{work in progress …}
I propose that the Multiverse theory is correct.
But that each universe within the Multiverse is connected, they aren’t parallel and they aren’t completely independent of each other.
Rather, in modification of current theories, the universes connect at a shared point of origin – the Big Bang – an inconceivably small point that expanded outward in many different independent directions.
To help conceptualize this, imagine one of the electric globes you’d play with as a kid. The point off which each electric current emanates is the shared point of origin, the explosion of energy and molecules outward (albeit in this case it is contained, in our case it is not, so as to respect the fact the universe is expanding; each universe is expanding).
[Time, as baffling as it seems, is a pointless digression. Since there is no creative entity, no uncaused cause, no beginning, time is irrelevant. Things move infinitely forward, have regressed infinitely, move infinitely outward and immediately before the Big Bang, infinitely inward as well, so as to accommodate the BB’s theorized immeasurable density
…
Furthermore, we have come to “measure” time by changes in physical things, for example growing old, seasons, death of a star, etc but those things happen because of natural interactions and/or exposure to other forms of matter & energy, like exposure to light, not exposure to “seconds” or “minutes” or some other abstraction]
To find the edge of the universe would be to find no “edge” at all but, at least to us in our present form, a bridge we cannot traverse.
Perhaps entities in one of the “universes” have figured out a way to manipulate us through that connection, giving rise to the idea of gods and the like. There are no gods. What do scientists in our world do once a theory is offered? Find a way to test it. I propose there is another energy and a 5th force – consciousness. Which is the only point of connection we have with the multiple universes outside of theorizing about a single multiverse.
And from the conscious experience we have here we transition to another in a connected universe, like passing off an inheritance: although your work may have earned that money, you have died, handed it off and have no idea how it’s being spent.
Perhaps a theorizing conscious agent has proven the existence of the Multiverse, existing in a different yet connected universe, through better contemplation and tools for testing, that we in our universe can only theorize about, not test or exp. (which understands some, but maybe not all of the things we can’t in our universe)
If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, nor materialistic or objectivistic philosophy a sufficient explanation for human* consciousness, the consciousness has thus evolved, thereby respecting the incontrovertible position posited by Darwin. Death becomes the transitional place of consciousness energy, the only way to cross the bridge.
So let us define consciousness – it is the ability to build theoretical frameworks about existence and environments, often with the ability to test and prove them, thereby enabling unsustainable manipulation of both; person and place :: existence and environments. Further, it is the ability manipulate hosting environments to meet a perceived “need” or “want” beyond the capacity of the environment to accommodate in the long term.
Consciousness is the opposite of instinct. It is actually, clearly, a destructive force, essentially the 5th and destructive force.
I cannot accept that all my individual experience is, of which I will only have this one (I cannot find compelling evidence for reincarnation, I do not believe it’s possible), limited by what I can sense through my five senses, self-awareness is so much more complex. It is something animals simply do not experience like we do.
While upper primates do demonstrate complex patterns of individual and collective behavior, that 1.3 % DNA difference is crucial, precisely because it’s an objective measure, a difference I’m trying to explain. If animals can theorize about things, why aren’t they writing it down? Better question: Why are they just sitting around letting us murder them in number & and destroy their homes?
What do we do if we are oppressed? We organize and revolt, often in groups that are disparate in other regards. It would be like feral lions and gorillas collaborating.
The distinction of being human is the most important part of the argument. We are an unnatural, unsustainable addition to the planet. Who cares if animals have a consciousness or not, WE (HUMANS) are the only species that organizes toward mass destructive ends on a global scale. And by that I mean global environmental devastation, creating WMD’s with the ability of destroying the entire planet, not just our species.
Other creatures balance themselves out with their environments, humans manipulate them to their liking, regardless if that environment can handle our presence. Typically because there’s a reward: money. (and then humans manipulate animals – test on them – to show that animals can be manipulated by reward too … brilliant).
It is unlikely we will find a higher intelligence … in this universe. A more intelligent creature than us would’ve figured out a way to communicate with us. I disagree that they would find us uninteresting as much as each of us don’t consider all the microbes we kill with each breath inhale (along with the ones that live).
The more intelligent they are, the more likely they have advanced technology and the more resources would be needed. We’d likely be a target planet for vital resources. Doesn’t mean they aren’t peaceful but they want to survive like any other creature. Coexistence would be an unlikely compromise.
And they’d probably have some kind of weapon they could use from a remote undetectable off-earth location to immobilize/kill us all. This is the reasonable move of an intellectual mind even if it doesn’t seem peaceful. Why? Because they’d be smart enough to know we would resist an occupying force. There would simply, logically be nothing as a matter of technology or knowledge we could share with them, we’d be food and resources, or slaves.
It’s more likely there is nothing else like us in our universe than they simply are uninterested in contacting. If a scientifically conscious mind explores at length and depth the world around them, it follows that a more advanced species would be interested in making contact either as a matter of scientific discovery or just plain curiosity. Again, more likely there is nothing else in our universe as complex as us.
… and maybe I wish my friends who have passed, who I miss dearly, to merely pass as energy in new conscious physical form …
discursivedesign 
Leave a comment