Check this paper out (multiverse.pdf)
http://www.wintersteel.com/Parallel_Universes.html
Cosmology has begun to show us the multiverse is real.
We live on the verge of new view of reality, like when the church agreed the world was not flat, but round. Now the church has to agree there are infinite universes (and gods???).
sweeeet!
Now the church has to agree there are infinite universes (and gods???).
Speaking of which can anyone suggest how I can go about summoning a demon, for real?
Speaking of which can anyone suggest how I can go about summoning a demon, for real?
.
It is my opinion that you, here in the prime material, can not as a first order effect open the necessary doorway. It would have to be done as a second order effect through intermediaries like the Elements. You will need to be able bind various elemental forces, or bargain with elements directly to make a deal where they would be willing to open such a doorway for you, as they will have the power to do such things.If I were you I would not start out directly trying to summon a demon, but work on communicating with the elements around you. Begin by just trying to effect the airtemputure in the room you are sitting in and work your way up to being able to “see” the structural Forces of Reality and build relationships with the elements and elemental forces from which they are made.
If you are new to magic do not learn about love potions or predicting the future, etc. This is a different discipline and will start you down the wrong path.
Later on, however, you will need to master mind control and the much more powerful aspects of Spiritual Relationships, not to mention the formalities (think manners) of communicating with a demon.
Hope this helps :)
Hope this helps :)
Check out the H.P. Lovecraft story "Dreams in the Witch-House" .
The Koga has a much faster way to see your demon pal!
Get yourself a Necronomicon, (they're like eight bucks at Barnes N Noble) scribe the seal, and say the incanation. Fing, Fang, Foom, there's your demon. >: )
As for the infinite gods thing, that won't work, because they've always said God was infinite, so they'll like, just change the subtle definition of what they meant by infinite. It really doesn't make a differance. The Koga wants to see less Star Trek and more infinite crisis!
The multiverse where The Koga stayed in school and probably actually had a girlfriend! Oh, The Koga is so going to enjoy slaughtering that prick to make his universe the sole survivor.
*Koga Earth-2*This is madness, there has to be a way to save both our universes, I mean hell, if all this sorcerey and crap can fly, why can't such a heroic act?
*Koga Earth-1*You don't know what madness is untill you've read the book of dead laws imputent half-one! You have grown soft with social life, and stopped reffering to yourself in the third person! Now The Koga will smash!
*Koga Earth-2*That's not even really third person, third person would be "Koga will smash" The Koga implies some outside force, even wrestlers try to keep "The" to a minimum. Man i'm glad I stayed in school! *Earth-1 Koga leaps at Earth-2 Koga and bites out his eyeballs*
As for the infinite gods thing, that won't work, ...
.
Of course there is more that one god, that is why our God's first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me."
.
Hahaha this is crazy.
Speaking of multiple universes does anyone know the main rule differences between UFC and Pride?
Hahaha this is crazy.
Speaking of multiple universes does anyone know the main rule differences between UFC and Pride?
From what I have seen UFC allows elbows to the head while on the ground. Not to mention the cage. But, I don't really know.
From what I have seen UFC allows elbows to the head while on the ground. Not to mention the cage. But, I don't really know.
I can't wait until K-1 comes to America!!! As well as suprised there is not a video game featuring K-1 style contests. It may even make a good board game.
hmm.. it must be a conspiracy
I can't wait until K-1 comes to America!!! As well as suprised there is not a video game featuring K-1 style contests. It may even make a good board game.
Ok. The whole K-1 fiasco saddened me.
Fing, Fang, Foom, there's your demon. >: )
No, Fing Fang Foom was a cheesy alien dragon, not a demon.
Silly ninja.
http://www.wintersteel.com/Parallel_Universes.html
Site disabled.
As a huge fan of Sliders I was hoping to be able to read this.
http://www.wintersteel.com/Parallel_Universes.htmlSite disabled.
As a huge fan of Sliders I was hoping to be able to read this.
Try this one:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf
|
The whole Everett Many Worlds hypothesis is really just a mathematical model to map certain aspects of physics. By definition those universes are as closed off to us, as if they did not exist.
And yet, certain aspects of both light and of gravity may point to the possibility that they are not so closed of as they first seem. It may also explain dark energy and dark matter, not so much that they are dark, they just are not here.
The whole Everett Many Worlds hypothesis is really just a mathematical model to map certain aspects of physics. By definition those universes are as closed off to us, as if they did not exist.And yet, certain aspects of both light and of gravity may point to the possibility that they are not so closed of as they first seem. It may also explain dark energy and dark matter, not so much that they are dark, they just are not here.
