News Stories

We May Live in Many Worlds at Once

Is our universe just one of many? Are some of these almost identical to ours? Scientists think this may be true and they have now created a test to investigate this theory (and if it is true, it would explain a lot of the things that are going on all around us!)

The researchers who think that parallel universes are real say that shortly after the Big Bang, space-time expanded at different rates in different places, giving rise to bubble universes that may function with their own separate laws of physics. Researchers suggest that if our universe contains other universes, we may have bumped into them. Such collisions would have left lasting marks in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the diffuse light left over from the Big Bang that pervades the universe.

In LiveScience.com, Clara Moskowitz quotes astrophysicist Daniel Mortlock as saying, "If you imagine two ordinary soap bubbles colliding, then the surface where they intersect is going to be a circle, so that's the key signature we're looking for in the CMB. There's no obvious sort of other thing that could cause this.

"One possibility is there are multiple different universes with different laws, and some are not right for life and so life doesn't evolve, and some are right for life and so creatures evolve and make measurements and ask deep, twisty questions like this. For that reason (the theory) is very appealing. "It brings the idea of eternal inflation and bubble collisions into the realm of testable science. If it's not testable, it's hard to even call it science."

This could explain some of the bizarre experiences that contactees have. But Moskowitz writes, "However, the possibility of multiple universes also comes with some unsettling implications. For example, some calculations suggest that a reality with infinite space and infinite universes would necessarily have to repeat itself sometimes, leading to the conclusion that copies of Earth and everyone on it exist somewhere else out there."

She quotes Mortlock as saying, "Once you open up this can of worms, there's all sorts of very adventurous thinking on this sort of thing. If there's infinitely many universes, then surely there are other copies of you and me having this conversation. It's hard to think about, but it's hard to get around."

Whitley wrote about some of his bizarre experiences in Communion. Now you can get a copy of Communion (the edition with the famous "face" on the cover) from the Whitley Strieber Collection--and it comes with a bookplate signed by Whitley! OTHER contactees have had a LOT of strange experiences too, and Anne Strieber has posted TWELVE interviews with them, just for our subscribers, so if YOU want to try to figure out what's going on before it's too late, be sure to subscribe today!




This describes my world exactly. Unlike Starfire Tor's ideas, my experiences are more immediate in my surroundings. I'll glance down and notice something has been 'moved'. I don't think that's a poltergeist. I think that the universe is like a record player and it skips around sometimes when vibrations get funky,, like they are as we near 2012. Or something will change color. Or I'll go to get in my car and it's parked on the other side of the driveway than where I originally parked. It's just part of an ordinary day and doesn't freak me out at all since it's been with me my entire life. Robin Beltrami

I had a vision once of something called a "Micro Cyree" that, from what I can tell, is a place where multiple worlds spread across different universes share the same physical location. (In my vision, Earth is in the same micro cyree with six other worlds, two of them are similar to Earth in size.)

This vision was accompanied by the idea that traveling between worlds of the same micro cyree is comparitively easier than other forms of stellar travel.

People typically assume that our entire soul incarnates in a single life time. Perhaps only a portion of our soul incarnates into a given life and a portion remains behind in the spirit world and/or incarnates in another life at the same time. Michael Newton explores this theory through past life regression in his books Destiny of Souls and Journey of Souls. His thesis being that we only "pour" a given percentage of our soul energy into each incarnation and that a portion of our soul always remains in the spiritual dimension. This supports the notion that what we experience in this life time is merely a small portion of who and what we really are. Peak spiritual experiences often leave one with the impression that you are connecting with your higher self that already exists at a higher plane.

To me that's a very interesting comment, Lost Star. I'm going to get Michael Newton's books and see if he'll do a Dreamland with me.

Michael Newton's book "Destiny of Souls" is available for download at: http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Souls-Studies-Between-Lives/dp/1567184995/...

The notion that a portion of our soul incarnates while another portion remains in the spiritual dimension or incarnates elsewhere is referred to as the binary soul doctrine which is found in many ancient religions. The binary nature of the soul is reflected in the ba and ka of ancient Egypt, the psuche and thumos of ancient Greece, atman and jiva in India, nagi and niya of the Dakota Indians, tonal and nagual of the ancient Toltecs. You could argue that the distinction between the soul and spirit in Christianity reflects the binary soul concept. See Hebrews 4:12; and apocraphyl Gospel of Thomas 11 & 22 noting that all people are in danger of such division and "making the two one" is the key to attaining eternal life. Interestingly, the pyramid texts and Book of the Dead emphasize the need to cause the ba and ka to reunite again.

I feel that I must always remind posters to comments lines like this one that the human condition is only an illusion and everything, from the mind of Man, is limited to a stunted, homo-centric observation of the Universe(s). Even the ideas of 'The Soul' or 'The Universe' are man made concepts. To point to anything of the mind of man, from religion to philosophy, from sooth-saying to psychic visions, from moral ethics to amorality, from the natural sciences to mathematics, everything, known to man, is an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible. There is, I believe, only one thing created... One Mind. The concept of One Mind expressing itself as the Universe(s) is analogized well with the form of a tree. If all of the leaves sense that they are individuals to themselves, then, no amount of material experience will dilute that mindset. But, then again, that too comes from the mind of (a) man. The answer? Don't sweat the small stuff and just be; for, everything we think we know is small stuff.

