| | | | Many Worlds — aka MWI (many-worlds interpretation) | | |
|
Tagline: Is MWI scifi? by Paul Quek, from Singapore BBA (Hons), MAppSci (CompSci) [Bachelor of Business Administration, Honours]
[Master of Applied Science, Computing Science] Check this out: Cool Software! (New window opens)
| Incept Date: | | 18 July 2009 | | Rev'd Date: | | 19 July 2009 |
 Latest Updates!
(New window opens) | | CONTENTS — Many-worlds Interpretation
| |  Notes on Browsers
(New window opens) | | | |  Announcement! - Roswell Rock
(New window opens) | | |
Check our Mysteries Blog to see the latest webpages and
'web articles' that have been UPDATED!
(Click on the Mysteries Blog button on the left NAVBAR.)
1.0 PrologThis is a web article about MWI or Many-worlds Interpretation -- one of several
interpretations of quantum mechanics, involving parallel universes within a
so-called multiverse ....
2.0 Notes
2.1 HowStuffWorks"The Many-Worlds Theory" The "Many-Worlds theory ... was first proposed in 1957 by a doctoral student at Princeton University
named Hugh Everett III ... [and] was scorned for decades ...." (Josh Clark, How Quantum Suicide Works; science.howstuffworks.com/quantum-suicide3.htm). According to the Many-Worlds theory, for each possible outcome to an action,
the world splits into a copy of itself. This is an instantaneous process
Everett called decohesion. It's kind of like a choose-your-own-adventure book, but rather than choosing
between either exploring the cave or making off with the treasure, the universe
splits in two so that each action is taken.One vital aspect of the Many-Worlds theory is that when the universe splits,
the person is unaware of himself in the other version of the universe. This
means that the boy who made off with the treasure and ends up living happily
ever after is completely unaware of the version of himself who entered the cave
and now faces great peril, and vice versa. — Josh Clark
How Quantum Suicide Works
science.howstuffworks.com/quantum-suicide3.htm
2.2 valdostamuseum"Many-Worlds Quantum Theory"
What Does Many-Worlds Mean? According to John Cramer's Alternate View 48:
... The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics ...[was originated by]... Hugh Everett III, ... a
graduate student working with Prof. John A. Wheeler at Princeton University in
the mid-1950s. ... Everett's PhD dissertation presented his new QM
interpretation, a radical approach which uses neither collapsing wave functions
nor observer knowledge. Instead it proposes a deceptively simple alternative:
the wave function never collapses. Instead, at every occasion where a quantum event has more than one outcome (e.g., when
an electron may strike one atom or another), the universe splits. We have one universe where the electron hits atom A, another where it hits
atom B, and so on for all of the possible outcomes. Similarly, if a light
photon might be transmitted or reflected, if a radioactive atom might decay or
not, the universe splits into alternative worlds, with one new universe for
each and every potential outcome. This is the Many Worlds (MW) interpretation.
From the MW viewpoint, the universe is like a tree that branches and re-branches into myriads of new
sub-branches with every passing picosecond. And each of these new branch universes has a slightly different sub-atomic
"history". Because an observer happens to have followed one particular path
through the diverging branches of this Universe-Tree, he never perceives the
splitting. Instead he interprets the resolution of the myriad of possibilities
into one particular outcome as a Copenhagen-style collapse. But the observer
plays no active role in the splitting. Events at the quantum level, of course,
must lead to consequences in the every-day world. There should be a MW universe
in which every physically possible event has happened. There should be MW
universes where the dinosaurs dominate the planet ... Even as you read this
sentence your universe may be fragmenting into a number of branches too large
to count.
