Who here believes in a parrallel universe?
818029
I am going to put a slightly spin on this question. I DO believe that there are parallel universes. There are at least as many universes as there are people and possibly as many universes as there are living things. We each experience a different universe, but they all exist at the same time. Our "Universe" is what we experience (see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and any other undocumented sense). THAT is where parallel universes come into their own, and THAT is where relativity comes into play. My universe starts with me where I am and ends "out there somewhere". I will never get to experience the end, because wherever I am will always be the start of my universe.
470968
which universe do you live in?
891798
Yes I believe in life after death, I also think reincarnation might exist.  I have seen ghosts.
120835
Yes, I believe very strongly in the paranormal. The unexplained is all around us.
271997
It's amazing isn't it?! It's so beyond our technology to fully test the theory though. I do however believe in parallel universes because math proves that you can have more dimensions beyond what we possess. Have to be able to open your mind to understand, ya know?
91954
>>>>No one denies that there is intelligent life outside of\n>>>> earth, so I want to hear about undeniable evidence of\n>>>> contact w/ this planet.\n\nYou do realise this is what is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle? It doens't work that way. \n\nI don't that life exists elsewhere in the universe, nor do I deny that God exists, nor do I deny that reincarnation occurs, nor do I deny the existence of fairies.\n\nThat doesn't mean that I claim to have evidence for any of those things. On the contrary I am firmly convinced that evidence for those things does not exist.\n\nBut absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I won't deny those things exist until such time as I have eviddnce that they don't exist. I will instead keep an open mind while operating on the assumption that they dont; exist.\n\nThat's how science works. It doesn't just accept without evidence, nor does it deny without evidence.
8131
no i dont think so. i think is a bunch of hooey. and it also depends on what you believe. how was the universe formed. if you know that you can take that and use it to see what you think about it
1057879
I think you have it backwards.  The macrocosm reflects (to a degree), the microcosm.\n\nAt present, no-one knows if there are other universes.  My suspicion (not belief, just suspicion) is that everything that is possible is in some sense actual.  My other suspicion is that nothing is actual at all, so there is nothing to prevent the existence of everything.  Yes, that's a contradiction, but we're allowed to contemplate them once we step outside the bounds of what is knowable.
230650
I think the Big Bang is actually another universe budding off. There were mulitple Universes (Parralel Universe Theory) before the big Bang. Yet, what do u define as a universe? If it is a "world" of intelligent being maybe not (who knows). So the answer is yes and no depending on ur definiton of a universe.
322257
I agree. Every single emotion; every single scenario imaginable; both sides of the extreme and what lies in between will occur in this universe. In my opinion, anything is possible in this universe…ANYTHING! And I don’t think this universe has meaning without human ‘observation / awareness’ (consult ‘the observer effect’ in quantum physics + my question about the sound of tree falling in the forest).
26073
To say universe is infinite is partly correct because nobody has ever found its corner or a boundary. But some ppl think that if u set out in one direction ina hope to get to some end/boundary one day, you might end up turning a full circle without realing so, because space has some really small and complex curves much beyond our comprehension with our present knowledge and intelligence
235194
Yes I believe in reincarnation and another plane of existence. I have had an NDE and it opened my eyes to what is going on out there.
249179
That is a theory of Quantum Mechanics and it is quite intriguing, I am not sure that I believe it yet. I am sure that if parallel worlds existed I would run into another slightly altered version of me. I would tell me to "get a life and quit spending so much time on the net answering questions like this :-)\n\nSo here is a thought. Suppose our entire universe is just the atoms that make up someone's coffee table in a larger universe and that universe is just the atoms that make up a desk, and so on and so on into infinity. So when some one sits at the table and sits a cup of coffee down, it's game over, lights out, kaboom as the galaxies (atoms) in that area shifted. Of course one day with them in their world is a billion years to us. So perhaps several billion years ago some idiot left his cigarette burning on the table and this created the catastrophic event that created our universe by altering that part of the coffee table. Or maybe I am the one that needs a girlfriend. Oh here come the men in the pretty white coats to take me for a ride. :-)
595511
Do you believe … ?\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nAs soon as these words are uttered, a great and unfortunate polarization tends to occur.  So many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.”  These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others.  If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own.  However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others.  Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.”  This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.\n\nAny one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything.  The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views.  For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle.  From the front view it is narrow and long.   From the side view it is narrow and short.  It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.\n\nIn layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue.  Someone else that it is orange.  In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.\n\nScientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles.  Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves.  However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts.  Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.\n\nWith that foundation, we have been asked by the author and responders to consider which view: the Big Bang Theory, the Big Crunch, or God created our universe.  To this, I am inclined to answer “perhaps all of the above.”  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nThe Big Bang\n\nThe Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.  The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe.  The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin.  If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is.  Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons.  Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium.  The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.\n\nUnresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics).   Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.\n\nThe Big Crunch\n\nIf the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the universe, and then reverse it, causing the Big Crunch of everything, the opposite of the big expansion called the Big Bang. All matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity.  This theory does not explain what would happen after this event, which may occur in about 42 billion
312883
Yes.\n\nThere is so much of this universe that we do not know.
81907
This is clearly a ridiculous question just meant to irritate and bait people, judging from your other questions. You should be ashamed of yourself. Why are you so angry at the world and your fellow human beings?\n\nThe universe exists, at least as far as we know, although there is a solipsistic point of view that it does not. It exists and it is not cold and dark, apparently. It just is, and appears to exist whether humans exist or not. As far as we know, it existed before humans did, and will exist after humans cease to exist. Its existence and character do not appear to have anything to do with human existence, your own personal bias to the contrary.  \n\nWhether we have an explanation for any particular phenomenon or not, it will exist. We did not know about quantum mechanics, but it still existed even though we did not have it as an explanation for what we were observing. \n\nEven though the Church was frantic to stop explanations for celestial motion such as the Copernican theory, no matter how hard they tried, the data still existed, and the explanation explained the data, and it emerged. It did not create the situation where the earth orbited the sun. If Copernicus was able to create this just by stating his theory, then he was a very powerful man indeed, no matter how much the Church opposed him. \n\nThe only thing close to this that actually is scientifically potentially viable is the role of the observer in quantum mechanics, which appears only to work in special cases and circumstances. If you actually want to learn something about the universe around you instead of standing on soap boxes to preach and annoy, you might look into that. \n\nI might add, that it is not really up to you if we have a satisfactory explanation for the origin of the universe or not, or the current theories which explain a lot of the observations are on the right track or not.
421715
I'm open to the possibility, basically for the same reason I believe in God.  There's no evidence to prove or disprove either God or unicorns, dragons, or manticores existing, so I just have my gut feeling to go on that they all do exist.