Parallel universe

If we say that a parllel universe exists. What things would be similar to our own universe.

Mathematics?

Language? I mean for example the words would be different but the Meaning would still be the same?

Philosophical thoughts and ideas?
Would there be people who would have the same ideas as for example Descartes and why do we humans come to these conclusions?`is it because of metaphysics?

The idea of God?

Can you list more things that would be similar and why do you think so? Is it because of our nature to think like this? Then that means all of these subjects have some truth?
.
Things that would not be similar would for example be religion, like there would not be christianity or islam? Why so?

Does this mean some things have higher value or truth to them than other things? Would we have the same political system for example or would there be something whole different?

Need some clarification if someone can help please, thanks

Ok, I’ll do your homework for you, but not the whole thing!!

This is all you get from me! A hint.

In one universe a certain baseball card will or will not have an asterisk.

This isnt a homework, i just thought about how some philosophers say that we are already too much influenced from the greeks and this is where we get all our influence from and they were the ones who structured our way of thinking.

But in a parallel world, wouldnt it be logical that the timeline of philosophy would look the same?

The reason the greeks thought like they did was because thats the origin and beginning of metaphysical thoughts. And then other people can add to this philosophy as we evovle as society or by chance but then sceptics would say we cant really confirm this in an empirical way and thats why we never really move forward?

You can consider North and South America as a parallel world relative to Europe or Asia. Compare them before contact was made. That’s an independent timeline of several thousand years.

Metaphysical thoughts came long before the Greeks. Though it depends perhaps on the defnition of metaphysical thoughts.

"If we say that a parllel universe exists. What things would be similar to our own universe.

Mathematics?"

If we say that universal healthcare is affordable. What things would be similar in the rest of the universe?

Definitely not mathematics.

It seems to me that if you are going to create a fantasy, it would be up to you to specify the extent of the delusion. What else do you want to be similar in your fantasy universe?

Good point but this just shows that one continent became far more advanced than the other for reasons Im not interested in, but in Why exactly western philosophy looks like it does and we can also consider that western philosopy and ideas were far superior than north and south america at that time.

Think like this, if we find another planet just like earth and we decide to inhabitant this planet with around 10.000 youths around the planet. They can under no circumstances use any language and try to act like hunter and gatherers. They are not allowed to teach their children anything but instead learn from their children. Lets say 1000 years pass and the people on this planet would have no idea from where they came or why they even exist just like we do right now.

Would they have any idea that their ancestors came from another planet and made an experiment on how to understand their own behaviour?

Like how the first language came by or how they figured to use numbers? Would their world look the same as our own or would their language and meaning and mathematics look totally alien to our own? Would geometry and forms look the same?

Im sure they wouldnt have any clue what this universal healthcare meant but instead they would have to evolve to even know how medicines work first or even numbers.

Doesnt this suggest that we evolve in a linear way? With some ideas being superior than others.

Yes i know, metaphysical thoughts is hardwired in every human being

“Doesnt this suggest that we evolve in a linear way?”

I guess that I don’t understand the purpose here. And what do you mean by “in a linear way”?

Doesn’t everything evolve by the dictates of its internal make and external circumstances? If you say that the seeded population is internally the same and the environment is identical, haven’t you already dictated that the outcome is to be the same? What else is there?

Parallel universes are video games. There’s a programmer, designer (God), the architect of the matrix. The universe is a mental construct. A mind had to gaze upon all of the limitless spectra of possibilities to materialize our world from the quantum source. And then we are expressions of God, vessels of His essence. God, from an imperfect universe, is trying to create the best possible fate for our future, until eventually, he comes to justify a devil haunted, torturous existence by fashioning something fancier out of the ashes.

And a lot of life is BEAUTIFUL too!! Gathering observations from the furthest vantage points, to oversee and empower our statures with something grander, more luxurious enables our senses to fully storm our minds with questions of the most outrageous magnitudes. We can be the source of crazy.

So the seeded population dont know any language yet but they can still connect dots through their thoughts. For example they understand “if i fall i will get hurt”, even though they can not put this in words. They can even connect dots that they can read other animals behaviour for example thats why they can make traps. They have a knowledge of cause and effect without knowing “why”.

Do you also think that they have consciousness? How could they have consciousness if their thought process dont know the terms “how” “why”. How can you be conscious if your mind is blank and only think in small patterns like instincts and your senses.

I believe that in language they would first learn “how” but i dont know where the “why” would come from. Maybe when they cant connect dots like seeing lightning from the sky.

Why i say we evolve in a linear way is that we can not understand some specific things without know prior things. And these prior things start from our human nature and how we are hardwired. We are hardwired to think in a metaphysical way.
Socrates also mentioned that we already know things but we have to learn it again. The structure of the universe is already there, we only have to learn it.

So back to my question, if we could make an experiment like this and see the results, would we learn anything about ourselves? would scepticism about metaphysics be destroyed? Because to see that even though we have no prior knowledge of certain things, we are destined to follow a “linear path”. To see that all our actions would repeat and in this planet there would first be some “socrates” 1000 years later maybe a “Kant” and “nietzsche” but i do not believe that we would first see Kant because he wouldnt have anything to argue about.

