Experience I Had That Might Prove Karma Exists

[Draconian Alone]

Before I say anything, I'll admit I'm still a HUGE skeptic of karma. I still mostly think that it was a concept made by the elites to keep us sheeple in place so we would go after justice with a club like nature intended. But I still have to state my experience.

For the last few years my brother has been a right cunt. He always made fun of me for my crushes, my hobbies, my social ineptitude, etc.
Well this summer changed everything. He got a job as a camp counselor, while I was struggling to find one. I was giving out my resume and applying to all sorts of stores for a job.
Suddenly, on the first day of camp for my brother, he broke his foot in a Gaga game. He had to go home for x-rays, just as I had gotten a message from a store that wanted to interview me further. While he was sulking in his cast a crutches like a living room ghost, I succeeded in my first job interview and got my job as a part time cashier.
Now it's a few weeks later, and a few minutes ago my parents just announced he's gotta come back home again because he got hand and foot mouth disease.

I won't be too smug to him, but it'll be a little difficult to hide my pleasure. What can I say, I like when old man universe chucks us fuckup loners a bone once in a while.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Yeah, this doesn't prove the existence of karma...

 

[Proteus]

Yeah, this doesn't prove the existence of karma...

But a single accident says so!

 

[DarkRange55]

Stars and gravitational collapse power the universe. The universe runs more on atoms fusing than on atoms splitting, but many things, such as black holes, do not involve either splitting or fusing of atoms, and atoms are thought to make up only around 5% of the mass of the universe in the first place...
In any given universe of the multiverse, the splitting and fusing of atoms (and other small particles) appears to us to be random, but we do not know if this is because of our perception or because of reality. This does not necessarily rule out karma or other mystical connections, but if these exist, so far we have not found a way to measure them.

Karma seems to have something to it – "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword".


I've written about this fairly extensively on here-
Even some of the smartest scientists think we also could be living in parallel universes. That could be the reason manifesting or prayer or positive thinking or if you're an atheist, positive psychology. The reason that happens, I think in the blink of an eye you switch into another universe and you don't realize it happened. If you're religious you call that a miracle. If you're a scientist you call that a time warp. And you just warp into another universe.

Time is an illusion created by your limited perception. Everything that can exists always exists and our consciousness can perceive only one point on one thread in this tapestry. The whole thread is a universe (out of the multi-verse).
Your consciousness is in multiple universes until it gains new information that forces into one branch of universes. And if the branches controllable in any way, then it would explain a lot of mysticism, shamanism, prayer, etc..

 

[Proteus]

Even some of the smartest scientists think we also could be living in parallel universes. That could be the reason manifesting or prayer or positive thinking or if you're an atheist, positive psychology. The reason that happens, I think in the blink of an eye you switch into another universe and you don't realize it happened. If you're religious you call that a miracle. If you're a scientist you call that a time warp. And you just warp into another universe.

Time is an illusion created by your limited perception. Everything that can exists always exists and our consciousness can perceive only one point on one thread in this tapestry. The whole thread is a universe (out of the multi-verse).
Your consciousness is in multiple universes until it gains new information that forces into one branch of universes. And if the branches controllable in any way, then it would explain a lot of mysticism, shamanism, prayer, etc..

There's no evidence. Just because smart people believe doesn't make it true. There are equally smart people rejecting the multi-verse as a whole. It's mostly used to try to explain things, with little arguments they may be even possible, and little proof for each.

Consciousness is personal and non-transferable. How could someone made on the brain belong to many at once? How is it possible to be in one place at once, yet at many? And how is it possible for a macroscopic being to teleport alone?

Atoms may look random, but at large scale said effects disappear.

Scientists have been consistently wrong with their theories, and often like to go out their comfort zone too much. Many of this theories are and were speculation with no empirical base, and once new evidence was found, the whole view crumbled. But multi-verse seems an unfalsifiable claim, so maybe they'll never face that.

 

[DarkRange55]

There's no evidence. Just because smart people believe doesn't make it true. There are equally smart people rejecting the multi-verse as a whole. It's mostly used to try to explain things, with little arguments they may be even possible, and little proof for each.

Consciousness is personal and non-transferable. How could someone made on the brain belong to many at once? How is it possible to be in one place at once, yet at many? And how is it possible for a macroscopic being to teleport alone?

