--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > [...] > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could be > > > the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > You don't understand the Multiverse theories. Assuming an infinite universe, > there are an infinite number of exact copies of our own universe, as well as > an infinite number of slightly "off" copies as well as an infinite number of > radically different universes, all existing simultaneously *somewhere* in > THIS universe. The problem is that "universe" has two distinct meanings in > the above sentence: > > our "universe," and others like it, are local, but extremely large (by our standards) > conglomerations of space-time in a certain configuration, which we believe > came about after/due-to something called "the Big Bang." > > The "Type I Metaverse" is merely the infinite expanse of space-time in which all > "local" universes happen to exist. > > And "observer," in Hagelin's cosmology, is anything that collapses the wave > function, not just some cosmic uber-entity. Now, Hagelin likely believes, as do I, > that there is an emergent property of the totality of these observers throughout > any and all of the metaverses that has its own consciousness, but what that is > like is impossible to say.
While I commend sparaig for his measured response, I will stay out of this and all discussions of pure theory because they're...uh...pure theory, and as such have a limited value to those of a more pragmatic nature, such as myself. However, as I have done lately when John Hagelin has been cited as some kind of authority -- or even referred to as if he were a legitimate scientist -- I feel it is worth pointing out who we're talking about: For those who may be lurking here, and impressed with this "scientist's" theories, I point out that the costume this gentleman is wearing is the garb of a TM Raja (a "king" of an imaginary country invented by Maha- rishi called the "Global Country of the Age of Enlightenment"). Most who are allowed to wear this costume paid Maharishi (no shit) one million dollars for the privilege. Mr. Hagelin, not being rich, seems to have gotten his costume for free, in exchange for proposing theories that seem to support Maharishi's "Vedic fundamentalist" view of the universe and how it all works. Dressed in costumes like this, John Hagelin Ph.D. is widely regarded in the TM cul...uh, I mean movement as an official Big Deal. People flock to him and regard him with a kind of groupie status that approaches awe, and devout TM followers invoke his name in discussions as if he were a real scientist. In addition, his "discoveries" in the world of "science" have landed him a cushy salary for life from the TM movement, for which he serves as one of its major shills...uh, I mean spokespersons. I suggest that you bear this in mind when assessing the quality or validity of his "research," the same way you might have some reservations about accepting the research of a tobacco researcher whose salary and entire life is paid for by the tobacco industry. I've never met Mr. Hagelin. I suspect that if you got him away from the TM movement he might be a nice guy. But a scientist? Never. He owes his salary and the very fabric of his life to the TM movement he shills for. I just thought that because his name is coming up here with increased frequency, lurkers might want to know who exactly is being cited as if the people citing him believed he was actually credible, and thus be able to better form their own judgments of his credibility. Carry on.
