New evidence of previous universes:

Originally posted by sonhouse
My own theory is our universe was created in a cosmic version of a high school physics lab, they were able to set up the laws that would lead to life and they can watch various bits of it, not too close though, the observation method would destroy the subject, like a biological cell put directly into an electron microscope. So we are left alone to evolve as we will.

who are "they" according to your "guess" doing things in a cosmic high school lab? are they little green men created in another higher level cosmic school lab etc. ad infinitum ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
who are "they" according to your "guess" doing things in a cosmic high school lab? are they little green men created in another higher level cosmic school lab etc. ad infinitum ?

I envision a classroom kind of thing with beings who can look like whatever we can imagine, but in a higher dimension, no idea what that would be like in reality. I just put that out to compete with the spaghetti god universe🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
I envision a classroom kind of thing with beings who can look like whatever we can imagine, but in a higher dimension, no idea what that would be like in reality. I just put that out to compete with the spaghetti god universe🙂

Well just for your and other like minded contributors I refer to page no. 324 of the Flamingo edition,published in London,UK, in 1982, from Fritjof Kapra's book "The Tao of Physics" regarding multiple universes. This is in itself is a quote from D.T.Suzuki's book called" On Indian Mahayana Buddhism" page 150,ed. by Edward Conze,Harper & Row,N.Y.1968. Again Suzuki quotes Avatamsaka Sutra,a Buddhist tract.
In brief,it describes an experience by a Sadhaka( a disciple searching spiritual experience) of multiples of universe.
Worth a read. Too long for me to type it here.

Originally posted by jimslyp69

Should we not just admit defeat and just appreciate it all for all of its beauty and just accept that the human mind is just not capable of understanding something so massive and complex?

Most of what we are now able to appreciate for all its beauty was beyond the wildest imaginings of our ancestors. Are we to revert to a World of many circles, each surrounded by different types of sea, such as wine or treacle (apologies to any Hindu reading this)? How much of what we have discovered so far are you willing to ditch and how beautiful, or even massive and complex, will your picture be in that case?

Originally posted by black beetle
A creator god is not needed for the universe can do its thing on its own, as it is clear to a subtle observer. I like Smetham
😵

From this side of the room, hear, hear! 🙂

The OP post article reminded me of the inifinitude of the Mandelbrot series, which fascinates, all this changing and remarkable "order out of chaos" stuff.

Infinite universes bubbling and bumping into one another - most unscientific!

Infinity has always been problematical for science and mathematics, but it keeps bubbling its awkward head up. Infinity is unbounded, without beginning nor end, unborn and undying. Now where have I heard such stuff before..mmmm, let me think? And yes, no need for "God" explanation either. Some undefineable "quantum field of probabilities" is an advancement at least, if you now what I mean.

Thanks for the Smetham article. I like him too.

Originally posted by black beetle
A creator god is not needed for the universe can do its thing on its own, as it is clear to a subtle observer. I like Smetham
😵

Another related article by Smetham;

http://susansayler.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/quantum-epiontic-consciousness/

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is quite mind-boggling!
However, I am a bit skeptic.

This is one of the more sensible theories. Also it's been around for about 20 years so it's had some time to mature. It doesn't require anything particular from outside the standard model + inflation. It is speculative, but then again all these theories are, but what I approve of most is how the researchers got through to the journalist that finding some patterns isn't complete experimental proof.

They worked out an algorithm based on a plausible physics model and then looked for signatures similar to the ones they predicted in the cosmic background radiation (CBR). They found what they were looking for. This is a lot better than just trawling the data looking for anomalies and then claiming it proves your theory as someone above stated.

To make it really interesting they need to show that these patterns could not have come about due to any known - or plausible - mechanism, such as collisions between different phase regions during electro-weak symmetry breaking. If they can do that then it's getting closer to acceptance.