More Profound Things: The Non-Living

There are many things and concepts within the collective worldviews of humanity that are considered pretty mundane. However, there’s certainly a collection of things and ideas which rise to the top in profoundness when compared and contrasted with the ordinary everyday routine. These are the sorts of profound things and concepts which keep you awake at night, pondering the Big Issues. No two people will come up with identical lists. Without further ado, here are some more of mine. 

* Matter: Matter is profoundly just frozen energy. Matter and energy are not different things but the same thing, as Einstein theoretically proposed and the Manhattan Project demonstrated. Even burning a match turns some matter into energy; a nuclear reaction even more so; and the ultimate – matter-antimatter annihilation. Energy is probably more fundamental than matter since it’s much easier to turn matter into energy than energy into matter, at least on the macro scale.  

* Electrons in the Twilight Zone: When an electron rises or falls from one atomic energy level to another, when in-between levels the electron is in a profound limbo, in Never-Never-Land, in The Twilight Zone, in another dimension for all we know. It just can’t be anywhere that’s locatable in-between for if it was – in-between that is – it would possess an in-between energy state that it is not allowed to have.

* Delayed Double Slit Experiment & Time Travel: We all know about the infamous Double Slit experiment, which in one variation allows the experimenter to peek and thus see if one particle (photon, electron, etc.) can actually pass through two slits at the same time, which is what happens when the experimenter turns her back. Of course the particle will only go through one slit or the other if there is a Peeping-Tomboy around. But what if someone, human or independent observation device, peeks, but only after the particle has already passed through presumably but absurdly both slits? That shouldn’t affect the outcome since it’s now too little to late for the particle to change its mind. But again, irregardless, the normal particle-that-passes-through-both-slits that results in an eventual wave interference pattern, that pattern disappears even after the peeking is done, even after the particle has passed through both slits. The one very nasty implication is that the particle travels back in time to just before or when it was emitted so as to now make the correct choice (pass through one and only one slit) to correlate what it does with what is detected - A profound conclusion indeed.  

* Pane in the Glass:  You have one light source. You have one normal everyday clear and clean pane of glass. Some of the light (photons) from the light source will pass clear through the clear glass, but some of those identical photons will reflect off the clear surface of the pane of glass. One set of circumstances yields two differing but simultaneous outcomes. That violates cause-and-effect. One could almost say photons exhibit a restricted form of ‘free will’. That’s crazy, that’s profound, but it happens as you can verify for yourself. 

* Electric Charge: The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge of the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set in concrete theoretical reason why this should be so. This could be considered a profound example of ‘fine tuning’ that makes our cosmos a ‘Goldilocks’ (bio-friendly) Universe.

* Matter & Antimatter: Theory predicts there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation shows that there is a massive predominance of matter over antimatter. Something is screwy somewhere. Anytime something is screwy somewhere, profoundness is not far behind.

* Mother Nature: Why are there laws of Nature? Why is Nature organised? Why is Nature creative? Why is Nature self-ordering? One could imagine a universe where there was nothing but an endless cosmic ‘soup’ of quarks and electrons and neutrinos and photons and there were no interactions between them. All was just chaos and there was no mathematics, hence no physics, hence no chemistry, hence no biology. That the in-the-beginning chaotic state profoundly evolved into laws and organization and creativity and the self-ordering of things, instead of remaining forever and a day in a chaotic state, gave rise to Goldilocks.  

* Goldilocks: Why is the cosmos bio-friendly? Well the Universe, or at least our Universe, has to be bio-friendly otherwise we wouldn’t be here to wonder why our Universe was, well, bio-friendly. But why is it so, when one can envision all sorts of universes where the laws, relationships and principles of physics could be just ever so slightly differently that would make your existence, and all other life-as-we-know-it life forms, impossible. That makes our bio-friendly Universe a rather profound Universe.

* Time and Time Again: What is time? We all know what time is, at least until we’re required to actually have to explain it. It’s pretty profound that we have such trouble coming to terms with something so fundamental in our lives; a concept that has been philosophically and scientifically been bounced around like a ping-pong ball since the beginnings of recorded history and probably even before that.