2.3 Wikipedia
"Many-worlds interpretation" The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is also known as MWI, the relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds. Many-worlds asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the
reality of wavefunction collapse. The subjective appearance of wavefunction
collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By this means
many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum
theory, such as the EPR paradox and Schrödinger's cat, since every possible
outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world." In
layman's terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number
of universes since everything that could possibly have happened in our past
(but didn't) has occurred in the past of some other universe(s). Proponents argue that MWI reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic
events (such as the random decay of a radioactive atom) with the deterministic
equations of quantum physics. Prior to many worlds reality had been viewed as a
single "world-line". Many-worlds rather views reality as a many-branched tree
where every possible quantum outcome is realised. The relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett who formulated it in
1957. Later, this formulation was popularized and renamed many worlds by Bryce
Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and '70s. The decoherence approach to interpreting
quantum theory has been further explored and developed, becoming quite popular,
taken as a class overall. MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in physics
and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along
with the other decoherence interpretations and the Copenhagen interpretation. The many worlds interpretation has, controversially, been seen by some as
offering the possibility of deriving the Born rule and the appearance of
quantum probabilities from simpler assumptions. In fact, this was first
attempted by Everett and DeWitt in the 1950s. In a September 2007 conference,
David Wallace reported on what is claimed to be a proof by [David] Deutsch and
himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions. The status of
these arguments remains highly controversial. It is fair to say that some
theoretical physicists have taken them as supporting the case for parallel
universes. However, Howard Barnum and co-authors, David Albert, Adrian Kent,
and Huw Price, among others, have pointed out problems with the arguments and
claimed to refute them.
2.4 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"
[By Lev Vaidman] The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an approach to quantum mechanics according to which, in addition to the
world we are aware of directly, there are many other similar worlds which exist
in parallel at the same space and time. The existence of the other worlds makes
it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory
and thus from all physics. 1. Introduction The fundamental idea of the MWI, going back to Everett [in] 1957 [see Hugh
Everett III, 'Relative State Formulation of quantum mechanics', Review of Modern Physics, 1957; see also 'The Theory of the Universal Wave Function', in B. De Witt and
N. Graham, eds., The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973.], is that there are myriads
of worlds in the Universe in addition to the world we are aware of. In
particular, every time a quantum experiment with different outcomes with
non-zero probability is performed, all outcomes are obtained, each in a
different world, even if we are aware only of the world with the outcome we
have seen. In fact, quantum experiments take place everywhere and very often,
not just in physics laboratories: even the irregular blinking of an old
fluorescent bulb is a quantum experiment. There are numerous variations and reinterpretations of the original Everett
proposal, most of which are briefly discussed in the entry on Everett's
relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. ... [...] 2. Definitions 2.1 What is "A World"?
A world is the totality of (macroscopic) objects: stars, cities, people, grains
of sand, etc. in a definite classically described state. This definition is based on the common attitude to the concept of world shared
by human beings. Another concept ... is a relative, or perspectival, world defined for every
physical system and every one of its states (provided it is a state of non-zero
probability): I will call it a centered world. This concept is useful when a
world is centered on a perceptual state of a sentient being. In this world, all
objects which the sentient being perceives have definite states, but objects
that are not under her observation might be in a superposition of different
(classical) states. The advantage of a centered world is that it does not split
due to a quantum phenomenon in a distant galaxy, while the advantage of our
definition is that we can consider a world without specifying a center, and in
particular our usual language is just as useful for describing worlds at times
when there were no sentient beings. The concept of "world" in the MWI ... is not a rigorously defined mathematical
entity, but a term defined by us (sentient beings) in describing our
experience. When we refer to the "definite classically described state" of,
say, a cat, it means that the position and the state (alive, dead, smiling,
etc.) of the cat is maximally specified according to our ability to distinguish
between the alternatives and that this specification corresponds to a classical
picture, e.g., no superpositions of dead and alive cats are allowed in a single
world. [...] 7. Why the MWI? [...] The MWI is not the most accepted interpretation of quantum theory among
physicists, but it is becoming increasingly popular .... The strongest
proponents of the MWI can be found in the communities of quantum cosmology and
quantum computing. In quantum cosmology it makes it possible to discuss the
whole Universe avoiding the difficulty of the standard interpretation which
requires an external observer. In quantum computing, the key issue is the
parallel processing performed on the same computer; this is very similar to the
basic picture of the MWI. Many physicists and philosophers believe that the most serious weakness of the
MWI ... is that it "gives up trying to explain things". In the words of Steane
[A. M. Steane, 'A quantum computer only needs one universe', 1999], "It is no
use to say that the [Schrödinger] cat is 'really' both alive and dead when
every experimental test yields unambiguously the result that the cat is either
alive or dead." ... However, the advantage of the MWI is that it allows us to
view quantum mechanics as a complete and consistent physical theory which
agrees with all experimental results obtained to date.
