what do you think about the theory that there is infinite universes and what if even fictions are real?

[Sandman]

do you think its possible? i said fiction cus the emphasis on there are a lot of different universes

 

[Sandman]

like there are so many of them that each fiction/book has one where it's reality? genueinly interested in yall opinions

 

[Nembra]

Generally speaking the very idea of there being more than one universe is inherently nonsensical or at least a rare example of uninteresting by definition. Another thing is that even if we agree to even consider infinite worlds, it doesn't necessarily mean "all possible worlds". There are infinitely many prime numbers, but you still won't find four among them.

 

[Accipeveldare]

do you think its possible? i said fiction cus the emphasis on there are a lot of different universes

I do not know the answer to this. However, the reason i have never looked into it is due to the sheer uselessness of that kind of info. Maybe there is, maybe there isnt. Who cares? There is no real occult necessity to knowing that kind of thing. So I never wasted my time with that question and spent it on better questions instead.

 

[Pneuma_Purifier]

do you think its possible? i said fiction cus the emphasis on there are a lot of different universes

The answer is yes: there are infinite realities. Every time you have an accident and come close to dying, you actually die in that timeline and shift into a parallel world where you survive, because the possibility of survival exists.

Also, every time you buy a lottery ticket, you’re making your parallel self happy in a reality where they win.

You can also create here energetic portals and jump between realities.

 

[Nembra]

The answer is yes: there are infinite realities. Every time you have an accident and come close to dying, you actually die in that timeline and shift into a parallel world where you survive, because the possibility of survival exists.

Also, every time you buy a lottery ticket, you’re making your parallel self happy in a reality where they win.

You can also create here energetic portals and jump between realities.

How do you know that? You seem to be having some incredible sources.

 

[Sandman]

i

The answer is yes: there are infinite realities. Every time you have an accident and come close to dying, you actually die in that timeline and shift into a parallel world where you survive, because the possibility of survival exists.

Also, every time you buy a lottery ticket, you’re making your parallel self happy in a reality where they win.

You can also create here energetic portals and jump between

I'm a little skeptical about the last statement

 

[Pneuma_Purifier]

I'm a little skeptical about the last statement

Before creating energetic portals, it’s recommended that you first study Zhong Yuan Qigong The Third Stage of Ascent: Pause, The Way to Wisdom.

Section One: Opening the Central Channel

After you learn this foundation, you can create an energetic portal and step into it.

 

[ahathoor]

There's two very different ideas that I see admixing in this question.

One is the idea of "infinite realities" from modern natural philosophy (and I don't say "quantum physics" for very good reasons, as the whole set of ideas emerged from a vague and scientifically highly contested philosophical debate over what "observe" / "measure" really means in quantum physics, and has little to do with the actual maths). This is what @Pneuma_Purifier mentioned, combined with the related idea of "quantum immortality". I personally find both to be a product of pure sophistry illicitly wearing a lab coat, and once given enough thought, profoundly uninteresting.

The other, "even fiction is real", is a whole different beast. It's connected to an absurdist view of removing the ontological privilege of consensus reality. Now we're cooking with fire. Having vague parallels in varied religious philosophies, I myself connect it with the idea of limitless Kia, Hyperchaos or the UCP. It's a valid standpoint of ontological rebellion, and highly worth exploring.

Of course banish the thought of claiming it's "real". Because then nothing is real (and everything is permitted, lol.)

Post automatically merged: Today at 9:03 AM

ps. apparently this post became a manifesto of my heretical divergence from highly quantum-sophistry-drunken Carroll-Hine chaos magic theory...

 

[Robert Ramsay]

As someone said earlier, "all possible worlds" rather than infinite worlds. There has to be a narrative thread (i.e. a continuous chain of events) for a timeline to be possible. Worlds that break the laws of physics will vanish in a puff of logic

If you want things to be actually real and still obey the laws of physics, then you require a multiverse of all possible worlds. If you are desperate for only a single universe, then you will need to follow something like Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics where things only exist in relation to each other, and have no intrinsic reality.

So, maybe the set of fictional worlds that don't break the laws of physics could exist, as long as there was a set of outcomes from the beginning of the universe that led to those worlds

You can also create here energetic portals and jump between realities.

No, not really. You're moving between realities all the time, like you were drawn on the pages of a flicker-book. You don't need to imagine some 'energetic portal' - although if that's part of your magical practice, go for it. Being utterly convinced of something for your practise allows you to use that thing.

The answer is yes: there are infinite realities. Every time you have an accident and come close to dying, you actually die in that timeline and shift into a parallel world where you survive, because the possibility of survival exists.

There is no "shifting" - there is a set of versions of you that died and a set that lived, and obviously, only the one that lived will have a memory of the near death event.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Who cares? There is no real occult necessity to knowing that kind of thing.

I would beg to differ I understand that my way of looking at magic is not very popular amongst magicians - people complain that trying to explain something takes all the mystery out of it, but as Felix Flicker says in The Magick of Matter:

"you must understand that this book comes with a warning. Once you have learnt how a spell is cast, the effect of the spell will cease to appear to you as magic. It will become mundane. Everyday. Boring. This is the cost of magical knowledge."

a vague and scientifically highly contested philosophical debate over what "observe" / "measure" really means in quantum physics

"Measurement" is only a problem because, as Richard Feynman said:

“The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be'.”

There is a perfectly consistent explanation of what happens in "measurement", but nobody likes it because it contradicts that 'ought to be'.

