Category Archives: Philosophy

multiverse slide

A sense of scale

The Multiverse is a pretty big place.

So large, in fact, that it has been said that every possible event, past or future, that ever could happen has or will occur in at least one universe within The Multiverse. Just take every choice you’ve thought of making and fill up a multiverse with them. That would represent your own personal bubble of cosmic possibilities. Now, take every independent entity that has ever and ever will exist and fill up all of those multiverses. That might just make up The Multiverse, capital letters and all. But, that’s assuming that such a place is only made up of all of the known possibilities any independent entity could have been aware of, or at least been ignorantly predisposed to. Unfortunately for our comprehension of such a place, it is more likely that The, capital lettered, Multiverse actually contains all of those personal bubbles in addition to every possibility that ever could have even possibly been possible. Yes, The Multiverse is a place that contains the remnants of every event that could have ever and will ever possibly happen whether or not it was even actively conceived of by an independent entity while going about in their own personal bubble of cosmic possibilities, which almost definitely although not only fills up what is called The Multiverse. The Multiverse is a really big place.


Parallel multiverses and pocket universes Part II

The discussion on reality

(Aside: Part II follows from what I proposed in Part I. Part II was developed after being asked to elaborate on specific details mentioned in Part I. Part III will likely follow upon further investigations into explorations of reality using my own sentience as a tool.)

I define my idea of a parallel multiverse as a parallel collection of all possible universes. Of course, the first thing that came to my mind was, “Well, would that not just be a larger multiverse?” I then considered the possibility that while a single multiverse has within it all universes that include every possible outcome provided a specific framework, a multiverse parallel to that is one that has within it those universes but with an altered framework. Of course, we do not yet know for certain even between individual universes to what degree physical laws, the flow of time, the separation of dimensions and/or universes themselves, and so on may be conserved. Nevertheless, though the specifics are unknown, it is easy to envision a hypothetical multiverse parallel to the one we locally exist in where everything is essentially identical except for some variation such as a difference in the speed of light (c). In this model, all possible outcomes in one multiverse are conserved in the other but are manifest under the altered framework. Nevertheless, this is all just speculation.

Regarding my use of the word “Merge,” I admit this may have been a bit of poetic license. However, this idea originates from other possibilities I’ve considered. I do not visualize reality persisting as completely separate universes. I hypothesize that reality as perceived by the observer is actually an equilibrium between several universes that hold within them all possibilities that may actually manifest provided how the observer in a given moment may act.

Multiple dimensions are known to exist within pockets folded in on one another within a single universe. Perhaps, these dimensions allow the flow of information between the possible universes. Each observer has around them their own set of higher level (above 3D and 4D) pocket dimensions that permit the flow of information between universes. This leads to what I called the “equilibrium” of possible universes that brings forth what the observer, we, humanity, perceive as reality. Thus, while an observer may come to its end in a single universe, the sentience/consciousness/actions of that observer are shifted or merged into the adjacent universes that were in equilibrium with the dying universe. Such a model does seem to be in tune with how electrons have been found to “move” between atoms and molecules in spacetime/reality.

“How so, you insane molecular biologist-cum-wannabe theoretical physicist?!” Well…

Electrons are absolutely incredible and remarkably non-intuitive. They have been thought to potentially travel through time, although this is controversial. But, they are absolutely capable of “tunneling” through seemingly solid barriers simply because their so-called wavefunction permits them to occupy that space, in spite of the barrier. They seemingly pop in and out of existence. Thus, if they were actually just flowing through multiple universes in higher level dimensions, this may actually explain a lot about how they might be doing some of these, as Einstein put it, “Spooky” things.

…I know you are just dying to get to Part III. Worry not, friend. As long as I live, I will always be willing to throw out new propositions for the science of the philosophy of reality. I can’t wait.


Parallel multiverses and pocket universes Part I

The world ends everyday.