2.5 Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism
(Runner Up for the 2007
National Book Award)The following (adapted) notes came from the Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism, written by Geoffrey Dennis ...
"Many Worlds, One God: Judaism on Manifold Creation" May 16, 2008, Blog Entry by "Geoffrey Dennis, Location: United States"
ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2008/05/many-worlds-one-god-judaism-on-manifold.html A pious rabbi was arrested by the Communist authorities in Russia for refusing
to comply with the government's anti-religious edicts. In an effort to
terrorize him, the rabbi's guard came into his cell, pushed the rabbi to his
knees, held a revolver to his head, spun the chambers, and pulled the trigger.
The chamber that the hammer struck was empty, but the guard showed the rabbi
that there were three rounds in six chambers of the wheel. He returned a second
time, repeated the procedure, but was surprised that the rabbi never flinched
or even seemed concerned that the next time the pistol would discharge and kill
him. "Why are you not afraid?!" He demanded. The rabbi rose to his feet and
replied, "What you do fills you with dread, for the simple reason that you have
many gods - your ideology, your party bosses, even your pistol - but you only
have one world. I, on the other hand, have only one God, but many worlds. What
have I to fear?" In that moment, the guard became a god-fearing man, and later
helped the rabbi escape. (Story told me some twenty years ago, for which I have never found a written
attribution) [...] The teaching that God created multiple worlds before forming this world first appears in Bereshit Rabbah ("The expansion on
Genesis"): ... And there was evening [the Hebrew can be read to suggest 'evening' was a reality before now]: hence
we know a time order existed before this. R. Abbahu said: This proves the
Blessed Holy One went on creating worlds and destroying them until He created
this one....This is Abbahu's reason: And God saw everything that He made and behold, it was very good [comparatively] This pleases me, but those [worlds] did not please me. (3:7. Also see 9:2,
where the same verse is used as a slightly different way - other sources also
use Gen. 2:4: Now these are the generations of the heaven and earth when they [rather than
"it"] were created, and Isa. 65:17). How many worlds? Its unclear, but they added up to a thousand generations of
souls, according to one reading, based on Ps. 105:8; 974 according to another.
How that latter number? Noah was the 26th Generation of [this] creation, and
since the Sages teach that Solomon was referring to Noah when he wrote, Only one man in a thousand have I found ... (Eccl. 7:28), they deduct 26 from 1000 and get....974 (Gen. R. 28:4). 974
becomes the working number for prior creations in many subsequent retellings of
this legend (Talmud Hag. 13b, Midrash Tehillim 90:13; Shabbat 88b): R. Joshua b. Levi also said: "When Moses ascended on high, the ministering
angels spoke before the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe!
What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the
Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has
been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the
world was created.'" (Shabbat 88b) Hagigah 13b also gives us the piquant tradition that God did not jettison those
earlier generations of souls, but continues to recycle them into the the
unfolding generations of this world. This idea that ours was not the first or only universe continues to be
reiterated in various ways throughout the tradition (PdRE 3; Zohar I:24a-b; Or
ha-Hayyim 1:12). In Hasidic tradition, the existence of prior worlds is
revealed by the fact that the account of this creation begins with bet, the
second letter of the Hebrew alef-bet (Gen. 1:1). [God is utterly committed to following proper outline format.
Schwartz, Tree of Souls, p. 71] This tradition of diachronic universes exists separate from the notion of synchronic multiple worlds, which also exists in Jewish tradition in the (well-known) "Four Worlds" and
"Seven Heavens" models, as well as the (not so well-known) "Seven Dimensions of
Earth" model (Lev. R. 29:11; Seder Gan Eden; LOTJ p. 15). Comments by a certain individual named "Izgad" on the above blog entry: Some sources for the idea of multiple worlds.
