The multiverse is still a popular alternative for explaining the origins of the universe and the strangeness of its many aspects: time, space and direction or movement in them. Changing direction in the vastness of the universe is not just moving forward and backward. It can mean moving higher or lower, inward and outward. Such movement or direction can be illustrated by the Russian doll ... one inside another. Or, simply that when you take a bird's eye view you are changed by that position not just physically but cognitively and emotionally.

For the social quantum analysis to have any application here, one must consider too that the universe is 'socially' experienced and that is through the exchange of information. Is it then that the multiverse can be viewed as copies of information; after all, the Russian doll illustration is exactly that one copy inside another copy. Does that mean there was/is an original? Yes, I assume it does but the troubling thought is whether asking if its necessary to find it since the copies are exactly the same. And, are the copies the same? The Russian doll shows us 'sameness' but there is difference. Yes, as one is smaller than the other and fits inside another and one is always further from one and or another one.

If we were the doll, then we would have a slightly different experience of that same information. This can be better grasped by appealing to fractal design ~ The Mandelbrot Set.

*The term Mandelbrot set is used to refer both to a general class of fractal sets and to a particular instance of such a set. In general, a Mandelbrot set marks the set of points in the complex plane such that the corresponding Julia set is connected and not computable. The Mandelbrot set is the set obtained from the quadratic recurrence equation.*

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MandelbrotSet.html

*What does that mean exactly? Well, think of it as the set of all complex numbers z for which the sequence defined by the iteration remains bounded.*

*z(0) = z, z(n+1) = z(n)*z(n) + z, n=0,1,2, ... (1)*

*This means that there is a number B such that the absolute value of all iterates z(n) never gets larger than B. A bounded sequence may or not have a limit. For example, if z=0 then z(n) = 0 for all n, so that the limit of the (1) is zero. On the other hand, if z=i ( i being the imaginary unit), then the sequence oscillates between i and i-1, so remains bounded but it does not converge to a limit.*

*You may ask, what's so special about the particular iteration (1), and why do we use complex numbers instead of real ones. In a sense, the formula (1) is the simplest other than a linear formula which would give rise to a much simpler and quite uninteresting picture. (The analog of the Mandelbrot set would be empty or the entire plane.) If we restricted the iteration (1) to the real instead of complex numbers then again we would get an uninteresting picture: the interval from -2 to 0.*

*Much of the fascination of the Mandelbrot set stems from the fact that an extremely simple formula like (1) gives rise to an object of such great complexity.*

http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.html

You see, the experience of the Mandelbrot is 1 and the same yet different at the same time. Essentially, at any one time, an original and a copy. A multiverse of one!

Is anything then in the multiverse without flaw/corruption? What happens if we imagine that any one aspect of the Russian doll is flawed, though that one flaw maybe hidden one inside another. The flaw may not be seen but it is there just the same. Thus, we can greatly imagine the same about a Mandelbrot set, whatever flaw there is imagined in it will be in every view, every representation.

Applying the structure of repeated pattern, we can realize that if a pattern has a flaw in it, that flaw can and will be repeated if it is not 'atoned for' or deleted/erased. The Creator sent His Son to atone for that flaw so that all are made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ for in Him there is no sin ~ 1 John 3:5.

"Sin so easily entangles" ~ Hebrews 12:1 (NIV). And, thus, "there is no one who does not have sin" ~ 1 Kings 8:46 " "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" ~ John 8:34. Yet, "Sin is not taken into account when there is no law" ~ Romans 5:13. We might ask then who realized the law which would point out the flaw/sin - corruption? When Adam broke the command given by the Creator, sin entered in ~ Romans 5:12. And yet he was the pattern of the one to come ~ Romans 5:14. And, he was created without sin to atone for it ~ 2 COR 5:21.

Is anything then in the multiverse without flaw/corruption? What happens if we imagine that any one aspect of the Russian doll is flawed, though that one flaw maybe hidden one inside another. The flaw may not be seen but it is there just the same. Thus, we can greatly imagine the same about a Mandelbrot set, whatever flaw there is imagined in it will be in every view, every representation.

Applying the structure of repeated pattern, we can realize that if a pattern has a flaw in it, that flaw can and will be repeated if it is not 'atoned for' or deleted/erased. The Creator sent His Son to atone for that flaw so that all are made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ for in Him there is no sin ~ 1 John 3:5.

"Sin so easily entangles" ~ Hebrews 12:1 (NIV). And, thus, "there is no one who does not have sin" ~ 1 Kings 8:46 " "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" ~ John 8:34. Yet, "Sin is not taken into account when there is no law" ~ Romans 5:13. We might ask then who realized the law which would point out the flaw/sin - corruption? When Adam broke the command given by the Creator, sin entered in ~ Romans 5:12. And yet he was the pattern of the one to come ~ Romans 5:14. And, he was created without sin to atone for it ~ 2 COR 5:21.

**With God all things are possible ~ Matthew 19:26 God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made things we can see and the things we can't see...Everything was created through him and for him. He existed before anything else,and he holds all creation together ~ COL 1: 16-17*
Nice piece, interesting.

ReplyDeleteThank you, sorry for so long delay regarding your comment.

ReplyDelete