Alternative Universe Theory - Historum

philosopher · December 6th, 2012, 09:59 AM

I will put forth my theory of an Alternative Universe. Since it is not scientifically based at all, it clearly falls under the Religion sub forum.

However I am convinced it exists. Just not in our universe, nor amongst ANY universe in any eventual multiverse. I am convinced it exists, because first of all, the strongest argument that I stick to, is: I have to. This material world is simply to cruel and if I should have any hope of any alternative, it should be immaterial and thus not be part of our natural laws.

Secondly, the weaker argument is that nobody seems to have explained the "I-Experiencer of Consciousness". That is why do I experience the emotions, sensoral input (viewing angle, sounds passing through the ears that stick to THIS particular body etc.)? Logically I should be experiencing every visual and auditory and sensoral input, emotions, joy and suffering of the entire humanity at once, but I only experience those passing through this particular body writing this post. If I get put to death and then ressurrected, I will experience everything through the same body again. That suggests that there might be more to the consciousness than simply neural network and electrical charges etc.

As I stated, it is the weaker argument, because it COULD eventually be explained scientifically and thus materialistically. Until then, I stick to this argument as the second of two arguments in favor of the Alternative Universe Theory, although I regard it as the weakest of those arguments.

So what is this "Alternative Universe Theory" all about?

My theory is not scientifical. It is religious, and it is as good as the Abrahamic theological explanation of the world.

In the beginning there was the Evil and the Good.

Evil created materialism, with all that it includes:
Physical laws and quantum probabilities. He designed the evolution of the universe by putting the stuff together in a way that it would expand the way it does, like when
you make fireworks, you put the powder together in a certain way to make it explode in a certain way. This was purposedly done to inflict as much suffering as the material world would allow or which logically follows the laws of logic and natural laws. He did this for the pure fun of it.

Good created immaterialism which includes substances such as "spirit" and "idea". It is kind or wierd to explain how "spirit" and "idea" is in the material world, because our world is material. The best explanation I can give you is that "spirit" and "idea", if converted from the immaterial world to the material world, would, in the material world, manifest itself as purposeful evolution.

Purposeful evolution is when an idea is being manifested. Like if we humans design a car or engineering. It is not the car itself that is the idea, but the idea behind the cars. Now, in the material world, every idea is essentially just materialism moving around... materials... through materialized physical laws. Neurons and the like. Quantum Mechanics and their probabilities are NOT part of the "idealistic" or "spiritual" world but are 100 % material, so don't confuse them.

In the Material and Evil-created world, there happens to be good stuff, because both Good and Evil had to obey the same laws: Never to break the rules of Logic. That is what follows one law, must follow it always by the rule of causation.

This means that some elements in the universe will do good deeds, but these deeds are random and not purposeful when looked upon at large scales. They are merely accepted side-effects of the grand Material Evil Universe.

Likewise in the Immaterial Universe, evil spirits can arise out of evil ideas with the mere fun of it as the only purpose of it.

What do you think?
Crappy or worth a discussion?

**Ancientgeezer** · December 6th, 2012, 10:09 AM

Crappy.

philosopher · December 6th, 2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer

Crappy.

Why so? Please elaborate.

I personally don't see how it is more crappy than the world was created 6,000 years ago by an benevolent God.

**Ancientgeezer** · December 6th, 2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philosopher

Why so? Please elaborate.

I personally don't see how it is more crappy than the world was created 6,000 years ago by an benevolent God.

You only gave two choices, crappy or worth a discussion. Elaborating would involve the choice I avoided.

philosopher · December 6th, 2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer

You only gave two choices, crappy or worth a discussion. Elaborating would involve the choice I avoided.

I see

**Pedro** · December 6th, 2012, 10:35 AM

What you are postulating here is a warmed over version of Manichaeism.

**Rasta** · December 6th, 2012, 11:00 AM

Well I think it's good that you are exploring your world view Philosopher, though I don't understand the reasons for your qualifications.

I think you should more explicitly define immaterial because it seems at times to include some intangible aspects (idea & spirit) but not other intangible aspects (the ideas of math), and is not terribly clear to me why this distinction exists.

Also if you propose dualistic creators, it seems very weird that material would be evil and immaterial would be good. We think the universe took it's current form 13 billion years ago. So according to your theory, pure evil existed alone for the majority of the time, as (idea & spirit) are no doubt connected to life, which has only existed for a fraction of the time.

**Zarin** · December 6th, 2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philosopher

I will put forth my theory of an Alternative Universe. Since it is not scientifically based at all, it clearly falls under the Religion sub forum.

However I am convinced it exists. Just not in our universe, nor amongst ANY universe in any eventual multiverse. I am convinced it exists, because first of all, the strongest argument that I stick to, is: I have to. This material world is simply to cruel and if I should have any hope of any alternative, it should be immaterial and thus not be part of our natural laws.