According to Sefer ha-Temunah there are seven cycles of worlds. Each world represents one of the seven lower
Sefirot. Each of these worlds will last seven thousand years, a Shemitta. At
the end of the seven Shemittot the seven lower Sefirot are reabsorbed back into
the Sefira of Binah.
We are livin in the second world. This world is dominated by sefirah of
Gevurah. As such the Torah that we have is a Torah of Gevurah.
The first world was dominated by Hesed. As such they had a Torah built around
Hesed.
According to Joseph Angelino, in Sefer Livnat ha-Sappir we are the last world.
Isaac Abarbanel and his son Leone Ebreo were also strong supporters of this
belief in the Great Jubilee. See Mifalot Elohim and Dialogues on Love.
3.0 YouTube Videos
3.1 "Many Worlds Interpretation"Here is a straightforward school-project rendition of the "Many Worlds
Interpretation" ... YouTube summary of the video clip:
"Many Worlds Interpretation"
From: Dwarfwarrior
Added: December 04, 2007
Info: My senior exit project. Putting it up so a friend can watch.
Tags: quantum parallel many-worlds
URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KN6a8inOF8&feature=related |
MWI, or "Many Worlds Interpretation", is probably more important than many
realize ... don't let a school-project rendition of the "Many Worlds
Interpretation" fool you into thinking otherwise ...
3.2 "MWI - The many-worlds interpretation - RICK DEMONSTRATES
THE THEORY"YouTube summary of the video clip:
"Many Worlds Interpretation"
From: FRANKATUBE
Added: May 20, 2009
Info: The Many-Worlds Interpretation ...
Tags: MWI
URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk4Zx7Vlf_A |
3.3 "Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives" Petition (Eels)Here is a song that is connected with a petition for the release of a DVD on the
BBC documentary "Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives" ... YouTube summary of the video clip:
"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives" Petition (Eels)
From: RockingEelscom Added: May 04, 2008 Info: www.petitiononline.com/everett/petition.html Please sign the petition for a DVD release of the phenomenal BBC documentary
"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives". It features Eels leader Mark Oliver Everett
on his journey across America to learn more about his famous father, Hugh
Everett III, founder of the Many Worlds Theory. www.petitiononline.com/everett/petition.html
Tags: parallel worlds lives bbc scotland pbs nova series eels mark oliver
everett rockingeels rocking quantum mechanics hugh universe many theory
music novocaine soul blues live petition dissertation max
tegmark
URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLpz1NPz8AY |
Here's a comment from a "rosamyxtica": I enjoyed all the videos regarding parallel lives. It is something very
interesting that I have read and I can also identify the isolation as a person.
I am interested in all the metaphysical, mystical, mystery of things,? of the
world, of God, of the human mind. I myself have felt that I am in two places at
the same time, difficult to explain. I am glad there are other thinking minds
different than the ordinary...
3.4 "Mnwrldsintrprt #1 Many-worlds interpretation"Here is an audio reading of the Wikipedia entry on "Many-worlds interpretation"
... YouTube summary of the video clip:
"Mnwrldsintrprt #1 Many-worlds interpretation"
From: h4ck3rm1k3 Added: December 07, 2008 Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_state - - Many-worlds interpretation From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The many-worlds interpretation or MWI (also
known as the relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction,
parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds), is an
interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many-worlds denies the objective reality
of wavefunction collapse, instead explaining the subjective appearance of
wavefunction collapse with the mechanism of quantum decoherence. Many-worlds
claims to resolve all the "paradoxes" of quantum theory since every possible
outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world." In
layman's terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number
of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe
(but doesn't) does happen in some other universe(s). Proponents argue that MWI
reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events (such as the random
decay of a radioactive atom) with the deterministic equations of quantum
physics. Prior to many worlds this had been viewed as a single "world-line".