But why is it that there would not be born one genius who would fulfill all the prior philosophical teories?
What i do not believe would be the same is religions like christianity and islam because they do not come from metaphysical thoughts but instead from "books or ideas that is not metaphysical but “facts”. They would differ but philosophical ideas would still be the same.

I also believe in God but I do not really know “why”

What forged God from the void was white space, a labyrinth of many tides and whirls that had to always be moving, because if something already existed in the future, and time traveled to the past, then it can make it happen, justify its existence. We just have to tap into the animative zen of flux in nirvana, and move the mind to talk to the source.

I think that you have merely specified primitive man on Earth. And I think if it was all done again, similar results would come about. But in addition you seem to be ignoring that conscious thought arises before any language to describe thought is developed. How can they develop the word “how” if they aren’t already conscious?

“Why i say we evolve in a linear way is that we can not understand some specific things without know prior things. And these prior things start from our human nature and how we are hardwired. We are hardwired to think in a metaphysical way.
Socrates also mentioned that we already know things but we have to learn it again. The structure of the universe is already there, we only have to learn it.”

I don’t know why that is called “linear”, but it seems obviously true.

So back to my question, if we could make an experiment like this and see the results, would we learn anything about ourselves? "

I think that would depend on how much you already know. People have learned a great deal over the last couple of decades merely through secret surveillance and observation. Add to that the many secret social experiments and it all adds up to a lot of education and in many cases misunderstandings (forgiving the social abuses involved).

"What i do not believe would be the same is religions like christianity and islam because they do not come from metaphysical thoughts but instead from “books or ideas that is not metaphysical but “facts”. They would differ but philosophical ideas would still be the same.”

I think that you would be completely wrong about that.

Ok to make it simple, lets just say Judaism as Christianity and Islam developed from this religion. For Judaism to arise we need identical scenarios to happen in this new planet. We need a chosen person “Abraham” to get revelations from the true God. We would need identical scenarios to happen through this planet to explain Gods greatness and why things are like they are. Now how would God explain how he created Men. Would God have to explain that he created Adam and Eve in another planet and that the seeded population are the descendants from the original humans? God would have yet again to interfere.

Now if Judaism is manmade we could get similar stories with the same messages and ethical principles but this would not be “truth” as its manmade and not from God.

Thats why im saying the abrahamic religions probably would never arise but similar ethical principles would come by.

Now Descartes meditations for example would more likely to be happen as its far too natural as it comes directly from the human mind.

So in this new planet there would be some things similar and some things would differ. The similar things “value” is more higher than things which differ.

OK. I think I see where you were trying to go. The term “parallel universe” was throwing me off. To avoid the conundrum that determinism would propose, let’s just call it a similar environmental planet far, far away in the universe developing at the same time as primitive man perhaps 100,000 years ago.

I’m not certain that Judaism would necessarily be all that different, but I see your point. If there are to be things accepted as unique in the entire universe, which I can’t imagine, then the Earth scenario could not turn out the same way. But that leads to what I was trying to say before. To figure out how the other people developed, you would have to specify which things are to be unique, such as Judaism.

What about the inventions? the political ideas? I’m sure much of man’s development was due to weather coincidences. Did the wheel idea come about before the ensuing last ice age and so on.

As far as merely the development of thought, it seems to be that it is generally a predictable progression from much more random chaos to roughly a very foggy and messy structured underlayment of social language and ideologies.

There was a poster here a few years ago who often used the term “planet of the apes in the land of lies”. I don’t think that I would be able to predict what specific things would be different between two very large groups of apes living in their world of lies. Which lies came first? Which stupid thought gained popularity before which other stupid thought? Stupidity is hard to predict.

There is a science puzzle somewhere that proves that due to determinism, there are specific situations that cannot ever be predicted. I image having life on a planet start all over with the countless number of events simultaneously occurring would render any hope for prediction of specificity to be vanquished. If done 10 times, perhaps every instance would produce completely different results, including the complete annihilation of the man like creature in some cases. If the people survive at all, I don’t think that consciousness would come into the picture as a variant at all. The people would have to already have consciousness merely to be called “people”.

Their development of conscience would certainly be varied, but I would think still based upon the same requirements of social interaction. There are fundamental laws involving social interactions which I understand to be universal. There are also universal laws concerning warfare and social manipulation. So I suspect those would also be similar again assuming the people survived the sequence of events (perhaps their second world war ended in a nuclear holocaust).

So I still have to think that unless you point out every specific difference, no calculation would be meaningful. And I think I see why you don’t want to do that. So I guess I’ll have to leave this one alone (probably should have anyway).

Thanks for proposing the idea though. Good luck finding a meaningful answer.

Thanks for your insight. Its true that i dont want to reveal my beliefes. Its never good to take a side and standpoint in philosophy but to question the one you are arguing with till one gives in and agrees. If noone agrees then they both have found their truth but how can two people believe in two different truths? This just means noone of them are right.

My beliefs have changed through time and you should always question your beliefs regularly.
This is also why Socrates was such a genius when saying I know that i know nothing