* Grandma, Ma and Baby Make Three: There are three generations of particles. There are three generations of quarks; three generations of electrons; three generations of neutrinos. That’s profound because there’s absolutely no theoretical reason why that should be, especially seeing as how only one generation plays any sort of substantial role in life, the Universe and everything, including those bits and pieces that make you, you.

* Spooky Action at a Distance: It’s not too difficult to imagine two entangled objects or concepts such that if you uncover the properties of one, you immediately know the properties of the other. If you know that Jane goes shopping on Fridays, and only on Fridays, and you see Jane at the supermarket, you also immediately know that it is Friday! Jane and Fridays are entangled. But things get spooky when two objects are entangled but their properties are only statistical probabilities. The vacuum energy might spontaneously produce two particles, one matter, and the other antimatter. Say they separate and eventually are light years apart. You track down one particle and it’s a 50/50 chance that it’s matter, or antimatter. Both are actually in a superposition of state, both particles equally matter and antimatter at the same time until such time as you observe the properties of one (or the other), then the collective probabilistic wave-function of the two particles collapses down into an either/or state. Say the particle you tracked down then observed collapses into a matter particle. You then immediately know that the other particle light years away is an antimatter particle. Somehow the particle you observed communicated to its entangled partner that the gig was up – instantaneously even though it was light years away. And of course you acquired the knowledge about the status of the unobserved particle instantaneously even though it was light years away. So profound was this scenario that Einstein finally rejected the whole concept of quantum mechanics being probabilistic, calling this “spooky action at a distance”. 

* Impressive Space! If you remove all the empty space within an atom, and do that for each and every atom that’s part and parcel of each and human being on the planet, one could in theory fit the entirety of the human race into a volume the size of a sugar cube. But that’s just a baby step towards a theoretical singularity and since the constituents are now already in direct contact (no space, remember), so what’s left to compress. Can an electron be squeezed down and further than its normal volume? 



UFOs Not, Because E.T. Isn’t: Part One

Seeing as how the Universe is some 13.7 billion years old, and seeing as how the current human species (defined as Homo sapiens) has been around for only some 100,000 years (give or take), then I have to ask, is it logical to assume that we’re the proverbial ‘It’? If the answer should prove to be ‘yes’, if terrestrial life and humanity is the be all and end all of life in the Universe, then UFOs can’t have anything to do with extraterrestrials.

Some people say that terrestrial life is the only life in the cosmos, therefore, whatever UFOs are, they can’t have anything to do with aliens. That’s despite the fact that there are ‘billions and billions’ of possible sites in the Universe where life could take hold, evolve and ultimately boldly go.

A few UFO skeptics do tone down that argument by acknowledging that extraterrestrials exist as in extraterrestrial microbes, plants and multi-cellular animals but extraterrestrial intelligence doesn’t. That still means that UFOs have bugger-all to do with aliens. Even if intelligence exists, only humans have invented technology, and even if aliens have invented technology, well those dumb bastards exterminated themselves within a short time frame after discovering chemical, biological and radiological warfare technology. The upshot, E.T. isn’t; UFOs therefore aren’t.

So are we alone in the Universe? That’s a question that’s been asked by millions over the eons, without, to date resolution. Of course the word ‘alone’ implies alone in the sense of whether or not there exists elsewhere in the cosmos our rough equals; more likely as not betters. We want to get to know our neighbours across the street, not their pets, or their plants. The standard gut-feeling answer to the question usually revolves around how vast the Universe is, and surely, given the billions and billions of stars in our galaxy and the existence of billions and billions of galaxies each with billions and billions of stars, etc. and the vastness of time, surely we can’t be the proverbial ‘It’.

There’s unfortunately one slight flaw in that statistical approach. There’s a rather long chain of events that have to happen, hurdles to be jumped, in order to get from the elements of star-stuff to biological cosmic neighbours. Depending on whom you talk to, that chain can be extremely long indeed. The point is, if any one factor in that chain of causality has a very low probability of coming to pass, it matters not one bit whether or not all the other factors are extremely probable. The overall result is going to be low. If any one factor is as close to zero as makes no odds, then the overall answer will also be as close to zero as makes no odds. Certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by zero multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty ultimately equals zero!