It's all a matter of perspective.
“For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across — which happened to be Earth — where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.

“Those who study the complex interplay of cause and effect in the history of the universe say that this sort of thing is going on all the time, but that we are powerless to prevent it.

“’It’s just life,’ they say.”

—The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Ch. 31, by Douglas Adams

All of our spiritual and religious views are merely provisional models of reality. As long as we recognize this, our views do not entrap us. The two extremes to avoid are believing you know the ultimate truth and believing we can know nothing or attain nothing. Both views are cop outs and stunt growth. Not all paradigms are equally vlaid. There is value in attempting to derive a paradigm that more accurately reflects reality and one which better assists our own spiritual evolution. In this respect, I disagree with the view that it's a waste of time to seek the truth. I temper my own search with this comical comment I once heard: "The difference between a termite that claimed to have a comprehensive model of reality and a human who made the same claim, is not much."

Hope you don't mind... it's just easier this way.

Lost Star wrote: "All of our spiritual and religious views are merely provisional models of reality.
I write: Shouldn't that be more honestly stated as "...provisional models of what we believe to be reality?"
Lost Star continues: "As long as we recognize this, our views do not entrap us. The two extremes to avoid are believing you know the ultimate truth and believing we can know nothing or attain nothing. Both views are cop outs and stunt growth."
I write: Well, as long as you insist in making absolutist statements like that we'll never get to grow at all. And just what do you mean by 'Growth' anyway? Must one be planted in a medium, of some sort, watered, fed and pruned so that one might take root and thereby become immobile?
Lost Star wrote: "Not all paradigms are equally valid. There is value in attempting to derive a paradigm that more accurately reflects reality and one which better assists our own spiritual evolution."
I write: By what criteria do you judge the criteria to be used when critiquing criteria?
To constantly utter and believe such absolutes is truly copping out. One paradigm is just as valid as the next as long as that paradigm has been established. If one is attempting to derive a paradigm, then, by definition, no paradigm yet exists. What one has is a series of assumptions which are then used to structure a view of IT ALL.
Lost Star wrote: "In this respect, I disagree with the view that it's a waste of time to seek the truth."
I write: Where have I even alluded to the idea that seeking the truth is a waste of time? I've only implied that it isn't necessary because anything that is thought to be learned from such an endeavor will be a product of a homo-centric thought process and, thereby, stunted (as growth is stunted as you mentioned above).
Lost Star wrote: "I temper my own search with this comical comment I once heard: "The difference between a termite that claimed to have a comprehensive model of reality and a human who made the same claim, is not much.""
I write: The difference is that the termite does not believe that he builds his magnificent home/world/experience in isolation from all else. The human, on the other hand, quite emphatically does.
I cannot help but wonder if your 'comical comment' is meant to insult the termite or the human ie. people like me or people like you? (take your pick as to whom you think best fits you).
But seriously, I stand in awe of the Infinite/Infinity... infinite ideas, infinite forms, infinite time, infinite dimensions, infinite everything! I can no more, by giving thought to it, comprehend the All THERE IS than that aforementioned termite can comprehend the computer I'm using now.
As a younger man, I just about blew a gasket searching for "Truth." I'm now well past seventy and have finally learned to, as the Beatles sang, "Let It Be; Let It Be; Let It Be."

Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/we-may-live-many-worlds-once#ixzz1VsT...

Edin writes: "One paradigm is just as valid as the next as long as that paradigm has been established." If all views are equally valid, then why isn't my view as stated in my previous posts just as valid as your view? You can't have it both ways. You can't say all views are equally valid and at the same time state that the views posted by Lost Star are not as valid as your views. This is the problem people get into when they claim that the truth is subjective and that all spiritual paradigms/beliefs are equally valid. Once people take that position, they have no right to claim that anyone else's view is less valid than their own. If Edin wants to change his position and state that all views are not equally valid, then we would be in agreement. In my view, all paradigms are not equally valid. The view that the earth is flat and rests on the back of a turtle is not as valid as the current understanding of the earth. Similarly, there are more and less advanced spiritual paradigms -- not all are equal. There are better and worse spiritual paths for each of us and better and worse ways to live. This message is clearly delivered in Whitley's book The Key. The fact that we may not be able to arrive at the ultimate truth or a complete understanding of life/reality, does not mean that we can't have more or less accurate models/ paradigms, and better or worse spiritual views. A map does not have to be perfect or include all details of the terrain in order to give us direction.

First of all... You misunderstand me. A view or a belief is not a paradigm. Many different views and beliefs may and do exist within a given paradigm and contribute to that paradigm. And a belief is simply that... a belief based on supposition and conjecture. For, if a fact is known for sure, it is no longer a belief... it becomes a known.

