand to support this theory.

In order to cross this bridge, one has to first understand that the multiverses do not exist in separate places or  completely distinct and foreign space—times; they exist: incident with one another, which is why I have titled this series of posts the coincident multiverse. The multiverses exist, in other words, nested within one another and in complete harmonious congruence. What I mean is that we inhabit this universe, but there are an infinite number of additional universes in immediate proximity to us that share the same exact location in the fabric of the mind of God —The Reality, as Ibn al Arabi called it.  They are related, like the petals on a flower, all of which join to a single stem.

 We will continue this line of discussion in the next post on June 27.

 Hosanna.

2 comments:

  1. Um, 'physics' has not proposed any such thing...some physicists have,

    'The physics community continues to fiercely debate the multiverse hypothesis. Prominent physicists disagree about whether the multiverse may exist, and whether it is even a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.[2] Serious concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification may erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the nature of fundamental physics [3] Some have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific because it lacks falsifiability; the ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. [4] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if it provides for all possible outcomes.[5]
    Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[6] Brian Greene,[7][8] Max Tegmark,[9] Alan Guth,[10] Andrei Linde,[11] Michio Kaku,[12] David Deutsch,[13] Leonard Susskind,[14] Raj Pathria,[15] Alexander Vilenkin,[16] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[17][18] Neil deGrasse Tyson[19] and Sean Carroll.[20]
    Scientists who are not proponents of the multiverse include: Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg,[21] Nobel laureate David Gross,[22] Paul Steinhardt,[23] Neil Turok,[24] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[25] Michael S. Turner,[26] Roger Penrose,[27]George Ellis,[28][29] Joe Silk, [30] Adam Frank, [31] Marcelo Gleiser, [31] Jim Baggott,[32] and Paul Davies.[33]

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.