Quote:
Originally Posted by K626
Tell me a little more about the protouniverse.

Do you read any of the posts K626; I have addressed the multiverse a number of times in replies to other questions?
So I shall repeat for you but add a 'channeling' from the Little Serpent of the Mayan Popul Vuh in further elucidation of this question.
The Protoverse is in the shape of a rugby ball (in the UK) or a football (in the USA and Australia) say; i.e EGGSHAPED.
Technically, this is termed a Prolate Ellipsoid (or Spheroid) characterised by two cross sectional planes.
Cutting the egg longwise will give you an ellipse and cutting the egg shortwise will give you a circle.
So ROTATING the egg longwise (major axis) will not change the geometrical focus points defining the elliptical plane (reference a 101 textbook on Analytical Geometry).
But ROTATING the egg shortwise (either of the minor axes) will force the two focal points to meet in a PointCircle as a Locus tracing the rotations.
The Protoverse is then defined in the focal invariance of the longaxis rotation  iow this protoverse is in STASIS, i.e. FROZEN in a possible FAMILY of spacetimes.
The Protoverse is then that which you read about as THE UNIVERSE in popular and academic media.
Because this Protoverse is multidimensional, the 3D space or the 4D spacetime universe becomes a SEED for its own expansion.
The merkabah for this Holographic Universe is like a 'Russian Doll' with a static kernel or core however being the merkabah of the asymptotic LIMIT for the SEED expansion as a 10D cosmology.
The inner merkabah of the Protoverse is YOUR own merkabah as a Holofractal Hologram of the encompassing merkabah.
This the meaning of Vitruvius and 'Cosmic Man' and Purusha and so on; being encompassed by a Fibonacci definable circle of the 'Sacred Geometry'.
Then the only way to end the stasis of the Protoverse is to INDUCE a phaseshift in it by rotation about a minor axis.
As there are a potentially infite number of angular diplacements for this rotation, an infinite number, beginning however with just 1 arbitrary one, can define the Multiverse as collections of such phaseshifted protoverses.
So as example, consider yourself as evolved enough in selfawareness and in spacial consciousness to INDUCE a phaseshift in the Protoverse you presently inhabit as a 'nested' Individuated merkabah labeled K626.
Then you will become a partnership between the static protoverse merkabah of your encompassment and yourself as a phaseshifted merkabah K626.
This partnership of 2 is sufficient to define a Multiverse.
Should this occur and no other consciousness carrier within the protoverse succeeds to achieve phasal induction status; then there will still exist a Multiverse, comprised of two: the Protoverse of Stasis + Universe K626.
Then say consciousness unit Celine also achieves ascension status to phasally induct the Protoverse of the Cosmic Logos.
Then there will be two individuated universes named Universe K626 + Universe Celine both in partnership to the Protoverse of the Cosmic Logos.
This Multiverse differs from the 2member universal partnership in the fact that the tripartite partnership forms a multiverse of higher order, then two dyadic partnerships between individuated Universe K626+Protoverse and individuated Universe Celine+Protoverse.
So the Multiverse in generality allows all permutations of Individuated Universe collectives, families, groups and partnerships  all however based on the Protoverse of the Logos.
No Protoverse coupling, no Multiverse is the Law in other words.
So then rotating the (symmetric) Cosmic EGG about a minor axis will generate the Multiverse and all together assume the UFO shape of an OBLATE SPHEROID.
Imagine to swirl an egg on your kitchen table and draw the envelope for the positions of the egg in that circle.
This overall UFO shape is technically called the OMNIVERSE as the envelope for all the Multiverses in 101112D Omispacetime, also known throughout the higher dimensional intelligences as the Dragon Universe.
AA
In Lake'ch  I am another yourself!
May the Inner Peace of Mind be with you in these times of the present, which shall soon blend your pasts with your futures.
A great controversy in theoretical paradigm building is the notion of how a single universe containing many consciousness carriers can relate to the statistical distribution of those 'cosmic inhabitants'.
With the birth of quantum theory in the early decades of the 20th century came the realisation, that the observer of physical phenomena is not absolutely independent from the system observed.
Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, Born, Planck and Einstein, to mention but a few of the 'midwives' of quantum mechanics; constructed the mathematical formalisms to describe an interactive reality on the microscopic or quantum level of measurement and soon realised, that the quantum realm of the very small did not behave in the classical sense of the GreekNewtonian physics on which the basis of scientificphysical reality stood.
