3 ms·
Nothing to see here. It is a naive or rather primitive concept based on assumption that there are more than one "future" (while actually there is none). The tr
by lngnmn 9y ago
Nothing to see here. It is a naive or rather primitive concept based on assumption that there are more than one "future" (while actually there is none).
The traditional example is that if I cross the street everything will be different. Parallel universes is related to this nonsensical multiple-parallel-futures assumption.
For those who are interesting in seeing things as they are instead of piling up nonsense upon nonsense, consider a process of evolution. There is no multiple versions of the same species because they might turn the other way. Everything happen as it happen (everything is the way it is because it got that way). It is an unfolding of a single process.
There is no future(s). It is an "organic" growth (like growing of a tree). Future is a concept of the mind. A meme. So are parallel universes. There is nothing parallel to what is. At least outside of one's head.
- smt88 9y agoYou seem very certain about things that are kiterally unknowable.
- lngnmn 9y agoI am standing on the shoulders of giants (Eastern philosophy since Upanishads). The notion that the nature of reality (of what is) is hidden from one by the veil of ignorance (one's own and socially constructed bullshit in the first place) is an ancient one and goes back to the early Upanishadic seers and the historical Buddha. Removing an observer (and all products of his mind which constitute the veil that obscures what is) is an ancient hack of early Buddhists, I am only re-emphasizing it. Man is just a by-product of the Universe - a mere sub-process of nothing permanent or substantial (leave alone divine). Mental concepts are not required for the Universe (or what they call Brahman) to be and most of these concepts does not exit outside one's conditioned and conceptually infested mind. Wrong concepts is the veil which obscures the view of what is. This is at least two millennia old philosophy of the nature of mind. Before knowing what lies outside know what lies within. There is the same facility and related social dynamics which produced gods, daemons, chakras, tantras, mantras, kundalini, mandalas, accelerating time, higher dimensions, multiple futures, parallel universes and other popular bullshit in which we are drowning. Read some old tantras, then read some modern probabilistic modeling bullshit which they call modern science - it is all the same kind of piles of untestable socially constructed nonsense. Untestability and socially accepted dogmatism is precisely what makes it (and tantras and other religious crap) stand.
- xaedes 9y ago"Upanishads"? Interesting! Thank you for mentioning. I am currently reading Gilgamesh and there is "Uta-napišti" meaning "the far away". The Sanskrit term Upaniṣad (upa = by, ni = nether, shat =sitting) translates to "sitting down near". In Gilgamesh epos, he (Gilgamesh) travels to seek wisdom from Uta-napišti. Now I am curious if there may be a relation of the two.. I wouldn't be surprised.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoI think perhaps what you're trying to say, in a confusing and condescending way, is that you believe the universe is a motionless and unchanging four-dimensional solid (three spacial dimensions and time), of which we perceive a rolling three-dimensional slice.