It’s been pointed out by others, and I tend to have to agree, that astronomers (being physical scientists) tend to be much more optimistic and supportive of the notion that advanced life forms in the Universe - extraterrestrial intelligences - are a dime-a-dozen. That’s relative to biologists (being life scientists), who considerably hedge their bets and who it must be said are presumably better qualified to pass judgments. So, taking things from a more biological perspective, what’s what?

With 13.7 billion years to play with since the origin of our Universe (that Big Bang event); with billions and billions of stars in our own galaxy alone; with billions and billions of galaxies scattered throughout the cosmos each with billions and billions of stars therein, with extra-solar planets being discovered around many of those stars in our own galaxy at a rapid rate of knots, (and by implication planetary systems exist in other galaxies as well); with the chemical elements required for life commonplace throughout the Universe; with the principles of Darwinian evolution given as universal, what odds that we are really the proverbial ‘It’? And what are the implications for extraterrestrial UFOs?

When it comes down to the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), it’s only our own Milky Way Galaxy we need concern ourselves with. Even I acknowledge that though extraterrestrial civilizations exist in other galaxies, travel times between galaxies quickly exceed any logical transit times available, even when invoking a “Star Trek” warp drive. Interstellar travel, travel within the confines of our own galaxy, however is quite another matter. Still, our own galaxy gives us some ten billion years to play around with; billions and billions of stars and no doubt planets, those abundant chemical elements, and Darwinian principles. Again, it would be a very brave soul to suggest, given those sorts of statistics, that we are, even in our own galaxy, the proverbial ‘It’; not just the new kid on the block, but the first and only kid on the block.

Not even a UFO ETH skeptic like a certain SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) scientist of my acquaintance would argue we’re the proverbial ‘It’ – it would make a mockery of his own chosen career path.

So in summary to that first objection that only terrestrial life exists: 1) The Universe is a bio-friendly Goldilocks Universe – we’re here after all. 2) There is plenty of real estate in the cosmos that could give rise to and host hardy microbial life forms. 3) The appropriate chemicals, organic chemicals, and biochemicals; appropriate life producing and sustaining chemistry full stop, are present throughout the cosmos. 4) There’s been a massive amount of time for life to originate, evolve, survive, thrive and migrate.

Ultimately, what this all boils down to; the three key points here, are whether or not extraterrestrial intelligence exists, and if so, does extraterrestrial technology, technology that can get E.T. from there to here, evolve of necessity? Lastly, having evolved a sophisticated advanced boldly going technology, how long do you have it? Translated, we need to answer whether or not Darwinian evolution, natural selection, will favor intelligence, technology and long-term survival.

Intelligence first: 

Some people object to the UFO ETH on the grounds that we (humans) are the proverbial be-all-and-end-all of the cosmos in terms of overall smarts and being tool makers – there are no other advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, therefore UFOs can not have anything to with extraterrestrial intelligence. Translated, they adopt the more religious point of view that humans (and human intelligence) were created in the image of God and therefore no other intelligences can exist. No alien intelligence means no-go to the UFO ETH.

The answer to that issue, that extraterrestrial life exists, but not extraterrestrial intelligence (for religious reasons or otherwise), well, the answer is yet again that not even respectable SETI scientists would propose this as an objection to the UFO ETH since again that would undermine their own work. Clearly the evolution of intelligence, albeit being just one of many competing traits for biological survival-of-the-fittest, does have ultimate survival value. The Earth provides a practical example of that. Many species can be attributed to having a reasonable degree of ability to figure things out, and that it is possible to evolve extremely high levels of intelligence is witnessed by us existing. If Mother Nature can evolve one biological highly intelligent species, She can do it again, and again, and again on other worlds. 

Now based on a statistical sample of one, it’s been a long tough road to get from microbes to ferns to jellyfish to sharks to newts to crocodiles to crows to cattle. Once you have multicellular critters (like ferns and cows) that have survived and thrived in a reasonably stable part of the Universe over many generations, will they evolve into intelligence? I mean finding an extraterrestrial equivalent of a trilobite is all well and good, but we want to find beings more like ourselves. Again, no alien intelligences translate into UFOs having zip to do with aliens.

