positive universe and negative universe

[Catherine Wheel]

A friend at work has this theory that there is a so called positive universe and so called negative universe that exist. The positive universe is what is tangible / physical. The negative universe is invisible. It is ideas, concepts, and thoughts. He also believes that everything from the negative universe manifests itself in some way in the positive universe. So the negative universe casts a shadow in the positive universe. I disagreed with him because I dont' think the subconscious mind always manifests itself at all in a physical or tangible way. What do you think?

[bahnzah]

that's not a theory. it's a hypothesis.

[Caine Walker]

hey catherine wheel's back

[soniclovenoize]

http://doubleoduck2.tripod.com/fraz1.png

[EyesOfAJackal]

Sounds like Plato's concept of Forms

[Mooney]

i believe current quantum theory postulates a 'multiverse', where every possible history of the universe is existing simultaneously. i just bought hawking and mlodinow's 'the grand design' today, coincidentally. i'll get back to you.

[dean_r_koontz]

the multiverse theory is an interpretation of quantum mechanical events, if that's what you mean by postulation then it's correct but there are other interpretations as well.

[dean_r_koontz]

also that book is supposed to be full of hype and garbage. if you want to REALLY impress people and avoid smartasses like me you're going to have to do better brosef.

[Mooney]

i'll never be able to impress people by my intellect. any non-fiction i read has to be written in the vein of '____ for dummies'.

[dean_r_koontz]

i suppose it's a good overview of different theories but maybe not so great at giving a clear, logically consistent image in ones mind about the basics of theoretical physics. that's what i found to be frustrating with one of Hawkins earlier books when i tried to understand more about the subject.

[dean_r_koontz]

not that i understand much about the basics of theoretical physics or even know what that would be but you know...

[ATS]

i have a theory that the universe is shaped like a tear drop falling through space

i dont have any numbers to back it up but i know im right about this

[EyesOfAJackal]

I don't think what Catherine is describing sounds like those physics theories. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Richard Dawkins promote some 'multiverse' theory to try and explain how all the physical constants of our universe seem fine-tuned to support human life?

Anyway, what Catherine is talking about doesn't sound like physics so much as philosophy and psychology.

Plato said that abstract "Forms" existed (maybe in heaven? or at least not on earth, somewhere that I seem to remember seemed like a 'negative universe') and that these were the perfection or ideal of various objects and concepts of which things in our tangible universe were mere (poor) reflections. For example, there was the Form of 'beauty', of which all beautiful things in our world, no matter how grand, are mere reflections of that ultimate beauty; there was a Form of 'chair', of which objects in this universe imitated, of 'humanity' or 'fellowship' and so on. I think later Christians interpreted this in light of God reflecting the Form of love and so on.

[28if]

as Jackal said, that's almost exactly Plato's theory of forms. Which only really sortof makes sense when you think about it linguistically.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Catherine Wheel

A friend at work has this theory that there is a so called positive universe and so called negative universe that exist. The positive universe is what is tangible / physical. The negative universe is invisible. It is ideas, concepts, and thoughts. He also believes that everything from the negative universe manifests itself in some way in the positive universe. So the negative universe casts a shadow in the positive universe. I disagreed with him because I dont' think the subconscious mind always manifests itself at all in a physical or tangible way. What do you think?

indeed this is quasi-Platonic. Also seems a bit like the idea of entelechy, since he thinks the shadow universe affects the one we live in.

Yeah, and this doesn't really sound like physics. Both you and your friend's idea posit that there is some reality beyond the material (whether they cross over or not).

edit: well maybe not entelechy specifically. Apparently that is a biological idea only.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Mooney

i believe current quantum theory postulates a 'multiverse', where every possible history of the universe is existing simultaneously. i just bought hawking and mlodinow's 'the grand design' today, coincidentally. i'll get back to you.

Been reading it at work. He re-used one of my favorite examples from A Brief History of Time though, which kind of pissed me off - it's about the man kicking a stone.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Catherine Wheel

I disagreed with him because I dont' think the subconscious mind always manifests itself at all in a physical or tangible way. What do you think?

It manifests itself subconsciously in our behaviors.

[Trotskilicious]

are the reptilians from the positive or negative universe

[Starla]

It would be both since they have the ability to travel between the two dimensions.

[Trotskilicious]

oh of course

[redbreegull]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/...69d77e3eb2.jpg

[Trotskilicious]

BIZZARO BIZARRO

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Been reading it at work. He re-used one of my favorite examples from A Brief History of Time though, which kind of pissed me off - it's about the man kicking a stone.

Ouch, I refute it thus!

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by duovamp

A Brief History of Time

i'm sure you've realized by now that 'the grand design' is essentially 'an even briefer history of time' - fifty pages less on black holes, and a page and a half added on M theory. this wouldn't have been a big deal had i not read both previous versions fairly recently.

i polished off this book in less than a day which is a big feat for me - generally it takes me a week or two to get through a book.

[ilikeplanets]

I don't think there would be another universe for this..perhaps just a simple next dimension. A universe is a bit involved..

[ilikeplanets]

Btw strangely enough I just picked up A Brief History of Time. Maybe I will be swayed away from all my existing opinions upon finishing it.

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

I don't think there would be another universe for this..perhaps just a simple next dimension. A universe is a bit involved..

from what i gather, the theory suggests there are an infinite amount of other universes co-existing - few or none of which have any semblance or similar laws to our own.

considering that theologians' only remaining argument for intelligent design is the 'fine-tuned universe' theory, hawkin's anthropic multiverse seems like it was spawned out of trying to dismiss this.

give a million monkeys a million typewriters and eventually out pops our universe.

[Mooney]

just saying that if it took religious folk almost two thousand years to accept the first notion that the earth wasn't the center of the universe we're going to have to do better.

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by Mooney

from what i gather, the theory suggests there are an infinite amount of other universes co-existing - few or none of which have any semblance or similar laws to our own.

considering that theologians' only remaining argument for intelligent design is the 'fine-tuned universe' theory, hawkin's anthropic multiverse seems like it was spawned out of trying to dismiss this.

give a million monkeys a million typewriters and eventually out pops our universe.

What theory are you talking about? Catherine Wheel's?

I am completely unsold on the idea of a separate universe, as I conceive the universe to be so encompassing that there can be nothing outside of it. As far as dimensions, however, I am convinced that there are a great many of them, each with their own laws of physics, among other properties of which we can't even begin to define since we are hopelessly trapped our own. I think we are agreeing about the concepts here, but not on the word used to define them.

As far as the possibility of a dimension/universe containing the opposite/negative of our own personal feelings, I think that is a bit too selfish to believe. There is so much excess out there that human beings cannot measure, but I don't feel that each conscious being has that type of shadow urging them to misbehave. That actually sounds more religious than scientific to me.

I'm more prone to believing in a dimension where the opposite of every outcome is true..to me that would be more of a "negative" or "anti" universe. I have not read Hawkings' book yet, but to be sure most information on this topic is speculative anyway...to my dismay.

[Catherine Wheel]

Originally Posted by Starla

It manifests itself subconsciously in our behaviors.

What if a person is able to suppress their subconscious so nothing comes to the surface? Doesn't that sometimes occur?