Assumptions:

A) There exists an infinite number of universes (not necessarily simultaneously) (evidence: Quantum/string theory).
B) A non-zero number of universes that can give rise to intelligent life (evidence: Earth).
C) There is a non-zero chance of a given intelligent lifeform continuing scientific advancement without self-destruction.
D) It is possible to leave a given universe and enter another universe.
E) There is a non-zero chance of a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life such that there is no natural limit on advancement up the Kardashev scale.

Given this, it would seem almost inevitable that:

A form of intelligent life will arise somewhere, and continue up the Kardashev scale to the point of being able to create, form, control and visit a second universe,
That this will occur multiple times,
That at least one of these races will actively use these capabilities with the purpose of intelligent design and creation,
And, most interestingly:
That in such situations, the designed universe may be created such that it permits recursion (i.e., the created universe permits a race which can rise to the point of creating a universe).

Any thoughts? Obviously, D and E have not been proven, but they do not seem unreasonable.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:19, Mon 03 Jan 2011.

D is wild supposition- given that tehre is no guaruntee of similarity of natural law from one universe to another (and in fact string theory is not evidence for multiple universes, string theory is a model which includes multiple universes but is not the only extant model not is there strong evidence for it as a cosmological model at this point- expiriments scheduled for 2012 and 2014 will illuminate aspects of this issue which remain untested)
E is almost certainly false, given that within the mainstream version of string theory (if that is not itself an oxymoron) every universe is cyclical with a begining and end which in and of itself would constitute a limit on technological progress.

By your argument, E is only false if D is false. D is indeed 'wild supposition', but I don't think we can argue one way or another. It certainly does not seem unreasonable, however.

It certainly does not seem unreasonable, however.

Leaving a universe and entering another would cause a violation of the laws of conservation of energy by adjusting the total mass of both universes.

No, if D is false then E is false, however D can be true- though this is a very low probability issue without necessitating that E is true. The heat death or equivelent of any gven universe is simply one limitation on the existance of an infinitely ascending technological curve. If you use a supposition that D is true to evade that issue then you still have to cope with the issue of differing laws of physics between universes which would then necessitate that technology would, at the point of traansferance, move backwards as they society adapts to a new universe whose laws of physics are not yet understood. Given then that any technology must exist within it's own finite universe- both in terms fo resources and time, even given a hypothetical 'jump start' in transitioning between universes there would still exist a finite limitation of technology which is in fact unique to each universe.

It would not be a violation because the law of conservation of energy applies to closed systems. If the universe is not in fact a closed system, which has been proposed by much smarter individuals than myself, than the law does not apply.


Silveroak, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that:
~D -> ~E (which I think is a given)
and
E heavily implies (but does not necessitate) D (which I had not considered, but makes sense).



Okay, I can understand that. I feel like it's arguing semantics, and I don't believe it invalidates the conclusions that follow. How would you word E to better cover the necessary speed bumps you're describing?

My brain hurts why be so complicated you either believe if a higher power or don't its a matter of faith. There is no need to prove anything.

That and come on noone can prove another universe exists so the basic line of reasoning if flawed, you prove that to a scientific certainty then the rest of the case might be an issue. Did anyone scientifically PROVE there is ,in fact, at least one other universe?