Many-worlds rather views it as a many-branched tree where every possible branch
of history is realised. ... MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in
physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation
along with the other decoherence interpretations and the Copenhagen
interpretation. The many worlds interpretation offers the possibility of
deriving the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics from other
assumptions. ... multiverse ... is composed of a quantum superposition of
very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating
parallel universes or quantum worlds. The idea of MWI originated in
Everett's Princeton Ph.D. thesis ....
Tags: Many worlds interpretation physics
URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpvE1rEbt10 |
4.0 EpilogThis web article is an initial look-see at MWI ... 'Nuff said!
Webmeister
Woodlands, Singapore| Incept Date: | | 18 July 2009 | | Rev'd Date: | | 19 July 2009 |
 |  |  |  | This website is predicated on the basis of the following categorization of the
Sciences ... Four Categories of Science By Stanton T. Friedman (Former Nuclear Physicist)Some people have insisted that if I can't provide a piece of a [flying] saucer
or an alien body, there is nothing to support my claims. I was quite surprised
during my last visit with Carl Sagan in December 1992, when he claimed that the
essence of the scientific method was reproducibility. In actuality, as I wrote
Sagan later on, there are at least four different kinds of science: - [Category-1 Science] Yes, there is a lot of excellent science done by people who set up
an experiment in which they can control all the variables and equipment. They
make measurements and then publish their results, after peer review, and
describe their equipment, instruments, and activity in detail so that others
can duplicate the work and, presumably, come to the same conclusions. Such
science can be very satisfying, and certainly can contribute to the advancement
of knowledge. However, it is not the only kind of science.
- [Category-2 Science] A second kind of science involves situations in which one cannot
control all the variables, but can predict some. For example, I cannot prove
that on occasion the moon comes directly between the sun and the Earth and
casts a shadow of darkness on the Earth, because I cannot control the positions
of the Earth, moon, or sun. What can be done is predicting the times when such
eclipses will happen and being ready to make observations when they occur.
Hopefully the weather where I have my instruments will allow me to make lots of
measurements.
- [Category-3 Science] A third kind of science involves events that can neither be
predicted nor controlled, but one can be ready to make measurements if
something does happen. For example, an array of seismographs can be established
to allow measurements to be made at several locations in the event of an
earthquake. When I was at the University of Chicago, a block of nuclear
emulsion was attached to a large balloon that would be released when a
radiation detector indicated that a solar storm had occurred (something we
could neither produce nor predict). Somebody would rush to Stagg Field and
release the balloon. When the balloon was
retrieved, the emulsion would be carefully examined to measure the number,
direction, velocity, and mass characteristics of particles unleashed by the sun.
- [Category-4 Science] Finally, there is a fourth kind of science, still using the rules
to attack difficult problems. These are the events that involve intelligence,
such as airplane crashes, murders, rapes, and automobile accidents. We do not
know when or where they will occur, but we do know they will. In a typical year
more than 40,000 Americans will be killed in automobile accidents. We don't
know where or when, so rarely are TV cameras whirling when these events take
place. But we can, after the fact, collect and evaluate evidence. We can
determine if the driver had high levels of alcohol in his or her blood, whether
the brakes failed, whether the visibility was poor, where a skid started, and
so on. Observations of strange phenomena in the sky come under this last
category.
In all the category-4 events, we must obtain as much testimony from witnesses
as possible. Some testimony is worth more than other testimony, perhaps because
of the duration of observation, the nearness of the witnesses to the event, the
specialized training of the observer, the availability of corroborative
evidence such as videos and still photos, or the consistency of evidence when
there is testimony from more than one witness. Our entire legal system is based
on testimony — rarely is there conclusive proof such as DNA
matching. Judges and juries must decide, with appropriate cross-examination,
who is telling the truth. In some states, testimony from one witness can lead
to the death penalty
for the accused. We should take note of the fact that even instrument data is dependent on
testimony from the observer of the instruments, and on appropriate calibration
and validation under standardized circumstances. Also, our courts place limits
on requirements for testimony, such as that against one spouse by the other.