 

[ahathoor]

I understand that my way of looking at magic is not very popular amongst magicians - people complain that trying to explain something takes all the mystery out of it

With apologies over a mild derailment, my issue is entirely tangential, and rooted in me having a solid hard sciences background, and a long history of negative experiences with crackpot science...

It's not that explaining magic in terms of physics would take wonder and mystery out of magic. "Explaining" things with intellectual laxity (ie. excluding the actual maths - in higher physics the maths is the concept), also happens to take all the wonder out of physics, and degrade magic and natural sciences both.

And if we need even the tiniest jump beyond rigorous reasoning, why not just embrace ontological Anarchy? Love and Wonder are real (as a matter of Faith), and are there both in the double slit experiment and a beautifully drawn sigil. What more would I want or need?

 

[Pneuma_Purifier]

Section One: Opening the Central Channel

After you learn this foundation, you can create an energetic portal and step into it.

When you open your central channel, the golden aura becomes visible in the Touch your Aura exercise.

 

[Accipeveldare]

As someone said earlier, "all possible worlds" rather than infinite worlds. There has to be a narrative thread (i.e. a continuous chain of events) for a timeline to be possible. Worlds that break the laws of physics will vanish in a puff of logic

If you want things to be actually real and still obey the laws of physics, then you require a multiverse of all possible worlds. If you are desperate for only a single universe, then you will need to follow something like Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics where things only exist in relation to each other, and have no intrinsic reality.

So, maybe the set of fictional worlds that don't break the laws of physics could exist, as long as there was a set of outcomes from the beginning of the universe that led to those worlds

No, not really. You're moving between realities all the time, like you were drawn on the pages of a flicker-book. You don't need to imagine some 'energetic portal' - although if that's part of your magical practice, go for it. Being utterly convinced of something for your practise allows you to use that thing.

There is no "shifting" - there is a set of versions of you that died and a set that lived, and obviously, only the one that lived will have a memory of the near death event.

I would beg to differ I understand that my way of looking at magic is not very popular amongst magicians - people complain that trying to explain something takes all the mystery out of it, but as Felix Flicker says in The Magick of Matter:

"you must understand that this book comes with a warning. Once you have learnt how a spell is cast, the effect of the spell will cease to appear to you as magic. It will become mundane. Everyday. Boring. This is the cost of magical knowledge."

"Measurement" is only a problem because, as Richard Feynman said:

“The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be'.”

There is a perfectly consistent explanation of what happens in "measurement", but nobody likes it because it contradicts that 'ought to be'.

Yes, but this doesnt answer how you could possibly even use that kind of info. Why would I need to know whether every fictional universe could exist or not?

Also, I like your approach to magick. Even though I am one of them, it is a breath of fresh air to see someone with a different view than just "existential, cosmic powers from beyond"

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Yes, but this doesn't answer how you could possibly even use that kind of info. Why would I need to know whether every fictional universe could exist or not?

ohhhhh - I didn't realise you were being that specific about the existence of 'fictional' universes - my bad!

You are correct - any existing 'fictional' universes would have branched off from ours long ago, or (almost certainly) be unreachable from our current point, and so bear nothing on our current state

Post automatically merged: Today at 2:28 PM

It's not that explaining magic in terms of physics would take wonder and mystery out of magic.

Glad to hear it! I've had my ear bent by magicians/paranormal fans who think otherwise!

"Explaining" things with intellectual laxity (ie. excluding the actual maths - in higher physics the maths is the concept), also happens to take all the wonder out of physics, and degrade magic and natural sciences both.

Hear hear. I've also heard so many "explanations" where one of the steps is "and then a miracle occurs"

And if we need even the tiniest jump beyond rigorous reasoning, why not just embrace ontological Anarchy? Love and Wonder are real (as a matter of Faith), and are there both in the double slit experiment and a beautifully drawn sigil. What more would I want or need?

I started investigating because it was an itch I couldn't scratch - I think the turning point was Crowley saying "you don't need to know how a tractor works to drive one" and Niels Bohr saying that the quantum realm was basically unknowable ("pay no attention to whatever's behind the curtain!")

To get back on track, one of my other unpopular opinions (along with people like Karl Friedrich Gauss) is that there is no such thing as an infinite physical quantity. So although the number of timelines is mind-bogglingly large, I don't believe it to be mathematically infinite. For any finite number of things (atoms in the universe for example) there will be a finite number of ways they can be arranged. I consider mathematical infinity to be a useful calculating trick that does not refer to entities in the physical universe.

 

[ahathoor]

there is no such thing as an infinite physical quantity

If we consider quanta and Planck time reasonable proof that physics is discrete as opposed to continuous, and consider the extent of existence to be bounded, then sure. That said, "possible realities" implies all feasible configurations of all probabilistic variables, including all starting conditions, which then we could argue can contain the number of said variables.. and then, how many possible valid chess configurations can exist over all possible starting conditions over all possible 2n x 2m sized chessboards where {n, m} E N? The answer is (countably) Infinite.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

If we consider quanta and Planck time reasonable proof that physics is discrete as opposed to continuous, and consider the extent of existence to be bounded, then sure. That said, "possible realities" implies all feasible configurations of all probabilistic variables, including all starting conditions, which then we could argue can contain the number of said variables.. and then, how many possible valid chess configurations can exist over all possible starting conditions over all possible 2n x 2m sized chessboards where {n, m} E N? The answer is (countably) Infinite.

hmmm - I shall have to have a think about that one But I'm glad that you knew exactly what I meant