However, as a result of the phenomenon described as “Quantum Immortality”, because Earth still exists in a synonymous spacetime stream in a parallel universe, the observer of the doomed Earth in the “first” universe merges with the observer of the extant, unharmed duplicate Earth. In this case the observer is we, Humanity, or more solipsistically, you, You (or me, Me).

The world shall only truly end when every single Earth is destroyed or becomes uninhabitable, depending on your reference, in every synonymous spacetime stream. Alternatively, again solipsistically, the end may arise when every observer is destroyed. Naturally, the end is absolutely certain if the multiverse itself ceases to exist, provided such a thing is possible. Though, I do not see why there could not be parallel multiverses as well. I bet you never thought of that, did you?

I do hope that you can find a way to enjoy eternity.

…discussion continued in Part II…

Mission Post

Hello World!

Dear Reader,
This blog shall contain the thoughts and concerns of myself. Who am I? As a matter of fact, I am a human molecular biologist, currently in training, with an all encompassing passion for curiosity. I think many thoughts and know many… knowings… or maybe knowledge-bits is a better and edgier term that I have just invented.

The goal and mission of this blog shall be multipronged. Regarding science, DelicioSciPhi (DSP or DeSaP or whatever is catchy enough that you’ll want to say it out loud to your coolest friends) will provide information about cutting edge science, particularly that which I am most familiar with through my own studies. This primarily includes molecular biology and genetics with a focus on the biology of aging and aging associated disease, as this is what I work on most closely. Due to the nature of aging biology however, I may also touch on nutrition and metabolism (diabetes) in addition to degenerative disease (Alzheimer’s).

A second prong juts into the realm of philosophy. I do not tend to do a whole lot of name dropping in my philosophical exploits and hope this will allow our discourse to be more accessible to any who wish to discuss their own ideas. Much of my thoughts that might be considered philosophical are derived from my own internal discourse. Thus, it is possible that some of my ideas may have already been established by well known philosophers that I have never encountered. If I seem to neglect crediting them, it is not because I am intentionally plagiarizing, but more likely that I have simply never been introduced to their work. It is the case that I have taken multiple courses on philosophy in my undergraduate life in addition to many independent readings on the topic. I am likely influenced by specific individuals or schools of thought without even realizing it and I apologize, again, if I neglect to cite them. Simply inform me of my error, allow me to read their stuff and see how it compares to what I think.

Regarding truth, I believe it is the moral duty of human beings to seek out truth, whether it be objective or even subjective. “Subjective truth????!!!!!11”, I envision your mind screaming. Well, of course, many consider objective truth to be the more true truth, especially those pedantic as hell objectivists (not the Ayn Rand kind). But subjective truth has its own importance. In the absence of a well or even semi-established objective truth, subjective truth is all that remains. Subjective truth is that which a sentient being may believe, their instincts, feelings, musings, or simply thoughts that fill a hole in their worldview all can take the role of subjective truth. I do believe, however, in the face of objective truth, an individual’s subjective truth must bow down and accept that which is, again, the truer truth. Many of my criticisms of humanity shall likely derive from the simple inability of people to sacrifice their subjective truths in light of a contrary objective truth.

But, there is one thing that I think must be understood. Can an observer of the universe ever actually contain within them the knowledge of objective truth? By definition, objective truth is that which exists outside of the mind. However, it is, whether you really realize it or not, absolutely impossible for a human being to exit their mind and move freely through the information flow of the multiverse. All a human observer can possiblhave is subjective truth. But, said human observer must align their subjective truth with the apparent objective truth once they become aware of it. Otherwise, this human being shall forever be considered by all others as irrational.

I shall bring you my own subjective truth, that which I feel is closest to objective truth. It is up to you to decide if you accept it as your own subjective truth. But, don’t be upset if I call you irrational upon your refusal to adopt that which can be demonstrated as objective truth beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you are just one of those annoying types that just loves being unreasonable.