Furthermore, there are rules about hearsay testimony, and rules regarding legal
evidence are complex and detailed. When it comes to flying saucers, we must remember that the reason most
sightings can be determined to be relatively conventional phenomena, often seen
under unusual circumstances, is that most people are relatively good observers.
The problem comes with the interpretation of what was observed. People watching
the sky late at night may get excited about a very bright light that moved very
slowly. Checking on the position of the planets at that time may reveal that
that light was Venus, because we have good information as to the angle of
observation, the direction of the light from the observer, the relatively slow
rate of motion, the location of Venus at that time, and so on. On three
occasions, when living in Southern California, I was called by people who
described an unusual object moving rapidly. I tried to make sure that I
analyzed their observations, such as, what time was it? In what direction were
you looking? In what direction did it seem to be moving? Was there any sound?
What was its apparent size, say, as compared to the moon (just covered by an
aspirin held at arm's length)? Two of the people wanted to tell me that the object was just over the next
hill. I stressed that this was an interpretation, because even huge objects far
away can seem to be small objects nearby. In all three cases, I felt that what
was being described sounded similar to a rocket launched down the California
Coast when the sun had gone down, but while the object was high enough to still
be in sunlight. I had seen such a spectacular case once myself. I checked, in
all three cases, with Vandenberg Air Force Base, which launches many rockets
down the U.S. West Coast. Indeed, there had been a launch at the right time in
each case. One case was especially intriguing, because several witnesses were
looking out across the ocean from a beach area and described the thing they saw
as similar to a string of popcorn. It turned out to be the launch of a special
weather satellite with extra solid boosters being dropped off multiple times. The people were good observers. To say the least, it would be irrational to say
that people are good observers when their input allows us to identify the
object being observed, and yet poor observers if we can't identify the UFO as
something conventional. — Stanton T. Friedman (Nuclear Physicist)
Flying Saucers and Science
Subtitle — A Scientist Investigates the Mysteries of UFOs: Interstellar Travel, Crashes,
and Government Cover-Ups
(Chapter 1 - "The Case for the ET Origin of Flying Saucers")
(Franklin Lakes, NJ: New Page Books, 2008)   |  |  |  |  |
| | | | Nine Points to Note - Recently, we added a simple blog so that you would be apprised of the latest
changes to the Mysteries of the World Website. To get the updates automatically, CLICK HERE to subscribe to our RSS (you will get a new window or 'tab'). Thanks and cheers!
Warning to the unthinking (and to the control freaks and power junkies) ... You probably won't like the following 'thinking' observation ... But it's
an important part of any exploration, investigation, study, etc. of the Mysteries of the World ... SEVEN DOORS TO SEVEN ROOMS OF THOUGHT- Accept the statement of Eminent Authority without basis, without question.
- Disagree with the statement without basis, out of general contrariness.
- Perhaps the statement is true, but what if it isn't? How then to account for
the phenomenon?
- How much of the statement rationalizes to suit man's purpose that he and his
shall be ascendant at the centre of things?
- What if the minor should become major, the recessive dominant, the obscure
prevalent?
- What if the statement were reversible, that which is considered effect is
really cause?
- What if the natural law perceived in one field also operates unperceived in all
other phases of science? What if there be only one natural law manifesting
itself, as yet, to us in many facets because we cannot apperceive the whole, of
which we have gained only the most elementary glimpses, with which we can cope
only at the crudest level?
And are those still other doors, yet undefined, on down the corridor? |
- Please do not assume or conclude that, just because I present many views (in
the form of textual notes, pictures/stills, and audio and video
clips) — as well as many advertisements, some by me and some
automatically by Google Adsense and Amazon — on this website,
it does not
mean that I am in agreement with or that I believe in the views and/or ads
offered-proferred ... That would be displaying such a parochial and provincial
attitude, towards this website and towards me as well!