The issue now is having evolved to a multicellular stage (like magpies and buffalo), will organisms develop some higher brain function? Is there any further evolutionary advantage towards increasing one’s intelligence? By going back to our sample of one, if Earth is any guide, the answer is roughly ‘not likely’. There are millions of multicellular species that have existed, and do exist, on Planet Earth. There are apparently only a very few species that have evolved something beyond the minimum level of brain power required for their day-to-day survival. That doesn’t inspire confidence that intelligence has inevitable value as a means of survival.

By far and away, most multicellular critters just operate on pure instinct and don’t (can’t) stop to figure things out (far less stop to smell and appreciate the roses) - but, there are a few exceptions.  Many wild birds would put our everyday companion animals to shame in the IQ department. I mean I adore my cats, but a little Einstein they’re not. Whales and dolphins have also been credited with being in the higher IQ bracket; ditto our close primate cousins. In the invertebrate kingdom, the octopus is pretty smart – by invertebrate standards (and then some if one is honest). However, on balance, most multicellular critters put their evolutionary strategies into something other than higher brain functions. Take my cats. Is it to their survival advantage to ‘figure things out’ or to  just be a bit faster afoot, have a bit more acute hearing, have sharper vision? Nearly all organisms put their survival abilities into something other than pure brain-power. Clearly brain-power has survival-of-the-fittest attributes. But, intelligence is not the only game in town, and therefore doesn’t have what I’d call any evolutionary ‘certainty’ or destiny.  However, it would be illogical to say that developing intelligence, the ability to figure things out, isn’t valuable and doesn’t have any survival value; it’s just that if you were to list all the multicellular animal species on Planet Earth, very few would have an IQ of even one (the human average is 100). So, let’s say intelligence is somewhere between near certainty and highly improbable. That’s a rather ‘have your cake and eat it too’ position.

IMHO, the bottom line is that intelligence, the ability to figure things out, has evolutionary survival value and will tend to be selected for, and thus over time, there will tend to have life forms that have evolved ever higher IQ’s. Here on Earth, just about all mammals and birds, and some exceptional invertebrates (the cephalopods like squid and the octopus), have reasonable IQ’s at least when compared to bacteria, plants, insects, fish, etc. Of course just as some kinds of organisms are faster than others, or have keener senses of sight or smell or hearing, not all advanced organisms are going to end up equal in the IQ stakes. But, the fact remains, the ability to think, to figure things out, can only increase your odds of survival and leaving behind more offspring.

To be continued…

Multiroads to the Multiverse: Part Two

If Mother Nature can create one Universe (ours), Mother Nature can create more than one universe – a Multiverse! The concept of a Multiverse, that there exists more than one universe, that is our Universe – perhaps an infinite number of them existing sequentially in time, or at one go in space, maybe both, is one of the hottest topics in current cosmology.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Multiverse Solves These Puzzles:

In reality, the idea of a Multiverse is more a logical outcome of current thinking and evolving understanding of various discoveries and trends in modern quantum/particle physics and cosmology, relative to being a tool used to explain actual data or anomalies or observations. The basic reason is that other universes, if existing, will tend to be so far away from us in time and/or in space as to exert no influence on what we observe; what data we collect. That’s not to say that the concept of a Multiverse, in one guise or another, can’t be used to help account for actual or philosophical anomalies.

For example, if the computer simulation of our and by extension any Multiverse is correct, that accounts for why there are apparently two sets of independent and incompatible software physics (quantum and classical) running the cosmos.

A computer generated Multiverse (lots of different computer generated simulations coupled with possible multiple copies of each) is in one sense a copout in that it can be used to explain anything. You can account for all data, all anomalies, all weirdness, everything natural and everything supernatural, everything logical and illogical, everything possible, and for that matter impossible. In a computer generated and simulated universe, you can indeed believe six impossible things before breakfast – ‘Alice in Wonderland’ or rather ‘Through the Looking Glass’ rules – OK? The existence of ‘impossible things’ does not of necessity invalidate the possibility however.

The concept of a Multiverse does provide the ways and means of examining other possible origins for our own Universe, which currently is (the standard Big Bang event) that first there was nothing and the there was something.