How do we explain something having effects in our universe, but not being here. The effect is here, so is not the cause here too?? I guess most of it could not be here and yet still a tiny part of it could be here. So, it here right? I'm confused again.
|
|
The whole Everett Many Worlds hypothesis is really just a mathematical model to map certain aspects of physics. By definition those universes are as closed off to us, as if they did not exist.And yet, certain aspects of both light and of gravity may point to the possibility that they are not so closed of as they first seem. It may also explain dark energy and dark matter, not so much that they are dark, they just are not here.How do we explain something having effects in our universe, but not being here. The effect is here, so is not the cause here too?? I guess most of it could not be here and yet still a tiny part of it could be here. So, it here right? I'm confused again.
All good questions. The last theory I had heard was that gravity may exist in more than one universe simultaneously, or might be the side effect of the universes interacting with each other. It might also explain the reasons why light can act as both a particle and a wave at the same time. Clear as mud?
|
|
I'm familiar with what you're talking about. essentially if you represent the two universes as waving sheets of paper. that keep approaching and bouncing off of each other. it's an elaboration of string theory.
All good questions. The last theory I had heard was that gravity may exist in more than one universe simultaneously, or might be the side effect of the universes interacting with each other. It might also explain the reasons why light can act as both a particle and a wave at the same time. Clear as mud?
What your speaking of is brane theory or M-Brane theory. Which is basically string theory except that it isn't a string but rather almost a sheet of paper and the reason our computations kept showing it as a string is that we were looking at the piece of paper from the edge and not the "flat side."
|
|
The whole Everett Many Worlds hypothesis is really just a mathematical model to map certain aspects of physics. By definition those universes are as closed off to us, as if they did not exist.And yet, certain aspects of both light and of gravity may point to the possibility that they are not so closed of as they first seem. It may also explain dark energy and dark matter, not so much that they are dark, they just are not here.I actually have my own take on the Everett Worlds model but I don't have the math to realise it. It's inspired by kinetic sculpture and what I essentially do is stand it on it's head and essentially make a many choices one megaverse model.
If you've ever watched a kinetic sculpture you'll note that each time a ball starts it passes through a grid that determines which path it's going to take to get down to the bottom.
In my model instead of a universe being created everytime a choice is made, all choices instead already exist and each entity takes it's own path through them.
What we perceive as the Universe is the local convergence of a whole cluster of paths with in the Megaverse grid. (Again over time when you look at a kinetic sculpture you'll see that the paths that get repeated more often wear a path into the surface and they become more and more often taken) The particles that aren't part of the convergence aren't in our local universe. So while the choices may be infinite, what we call the universe is the convergence of those actually taken.
I have listened to a lecture by a physicist on something similar. As if the universe or the multi-verse if you prefer, were a big spinning top. and each layer of this top is slightly out of sync with each other. Which is why we only perceive a small percentage of it all. At least that was what I could glean from it.
I guess I am not one for the multiple choice universe. It seems less than elegant even if the math seems to not disprove it at this point. I mean if there is a different universe for every single choice we make, then what does it matter what choices we make. Seems silly really. Also there is only so much energy and matter in the world, if there were all these choices, wouldn't that equate to a lot more energy? Where is it all coming from?
I mean if there is a different universe for every single choice we make, then what does it matter what choices we make.
In the model I did an admittedly cursory reading of, multiple universes are manifestations of natural laws/constants being of greater or lesser relative mathematical values -- and have nothing to do with the fun "different universe for every choice we make" idea that's become such a perennial favorite in fiction (e.g., Zelazny's Roadmarks). Can anyone help me out here?
|
|
I mean if there is a different universe for every single choice we make, then what does it matter what choices we make.In the model I did an admittedly cursory reading of, multiple universes are manifestations of natural laws/constants being of greater or lesser relative mathematical values -- and have nothing to do with the fun "different universe for every choice we make" idea that's become such a perennial favorite in fiction (e.g., Zelazny's Roadmarks). Can anyone help me out here?
Roadmarks is one of my favorites. Makes a great story but not a very stable universe.
Plus it has been some time since I have read most of this myself. My memory is not what it used to be.
GO BIZARRO UNIVERSE GATORS!!!
I present to you The Infinite Crisis. The way multiple universes are made.
|
Of course there is more that one god, that is why our God's first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me."
One of the things that has always amused me is that a reading of the Old Testament makes it pretty clear that there are other gods. It wasn't until long after the Old Testament that Judaism (and later Christianity and Islam) began to claim that their god was the ONLY god.
|
|
Of course there is more that one god, that is why our God's first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me."One of the things that has always amused me is that a reading of the Old Testament makes it pretty clear that there are other gods. It wasn't until long after the Old Testament that Judaism (and later Christianity and Islam) began to claim that their god was the ONLY god.