As an ex-military officer, I assure you that I am in the habit of reading,
viewing and digesting lots of stuff that I don't necessarily believe in ... We
call all the stuff we read, view and digest, 'military intelligence' ... The
same applies with 'business intelligence' in the business world, of course. Our aim, as usual, is to find out what others (including our friends, enemies,
competitors, suppliers, strategic partners, business partners, etc.) believe
in. In order to do that effectively, we have to 'get out of the way', so to
speak — we have to remove our humongous
ego! — else we will never ever really have gotten started in
our journey of exploration and discovery of the Mysteries of the World. Furthermore, similarly and additionally, as a "Charismatic Christian", there
are lots of stuff presented in this website that I do not believe in ... which
had even led some to label me as "Fundamentalist"! ... Whatever! Matthew 7 1Judge not, that ye be not judged.2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye;
and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt
thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. — Jesus the Christ
(Yahoshua ha Mashiach;
Yeshua/Yesua; Ieosus; Joshua),
"Sermon on the Mount"
If you want to hear the NIV — specifically, from The Visual Bible: Matthew (1993) — please click the audio player below:
In short, in this website, I present many things that, I am hopeful, would be
of interest to a student, explorer and investigator of the Mysteries of the World ... but this doesn't mean that I believe in any of the stuff presented. ... Got it? ... Right! - Here is a purpose that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with ...
[Mysteries, Monsters, Mutants, Myths, Miracles & Much More ...]Our purpose ... is to describe the rich variety of anomalous, unexplained,
sometimes totally bizarre phenomena that people have experienced in all times
and places and that are still occurring today. ... the nature of the world and
of our existence are quite different from that which we were taught at school.
The reality is far more interesting, humorous and expansive than any religious
or rational, scientific world-view can possibly accommodate. It is not our intention here to dispute anyone's beliefs or
theories — but we should like to point out their limitations.
There are things that happen in this world - and have occurred throughout the
whole of human experience - for which there has never been a lasting
explanation. Explanations are temporary products, coming and going in response
to fashions. Meanwhile, the happenings they are supposed to explain carry on as
mysteriously as ever. — John Michell and Bob Rickard
The Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena (Rough Guide Reference)
(New York, NY: Rough Guides Ltd, 2007) - Here is a sentiment that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with ...
As I sit down to redo this book for an American audience, what rises before me
is last night's dream: I'm in a broad and beautiful land among many trees. It's
night. I look up at a huge old tree that's dark against the starry sky in its
detail of twig and branch. There is room enough here for all of us, I realize,
here in this big, intricately textured park. But I see that some want to cut
down the trees and level it out, so huge throngs of people can gather to gaze
up at the sun's glare. I watch dark twigs fingering the remote, untouchable
stars. A voice speaks: "Don't turn this into a Copernican Garden." Waking up, I remember that I went to sleep wondering how to put this book
together. And I take "Copernican Garden" to mean a parking lot vista where
masses gather to honor the bright sun of traditional science with its old rules
as the center of the universe. So I will not cut down the trees and level this book out. It is between you and
me [or you and I], a conversation as we stroll along in a moonlit fractal
garden past webby connections of thought that merge to patterned insight. Here
hidden delights nestle in scaling patterns of self-similar but never quite
repeating beauty. Here the tree of life hold stars in its branches. No matter
how huge, this garden stays human-sized because we have a place in it, you and
I. No need to cut down the connective forest and level things out for that
bright Sol [sun] of left-brain logic whose daytime dazzle — so
close and glaring — can blind us to the myriad constellations
beyond. [...] — Katya Walter, Tao of Chaos
Sub-title: Merging East and West
(1994, 1996) - Here is an observation (adapted) made in the Acknowledgement page of a book ...
It takes many minds to produce a book [including an e-book, of course].
Although most authors [especially of non-fiction books and articles] would
prefer not to admit this fact, fundamentally they are merely 'synthesisers' of
accumulated knowledge. The process of synthesising may unveil a new reality map, or paradigm, which,
in due course, will be used by future pioneers to unveil further paradigms. This principle was summed up by Sir Isaac Newton when he remarked: "If I have
seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". [...] — Christian von Nidda, Our Secret Planet
(2005) - Here is an observation about UFO-Aliens cover-up or conspiracy that may be of
general interest, although some readers would not agree with the observation
(e.g., they may say that some whistleblowers, such as Bob Lazar on the
Roswell-type flying saucers in secret Area-51 labs, have already come forward)
...