The paradigm that we seem to be laboring under at this point in human history is one of superstition, and a blind, vague idea of right and wrong, should and shouldn't each to his own. These only apply to residents of Earth with no reference or meaning to anything or anyone else outside the Earth. We are stuck in the mire of insisting that everyone agree to a moral code with everyone else... (we even anthropomorphize human values and feelings upon animals) even though neither one of us knows what he or she is talking about.
And when it comes to Ultimate Truth, as you call it... how will you know it when you see it? What is it that tells you that THIS is TRUTH? Isn't it possible that you and I have glimpsed Truth and didn't even know it because we were expecting a preconceived idea of Truth to show up or be revealed? Is it possible that at the time of our birth we were bathed, as it were, in the Truth? We had no judgement, no prejudices, no worry, no sense of identity. We were, simply, little bundles of loving potential completely accepting the world in which we found ourselves, with no ability to direct what or who we would become.
In this paradigm spiritual views are many according to the ones doing the viewing.
In this paradigm most beliefs and views are sited to some authority figure (i.e.the Key) and individual self revelation or knowing (Gnosis) is discarded or ignored and deemed inappropriate at best and admonished and punished at worst (providing that revelation did not come through an imagined avenue accepted by some church).
In this paradigm terms like: "There are better and worse spiritual paths for each of us and better and worse ways to live." are standard fare. Again, as I asked Lone Star, what criteria does one use to judge the criteria to be used in critiquing criteria?
In order to even come close to understanding the complexities of the Universe one must be willing to abandon all preconceived ideas and open one self up to the totally unknown... without exception or expectation. Personally, I cannot fathom that seemingly impossible act. Thus, I'm doomed to wallow in this paradigm.
True, a map does not have to be complete in order for it to be useful to some degree; However, once one falls into a uncharted pit or drowns in an unknown lake or bakes in an undiscovered desert by following that incomplete map... one soon realizes the worthlessness of that map and unceremoniously casts it aside in favor of direct experience attained without preconceived ideas or expectations to impede him.
When I read the Key (and many other books on the subject) I came away with a sobering idea gnawing away inside my brain. "The Universe is Impersonal"; "Life is Impersonal". They have no meaning, they have no truth. As far as I know, mankind is the only life form in existence that expects there to be something more to consciousness and/or life. Man ideates that there is something greater than himself because Man puts himself, metaphorically, outside the Universe. He/She considers him/herself to be an individual with definite ideas of right and wrong. This is really absurd because there has yet to be a convincing, considered answer to the basic questions: What is Life and What is a Human Being? Our collective view of Man is based (as mentioned above) on superstition and dogmatic religion. And on these do we claim to know the workings and wonder of Creation. Even the idea of a creation is a man made idea designed to give man a sense of superiority and purpose. Like it or not, Man is the Universe expressing itself as mankind.
In a different paradigm, there would be no such thing as individuality, correctness, wrongness or a "better way to live." there would be only impersonal mind experiencing itself without separate selves. This concept is most difficult to accept and abhorant to most because, I think, that man is not yet evolved enough to accept non-being and embrace being "all there is." (Could this be why man fears apparant death so much?)
If I disagree with someone that does not mean that I hold any animosity towards that person... on the contrary. I think that through thoughtful conversation a mutual understanding can be reached, thus, enriching the existence and experience of all concerned.
I repeat... everything I have said is the product of the mind of (a) man (certainly nothing new) and is, therefore, stunted and sorely incomplete in it's comprehension of Truth (whatever that is; if it is). In fact, I cannot and do not claim to know any more or less than any other seeker in the pursuit of the incomprehensible.

Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/we-may-live-many-worlds-once#ixzz1W7j...

Edin:  You state that “A view or a belief is not a paradigm. Many different views and beliefs may and do exist within a given paradigm and contribute to that paradigm.”  The Heritage dictionary defines a paradigm as follows: “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.”  I think the definition of a “paradigm” is applicable to religious and spiritual beliefs/views because they constitute “a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.”  But let’s not get side tracked into semantics.  The crux of our dialogue was whether you take the position that all spiritual beliefs/paradigms are equally valid?  In your last post you stated that “I cannot and do not claim to know any more or less than any other seeker in the pursuit of the incomprehensible” and in your earlier post you stated that "One paradigm is just as valid as the next as long as that paradigm has been established."  Having taken this position, you cannot assert that anyone else’s spiritual views/paradigms are less valid than yours because you take the position that all paradigms are equally valid.  You ask me “what criteria does one use to judge the criteria to be used in critiquing criteria?”  I’m not sure why you are interested in what criterion I use because whatever my response is, according to your BELIEF, all views are equally valid regardless as to what criteria one uses.  Apparently, in your view, we can chose whatever criterion we want because whatever belief/paradigm it results in is going to be equally valid.  If, as you say, “One paradigm is just as valid as the next”  why does it matter what criteria we use?  Personally, I think it does matter what criteria we use to seek the truth.  I do not think blind faith is as good as experience or logic/reason.  There are better and worse “measuring rods” for ascertaining the truth.  I just listed two that I think are better:  personal experience and logic/reason.  Unless you are going to change your position and state that all beliefs and paradigms are NOT equally valid, it seems pointless to discuss criteria. In your view, why would it matter what criteria we use if all beliefs are equally valid?      

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now