Secondly, the weaker argument is that nobody seems to have explained the "I-Experiencer of Consciousness". That is why do I experience the emotions, sensoral input (viewing angle, sounds passing through the ears that stick to THIS particular body etc.)? Logically I should be experiencing every visual and auditory and sensoral input, emotions, joy and suffering of the entire humanity at once, but I only experience those passing through this particular body writing this post. If I get put to death and then ressurrected, I will experience everything through the same body again. That suggests that there might be more to the consciousness than simply neural network and electrical charges etc.

As I stated, it is the weaker argument, because it COULD eventually be explained scientifically and thus materialistically. Until then, I stick to this argument as the second of two arguments in favor of the Alternative Universe Theory, although I regard it as the weakest of those arguments.

So what is this "Alternative Universe Theory" all about?

My theory is not scientifical. It is religious, and it is as good as the Abrahamic theological explanation of the world.

In the beginning there was the Evil and the Good.

Evil created materialism, with all that it includes:
Physical laws and quantum probabilities. He designed the evolution of the universe by putting the stuff together in a way that it would expand the way it does, like when
you make fireworks, you put the powder together in a certain way to make it explode in a certain way. This was purposedly done to inflict as much suffering as the material world would allow or which logically follows the laws of logic and natural laws. He did this for the pure fun of it.

Good created immaterialism which includes substances such as "spirit" and "idea". It is kind or wierd to explain how "spirit" and "idea" is in the material world, because our world is material. The best explanation I can give you is that "spirit" and "idea", if converted from the immaterial world to the material world, would, in the material world, manifest itself as purposeful evolution.

Purposeful evolution is when an idea is being manifested. Like if we humans design a car or engineering. It is not the car itself that is the idea, but the idea behind the cars. Now, in the material world, every idea is essentially just materialism moving around... materials... through materialized physical laws. Neurons and the like. Quantum Mechanics and their probabilities are NOT part of the "idealistic" or "spiritual" world but are 100 % material, so don't confuse them.

In the Material and Evil-created world, there happens to be good stuff, because both Good and Evil had to obey the same laws: Never to break the rules of Logic. That is what follows one law, must follow it always by the rule of causation.

This means that some elements in the universe will do good deeds, but these deeds are random and not purposeful when looked upon at large scales. They are merely accepted side-effects of the grand Material Evil Universe.

Likewise in the Immaterial Universe, evil spirits can arise out of evil ideas with the mere fun of it as the only purpose of it.

What do you think?
Crappy or worth a discussion?

Any attempt to explain what constitutes the Universe, Existence or Reality is never crappy. We all have the right, so far legally, to express our various viewpoints.
Your approach is best placed into the metaphysical arena of what constitutes consciousness, spirituality and alternate awareness. The metaphysical arena is one of imagination, where every idea or concept actually originates. Even scientific ideas must originate there as well. The physical Universe is explained by Science, whereas the metaphysical Universe is explained by either "faith" or by a belief system such as you wish to engender. If you believe it, then it is "real" to you. Just be true to your standards. Never have any fear about what anyone else's perceives as true or false. Often what is considered true by science is often proven to be false. Or at least not as true as formerly believed.
There will be many who will choose to be hostile to your approach, but hold steadfast as this is what faith actually means. After all, those who believe in Science only have faith in it as well. A faith which may potentially turn out to be far more tragic a choice than any spiritual conception.

**Rasta** · December 6th, 2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarin

Any attempt to explain what constitutes the Universe, Existence or Reality is never crappy. We all have the right, so far legally, to express our various viewpoints.
Your approach is best placed into the metaphysical arena of what constitutes consciousness, spirituality and alternate awareness. The metaphysical arena is one of imagination, where every idea or concept actually originates. Even scientific ideas must originate there as well. The physical Universe is explained by Science, whereas the metaphysical Universe is explained by either "faith" or by a belief system such as you wish to engender. If you believe it, then it is "real" to you. Just be true to your standards. Never have any fear about what anyone else's perceives as true or false. Often what is considered true by science is often proven to be false. Or at least not as true as formerly believed.
There will be many who will choose to be hostile to your approach, but hold steadfast as this is what faith actually means. After all, those who believe in Science only have faith in it as well. A faith which may potentially turn out to be far more tragic a choice than any spiritual conception.

I would assume everybody believes in science. If science is faith, then would it not also be a spiritual conception?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

When I read this quote of Carl Sagan, I imagine that the sense of awe, wonder, and connection to nature is not terribly different from our ancestors that created the very first religious rituals.

The conflict between science and faith to me seems to be our own egos.

Yôḥānān · December 6th, 2012, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasta

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

When I read this quote of Carl Sagan, I imagine that the sense of awe, wonder, and connection to nature is not terribly different from our ancestors that created the very first religious rituals.

The conflict between science and faith to me seems to be our own egos.

Wonderful quote indeed.