As the worlds of the very large, the scale of the universe as a macrocosm of galaxies behaving like cells in a biological body; had also become illuminated by the pioneering cosmologists like Einstein, Hubble and Sandage; a synthesis of the macroworlds with the microworlds became a new aim of research for all scientific thinkers, philosophers and experimenters concerned.
Until Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe as a selfcontained entity; all light sources in the sky were assumed to be stars or 'island universes' or 'nebulae' within a single universe  now rendered dynamically expanding and no longer static in its hitherto presumed infinitystasis of the Newtonian worldview.
For the remainder of the 20th century then, natural philosophers of divers kinds attempted to blend the quantum nature of the macroscales with those of the microscales.
Many difficulties surfaced, such as the incompatibility of the quantum formalisms, built on the metrics of subatomic and atomic displacements; with the metrics of the larger scales and as experimentally predicted and verified by the theories of Newton and Einstein.
Eventually, and to accomodate the superposition of quantum selfstates derived from the quantum mechanics; a Many Worlds Cosmos was proposed by exponents such as Hugh Everett and David Deutsch.
This is known as Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics and is proposed to build on and to be complementary for older quantum interpretations, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Afshar Complementarity or the Cramer Transactional Interpretation.
The MWI utilises the established quantum formalism of quantum field theory (QFT), which has been verified in countless experiments as a valid model to describe the statisticalprobabilistic nature of the 'particle' distributions in the universe and its subsystems as 'stochastic' eigenvalues for 'standing waves' or 'Bohmianpilotwaves' describing the density distribution of the 'particles'.
But the MWI then proposes a Many Universe distribution on the macroclassical scale of the universe itself to account for a distribution of the superimposed selfstates in a linearclassical geometry.
A particular distribution of eigenstates, say as 'materialisations' of the Schroedinger equation, are so not confined in one universe as eitheror materialisations, but are split into a number of universes identical to the number of quantum eigenvalues derived from the equation as andsolutions.
As the distribution of those solutions is summed to accomodate the original 'set of solutions' obtained in the one quantum universe; the linearity of Parallel Universes as superposed macroquantum universal eigenstates can be alternatively accomodated in the model of the Many Mind Interpretation or MMI. The MMI became formally introduced into the scientific database by Dieter Zeh in 1995 and expanded upon by Loewer and Albert.
In the MWI, the universe occupies a single and fundamentally indeterminate quantum eigenstate with a noncollapsing wavefunction; but an evolution of this 'groundstate' or wavefunction into higher and higher complexity in the splitting of macrouniverses and a say 'original infinite mind' into many minds.
Any act of measurement or observation so 'splits' an 'older parental' mind into its offspring in Decoherence, alternatively described as wavefunction collapse in the 'competing' models for the quantum reality.
The MMI replaces the linear parallelism of singularised macrouniverses with an angular parallelism of multiconnectedness of the one macrouniverse.
Here the proposition of the MWI with its split of two observers in say two different macrouniverses and so with two now different minds is replaced by a split of the two observers into two psychophysical universes.
In other words, the one physical observer within the one macrouniverse splits into two forms from its physical parent with a shadow psychophysical 'double' mirroring the former.
There are many problems with both the MWI and the MMI, both as defined presently in their embryonic states of development; not at least the Definition of the Selection of the Singular SelfState as the Seed for the subsequent 'splitting'.
But the MMI is more appropriate to the development of the encompassing formalism, than the MWI and more shall be shared at the appropriate time.
What the MMI does, is point to a necessary Duality between the physical and the metaphysical or the physical and the mental or the body and the mind  and also its necessary coupling in the 'negation' of this Descartian Duality.
Both, the MWI and the MMI utilize the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, say the formalisms of Schroedinger, Dirac and KleinGordon.
Both so also 'copy' the inherent 'flaw' in those formalisms, to do with the nonlocality and the indeterminant qualities embodied in the quantumfieldapproach.
I direct the reader to familiarise with the concept of the Quantum Mind and especially the pioneering works of Evans Harris Walker; Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Max Tegmark (opposing Penrose and Hameroff); David Chalmers, Henry Stapp and most of all David Bohm, Karl Pribram and Fritjof Capra.
Please find below a brief (wikipedia) outline of the MWI and the MMI.
IAmWhoIAm  A Quantum Computer