If any long-term coherent cover up of UFO information does exist, however, then
it must operate at all levels of government and the media. It must encompass
all the relevant written materials, from the briefest handwritten note in
government files to entries in squadron log books to letters in the personal
papers of members of the Establishment. Hundreds of politicians, service
personnel, police officers, clerks and officials, over half a century, would be
required to excise any reference to the reality of UFOs from official documents
and the media. The number of people who would have taken part in this cover up
would be vast, yet not one person has broken ranks to 'blow the whistle' on the
greatest story ever told. Meantime, millions of dollars are being spent every
day on space probes and radio telescopes that are searching for evidence of
alien life. Would there be any reason for a conspiracy of silence if that
evidence already existed? — Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts, Out of the Shadows
(2002) - Even though I am a "Charismatic Christian", the views presented herewith, in
this Mysteries of the World Website, will NOT be colored by this fact of being a Charismatic Christian. Rather, where and
when I find it necessary (and usually, I would NOT find it necessary, since I find it tiresome to repeat myself, again and again
and again ..., ad infinitum ..., but if I should find it necessary to repeat myself), I will then state
what my Charismatic Christian beliefs lead me to believe
in — even though I am aware that my own Charismatic Christian
beliefs may or may not be the same as, or in accord with, those beliefs of
others who also may want to regard themselves as Charismatic Christians
(nb/note well: there appears to be so many varieties of Charismatic Christian
beliefs, including from those who are simultaneously of the
traditional-historical denominations — such as the Roman
Catholics, with their purgatories, mortal and venial sins, and their Mother
this and Mother that. Shudder! Shudder! Shudder!).
Thus, for example, I do not necessarily "believe" in "ghosts", even as I (will
later) examine the entire gamut of so-called "paranormal events or phenomena",
especially of those with a psychic bent (truly, these are bent!, as in
less-than-straight, aka "crooked", thinking variety). Many so-called "ghosts"
are probably some form of "fallen angels" or "demons" of the Biblical kind,
masquerading as either gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, or even "angels of light"
(when they are obviously "fallen" and are "angels of darkness", or "sons of
darkness" as used in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness). Anyway, the author of 1 John, gave us a simple test against any "spirit" to see
whether that spirit is of light (God; Christ/Son of God; Holy Spirit of
God/Comforter/Advocate/Paraclete/The One; Jehovah/Yahveh/Yahweh/God the Father)
or of darkness (Satan, Lucifer, the Devil; the Anti-Christ; the False Prophet;
the Beast): 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the
spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is
already in the world. — First Epistle of John
(1 John 4:2-3; New
International Version/NIV)
(Note: many Catholics like NIV
and dislike KJV! Tough!) Whatever the case may be about "ghosts" and other "apparitions", in this
website, I have stated that we will be truth-based and science-based. Despite
this, definitely, I will not be ashamed of being a Charismatic Christian or of
God's Word:If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him
when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy
angels. (Spoken by Jesus and recorded in Luke 9:26; NIV)If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful
generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's
glory with the holy angels. (Spoken by Jesus and recorded in Mark 8:38; NIV) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the
salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans; Romans 1:16; NIV)
| | | | |
Check our Mysteries Blog to see the latest changes to our webpages and 'web articles' (click on the Mysteries Blog button on the LEFT NavBar)
As stated in our Mysteries Blog, the ' Mysteries of the World' Website does NOT aim to sensationalize any particular 'Mystery', although we
will examine and explore all possible viewpoints pertaining to each
'Mystery' — including the fringe AND the mainstream. We will, of course, come to a conclusion ( eventually!) about each 'Mystery' ... even if that conclusion may eventually turn out to
be 'as yet unresolved' or 'unexplained to our satisfaction'.
|
Go to TOP of this page ['Many Worlds' - Tier 3] Return back ['Articles' - Tier 2] Return to Homepage ['Mysteries of the World' - Tier 1]
| |
or 
) ...