The there’s the Anthropic Principle: In order to explain why our Universe is so fine-tuned in terms of the laws and relationships of physics that make our universe life-friendly, it is necessary to either postulate one hell of an incredible luck of the draw, or a supernatural creator being who exists outside of space-time. The Multiverse solves the quandary by postulating that with so many universes in existence, with so many combinations of possible laws and relations of physics, that at least one universe, based on sheer chance alone, would be life-friendly. Since we can only exist in a life-friendly universe, the Multiverse helps explain our very existence, without having to resort to bucking incredible improbability or relying on the supernatural. 

Double Slit Experiment: If you fire one photon, say one every minute, at two parallel slits with a photographic plate behind them, you might expect that plate to show, eventually, two blobs of light – one behind each slit, as each individual photon bullet passed through one, or the other, slit. However, what you get is instead a classic interference pattern – alternating light bands with dark bands. Why is this so? Rather, how can this be? Since the one per minute photons aren’t apparently acting like individual bullets, and yet since the only thing that can possibly cause classic wave interference is the presence of other, in addition to these one per minute photon bullets, photons, then where did these other photons come from?  A logical explanation is that these photons are photons that enter or interact with our Universe from another parallel universe(s).

Time Travel Paradoxes: If time travel to the past is possible, and there is only one universe, our Universe, then paradoxes can arise. You can go back in time and murder your mother before you were conceived, which means you were never born, so you couldn’t have gone back in time and murdered your mother, which means you were born…  However, if you travel back in time to another universe, part of the Multiverse, and kill what for all appearances looks exactly like your real mother, but is in fact a parallel universe copy or look-alike, then there is no paradox, because your real biological mother, in the universe in which you were born and raised, remains alive.  

Variations on the Many Worlds Interpretation Theme:

There’s a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme via the Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given ‘moment’ within the timeline. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops. So, to use a simple example, in one universe (A) within the Multiverse, you flip a coin and its heads. Coming to that fork in the road, a choice of heads or tails, that universe then splits into two, and you have flipped tails in the counterpart (B). Both possibilities have been realized. However, it is just as probable that there are enough universes within the Multiverse such that there was another universe (C) where you performed the identical flipping exercise and the coin came up tails (as in universe B). Postulating a Many Worlds Interpretation where there’s a split and you toss heads (universe D), well that’s already something that’s happened (in universe A) – not in a Many Worlds scenario, but in another actual physical universe. Therefore, what need for any Many Worlds interpretations at all? 

I’m not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I’m not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the phrase ‘Many Worlds’ (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists – it’s too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger’s Cat (in the box which has been constructed to have a 50/50 chance of killing it within one hour) experiment. Identical cats; identical setups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical – all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other – absolutely identical). In one universe, the observer observes the cat alive after one hour; the other universe, well it’s the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two to cater for both possibilities of a living cat, and a dead cat. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split.

While I have little difficulty coming to terms with an infinite (or as close to infinite as makes no odds) number of universes (the Multiverse) that have collectively existed since the get-go in order to cater for all possibilities, I have some trouble coming to accept the idea that (Many) Worlds are created in an ongoing manner, as spin-offs, in response to evolving events that require this choice or that choice or the next choice. The difficulty, which I’ve never seen addressed in any books I’ve read on the subject is, where does all the additional matter/energy for the extra world – actually universe - come from? If a whole new universe is created to allow for the existence of both a cat that’s alive and a dead cat (in that cat-in-the-box thought experiment), that additional universe (to cater for the other option) seems to be a free lunch – something created from nothing. That seems to be a violation of the conservation of matter/energy. That’s much too big an ask for me to swallow! Therefore, I vote solely for the Multiverse, which because of the sheer numbers involved, allows for the incorporation of the Many Worlds Interpretation as a bonus. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds Interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcomes (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it’s only probable or possible.