Ignorance must be bliss. The reading of the old and new testament does nothing of the sort unless read out of context. Which you are, in my estimation doing a great job of here. Also the first commandment is not "you shall have no gods before me." Rather "I AM [as in personal name of GOD] the LORD your GOD [Personal name and or Titles] who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My [personal name again] presence..." The meaning is fairly clear in this as it is not differentiated from the next part which goes on to say how you do not make graven images and worship them. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Part of the issue is that in no place in the many books of the Bible where the 10 commandments are listed does it actually give any break point for the commandments. Where one ends and thus another beings. Which has lead to some serious miss readings of the source materials.
Thus ends our basic catechism 101 for the day.
|
|
It really depends on how you interpret that quote. It doesn't say WHY you should have no other gods before HIM. One could find as much justification for the reason being that other gods are nothing more than false clay images. The Old Testament certainly does not make any references to other gods by name. The other possibility that it might refer to fallen angels a.k.a. demons passing themselves off as gods.Of course there is more that one god, that is why our God's first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me."One of the things that has always amused me is that a reading of the Old Testament makes it pretty clear that there are other gods. It wasn't until long after the Old Testament that Judaism (and later Christianity and Islam) began to claim that their god was the ONLY god.
For clarification, the old testament does in fact reference the names of other gods, several in fact, but it never says they are real.
Rather:
Deuteronomy 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.
|
|
For clarification, the old testament does in fact reference the names of other gods, several in fact, but it never says they are real.
Most Coke commercials don't mention that Pepsi is pretty good, either. If you're pushing a product, you don't mention that your competitor is also a valid choice.
Not that I consider Ball, et al to be a valid choice...but I do consider them just as valid/real as Yahweh. Which is to say...not at all.
Thus ends our basic catechism 101 for the day.
That's how I learned it in Sunday School, too. But I had the temerity to talk to the Presbyterians, and the Jews around the corner, and the Greek Orthodox priest; and I read what Jefferson did with his Bible; and I saw that there are lots other ways of interpreting Scripture -- not just the way the Catholic Church does.
|
|
For clarification, the old testament does in fact reference the names of other gods, several in fact, but it never says they are real.Most Coke commercials don't mention that Pepsi is pretty good, either. If you're pushing a product, you don't mention that your competitor is also a valid choice.
Not that I consider Ball, et al to be a valid choice...but I do consider them just as valid/real as Yahweh. Which is to say...not at all.
Fair enough, I never said you had to. I just happen to disagree on this point.
|
|
Thus ends our basic catechism 101 for the day.That's how I learned it in Sunday School, too. But I had the temerity to talk to the Presbyterians, and the Jews around the corner, and the Greek Orthodox priest; and I read what Jefferson did with his Bible; and I saw that there are lots other ways of interpreting Scripture -- not just the way the Catholic Church does.
Actually I am not sure that this is even the official Catholic teaching. It is however the one I have seen most scholars use.
|
|
Ignorance must be bliss.I suspect it's as blissful as dogmatic adherence to a single interpretation of scripture.
In Exodus 18:10-12, Moses father-in-law, Jethro, was visiting him after the Israelites had escaped Egyptian slavery.
He said, “Praise be to the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh, and who rescued the people from the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.” Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat a meal with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God.(ref.), bold mine.
Only context here is that it's clear to me is the ancient Israelites were pretty comfortable with the idea of their god being better than "all other gods." Whether or not there actually were any other gods is pretty hard to check several thousands of years later, but back then the Israelites seemed to think their god was the best one.
This exchange between Jethro and Moses occurred before Moses received the ten commandments (Exodus 20).
-- Andy
Well Andy if you choose only to read half a sentence I can see how you could make that mistake.
http://www.wintersteel.com/Parallel_Universes.htmlSite disabled.
As a huge fan of Sliders I was hoping to be able to read this.
Try this one:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf
LINK STILL WORKS.
.
|
|
Crimson Jester,
My "dogmatic adherence to a single interpretation of scripture" comment was riffing of your "Thus ends our basic catechism 101 for the day" crack, addressed to the thread in toto not to you, directly.
"Catechism" is pretty part-and-parcel with the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which is pretty part-and-parcel with the concept of "dogma."
I apologize if I was unclear there.
I'm still not sure what mistake I've made. I've read all the sentences and sentence fragments in this thread thus far.
Riffing, and more to topic, here's an interesting article on quantum suicide.
-- Andy
It has been 3 years since we all posted on this thread. I want to apologize to you Andy, and well everyone here. I was not meaning to be so gruff or coming off in such an aggressive manner. It was uncalled for and unneeded.