:
I think seeing the course of the universe first-hand would be an unmissable opportunity.
|
So do I, except for the fact that I would have to be there for it. Shit takes a long time. Also no food or air and what have you. Eternity drifting in space without even a stable telescope is not my idea of scientific bliss.
:
Do we know that Heaven and Hell, whatever you call the Afterlife, is in the bounds of our Universe, scientists debate the reality of alternate planes and 'alternate universes', could Heaven be one of those? What say you?
|
Perhaps one of them is nothing but an uninhabited version of
Pokemon's Kanto region?
Those hypotheses are not interpreted correctly by the public properly. There are additional spatial dimensions in various models, which are alien to our intuition and don't really amount to much more than solutions to specific mathematical problems. The same for parallel universes, of which there are two different hypotheses. One is a solution to quantum mechanics (the many worlds interpretation), whereby both outcomes of a quantum event occur in different universes that bud off from one another (and NOT as a result of human decisions). The other is the proposition that our universe is one of many that are born and die, though this is much more complex than it sounds, especially with ideas such as false vacuums and the actual physical distance between you and your perfect double. I don't know what's up with some of these, it's beyond me and I don't know if they are all different models as or if I'm just getting different aspects of it depending on the author describing them.
But that any one of them should correspond perfectly to any human fiction(?) and be esoterically accessible to (some of) us? I don't think so. Such conflagrations of religion with bleeding edge science are always very clumsy, and I've heard them all.