Further recommended readings:

Carr, Bernard (Editor); Universe or Multiverse?; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2007:

Gribbin, John; In Search of the Multiverse; Allen Lane, London; 2009:

Kaku, Michio; Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos; Penguin Books, London; 2005:

Rees, Martin; Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others; Free Press, London; 2002:

Vilenkin, Alex; Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes; Hill & Wang, New York; 2006:

Wolf, Fred Alan; Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds; Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York; 1988:

Cosmology and the Multiple You: Part One

The quantum mantra revolves around the theory that in physics, anything not forbidden is compulsory - given enough time and/or space. While there is nothing forbidden about an identical twin(s) of yourself existing elsewhere in the cosmos, how compulsory that is depends on what sort of cosmological model you adopt.

You are unique, aren't you? There never has been a person exactly like you before, there isn't now, and there never will be. Maybe! Depending on what's really real in all things cosmological, the odds that there are identical copies of you out there can range from plausible if improbable, to plausible and probable, to in fact near certainty, even certainty. The key issue revolves around the concept of infinity, or near infinity. If one has an infinite number of universes to play around with, and/or infinite time, then every possible history is, sooner or later, somewhere, compulsory.

The idea of a duplicate you or two or three isn't that farfetched. Even on Planet Earth, this tiny speck within the cosmos, you have had, do have, and will have doppelgangers. But those are just look-alikes, not actual duplicates of you down to the nittiest-grittiest detail.

From the outset, some definitions are in order. We have the 'observable universe' which is that part of the entire Universe we can actually see in the here and now. Parts of the Universe that exist, but which light hasn't yet reached us, aren't part of our 'observable universe' - yet. The 'Universe' is all that we can ever know about, regions seen, and regions as yet unseen. Then there is the 'Multiverse' which, if it exists, are a conglomerate of separate Universes, each of which exists as a discrete entity in a three dimensional arena and which we could potentially interact with. Think of separate houses along a street you can visit in turn as separate universes. An overall analogy could be the nucleus part of a liver cell (our 'observable universe'), the entire cell (the Universe), and the grand collection of liver cells - the liver Multiverse as it were. Apart from those, there are parallel (mirror/shadow/alternate) universes which 'exist' - for lack of a better phrase - in other planes of existence and like houses that exist in a time instead of a special sequence, say on the same block of land, one can't easily travel from one to another. There's also the Many Worlds Interpretation variation of parallel universe, and simulated universes.

Firstly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in the existing Universe? That's plausible, but probably unlikely.

Discussion: The existing Universe could be as near to infinite as makes no odds. It obviously can't be infinite, because it would take an infinite amount of time to expand the Universe to an infinite volume, and we know the Big Bang took place less than 14 billion years ago. And, the Universe can't contain an infinite amount of stuff; otherwise it would have to have an infinite volume to house it all. The fact that our night sky is dark, suggests that there can't be an infinite number of stars and galaxies in our observable universe, otherwise, no matter in which direction you looked, you'd see a star or galaxy and the night sky would be as light as the daytime. However, from our point of view, while not infinite, the Universe is still BIG! And it does contain a lot of stuff. It is within the bounds of possibility that within such a vast space, by chance, there could be a duplicate(s) of you, even more identical to you than any identical terrestrial twin you might happen to have. The odds aren't very high to be honest, but they aren't zero. However, even if an identical copy of you exists elsewhere out there, the probability is far greater that they already have, or someday will. The odds that two copies of you exist right now multiply the odds against by many orders of magnitude. Finally, even if another copy of you exists somewhere out there now, they are in all probability way to far away for the both of you to ever shake hands.

Secondly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in a cyclic Universe? That's not only plausible, it borders on near certainty.

Discussion: Current cosmological observations suggest that our Universe began some 13.7 billion years ago in a Big Bang. Alas, the expansion of our Universe appears not only not slowing down, but ever accelerating due to something cosmologists and astrophysicists are calling dark energy - which they admit they don't really understand. Anyway, despite dark energy, many cosmologists cling to the concept that eventually the expansion will slow down, halt, and reverse, resulting in ultimately a Big Crunch billions of years in the future. That Big Crunch leads directly to another Big Bang - expansion - contraction - Big Crunch - Big Bang, etc., etc. Thus one has an ever oscillating or cyclic Universe with no beginning and no end. Ah, the concept of infinity (this case in time) rears its head. Since the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of these cycles, as surely as night follows day follows night, anything that could have happened, has happened, and happened an infinite number of times. That includes in infinite number of you, and the life your leading now right down to the last detail an infinite number of times, as well as leading differing lives in every possible variation from the major (marriage, career, children, lifespan, etc.) through to the relatively minor, right down to the highly trivial (like an infinite number of lifetimes absolutely identical to the current one except for one morning when you had an ever so slightly different breakfast cereal). Just think, somewhere in the infinite past, there was a version of you who lived an entire lifetime driving a car and never hit a red light! Again, anything that is within the realm of possibility, even if improbable in the extreme, has happened, and has happened again an infinite number of times. Such is the nature of infinity. The other nice thing about an infinite Universe (whether in time or space) is that all those unsuccessful eggs and sperm, all those failed or un-germinated seeds, all those spores and pollen that never bore fruit, all those lives that never were, all now get their moment in the sun!

There's an interesting variation on the above theme. Most of us are probably familiar with the sci-fi idea of being caught in a time-loop. You repeat an interval of time over again and again, probably until some weird sense of deja vu alerts you that something's not quite right. Expand the idea to the grandest scale possible. Big Bang - expansion - contraction - Big Crunch - Big Bang - expansion, etc. but each cycle isn't a new cycle with a new history and new possibilities rather each cycle is absolutely identical to the one that came before, and the one before that, etc. So, there will be an endless number of you, but there will be no wild new things in your lives, just the same old life, again and again. Maybe that's where we get our now and again sense of deja vu from.

Of course in a cyclic universe, one universe dies before the next is born, so a copy of you in a previous universe is kaput before your universe comes into being, and you will be kaput before the next cycle starts, so there's no meeting of identically like minds.

Thirdly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in the Multiverse? That's not only plausible, but much more likely than if only our one Universe exists.

Discussion: We live in a Universe that is very friendly to life-as-we-know-it (life-not-as-we-know-it is another can of worms that need not concern us here). That is, it seems that the various physical laws and physical constants are fine tuned to allow our kind of life. If any of those values were slightly greater or slightly lesser, the biophysics and biochemistry that allow organic life forms to exist wouldn't be possible. For example, if gravity were ever so slightly weaker, atoms/molecules wouldn't coalesce into macro-bodies like galaxies and stars and planets. If gravity were ever so slightly stronger, stars would be far more massive on average, and the more massive a star, the shorter it's lifespan, to the point where there wouldn't be enough time for life in a young solar system to develop before the parent star went poof! So, that fine tuning leads to a trio of possibilities.

The first is that we (meaning the Universe's life forms) are just incredibly lucky that our one and only Universe just happened to meet all the Goldilocks criteria that allow us to exist. The second is that there is indeed, an intelligent designer responsible for those conditions. For want of a better word, let's call this intelligent designer "God". (There's an interesting variation on this theme and that is this Universe was created by an extraterrestrial intelligence in another Universe, a feat which might be relativity simple to a highly advanced technology able to manipulate the basic forces of physics.)

The third possibility is that there is a Multiverse. We can all agree that our Universe is a Goldilocks universe. We can also all agree that we can imagine other universes, while superficially akin to ours (it would at least have space and time), have differing values for some of all of the physical properties we associate with ours - differing values for the physical constants, the types and numbers of physical forces and particles, the physical laws that are part and parcel of physics, etc. It's akin to humans - we're all superficially similar, yet each one of us (past, present and future) is unique (even identical twins differ and the same applies to clones as well as nurture affects us as well as nature). So, like we have a multiverse of humans, we could have a multiverse of universes (the Multiverse), some of which, like ours, will be Goldilocks universes, although most won't be because some critical constant(s) or force(s) or particle(s) or law(s) will be different enough not to allow the complexity we associate with life-as-we-know-it.

In other words, there exist dozens, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe multi-millions or billions (or more) of universes where the physical laws and constants may well be different. That being the case, most universes will be barren of life because their physics, hence chemistry, aren't compatible with life-as-we-know-it. But a few, by chance, will be Goldilocks Universes. It wouldn't surprise anyone that because we exist, our Universe must be a Goldilocks Universe.

To be continued…