Atoms may look random, but at large scale said effects disappear.

Atoms - systems with seemingly-random events can have larger non-random patterns. For example, water molecules bounce around seemingly randomly off each other in a large body of water, yet the ocean can have currents and waves that are far from random and these patterns can persist.

Multiverse - The evidence for a multiverse is that it makes a lot of weird things in quantum mechanics intuitive, which is only indirect evidence. And the math has lead us there at this point. But as I've stated before, thats why math and physics are so important to differentiate between. High-level string theory is essentially theoretical math. It may not in fact actually represent our reality.
It is still a working hypothesis. Some scientists don't like it. I don't like the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, personally.
Regarding multiverse theory, I am not a fan of the version that says that the universe splits every time you measure a probabilistic outcome. That is even more a case of the tail wagging the dog than the classical quantum theory that says that the wave function collapses when it is observed. By multiverse I mean a Multiverse where everything that can exist always exists.
In that case all possible outcomes always exist and when you make an observation or measurement you are merely determining which thread within the multiverse this particular thread of your consciousness finds itself on. Consider two entangled photons where they will be guaranteed to have opposite spins but quantum mechanics says their spins are not predetermined. In this version of multiverse theory, entanglement makes total sense – if you measure one photon and find out that you are in a universe where it is spin up, of course in that universe the other one is spin down – no spooky action at a distance needed all.
I have never found a testable prediction that this version of the multiverse makes that differs from the predictions that quantum mechanics makes. This version merely provides a simple, plausible explanation for: wave function "collapse" upon observation, the need to have an observer for a given "reality" to exist, and spooky action at a distance, fine-tuning and the anthropic principle.
It also answers the physics question from an "exam" that I saw in my high school guidance counselor's office: "explain the universe in 25 words or less, and give two examples". My answer is: "everything that can exist always exists, and in some universes you realize this".
(the biology question was something like "write down a complete, balanced chemical equation for life").

Conscious - More than one conscious/"you." It appears to be at least partly an emergent property. It is not all-or-nothing.
I can expand on all this later. But again, multiverse is a working hypothesis in the cutting edge of physics. With multiple interpretations and some who disagree completely. I am not 100% convinced but overtime I've come to like it more.
I can speak only in strict facts if thats better haha

 

[DarkRange55]

There's no evidence. Just because smart people believe doesn't make it true. There are equally smart people rejecting the multi-verse as a whole. It's mostly used to try to explain things, with little arguments they may be even possible, and little proof for each.

Consciousness is personal and non-transferable. How could someone made on the brain belong to many at once? How is it possible to be in one place at once, yet at many? And how is it possible for a macroscopic being to teleport alone?

Atoms may look random, but at large scale said effects disappear.

Scientists have been consistently wrong with their theories, and often like to go out their comfort zone too much. Many of this theories are and were speculation with no empirical base, and once new evidence was found, the whole view crumbled. But multi-verse seems an unfalsifiable claim, so maybe they'll never face that.

Edit:
** its a different flavor of multiverse theory.
Mathematically this produces the same results as classical quantum theory so there is no physical evidence for or against it relative to regular quantum theory. However it explains anthropocentric fine tuning, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, entanglement, and wave function collapse all with a single mechanism that provides logical, intuitive explanations rather than needing ad hoc assumptions, so in that sense it is simpler than the other theories that produce similar mathematical results.
I have never found a testable prediction that this omniverse theory makes that differs from the predictions that quantum mechanics makes.
Because in measuring you see one answer, so your consciousness must be in a universe (on a thread) where that is the answer.

It is at the boundary between philosophy and physics.

Some people have said - All possibilities (infinite) exist - isn't infinitely a sign in mathematics that a miscalculation was made?
There are plenty of places in mathematics where infinity is fine, and even a few places in physics (how long will it take to walk a kilometer if you move at 0 m/s?).
Infinity exists as a mathematical concept. We do not know if it exists as a physical reality.



But yes, many scientists have been and are wrong about many things. This is only a working hypothesis occasionally in free time to play with some high level math (I am so moved by the beauty and complexity of geometry). Lots of scientists right now each have their grand unifying theories.

Calabi–Yau manifold - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vector bundle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SamwiseGamgee]

I believe in karma more in the biblical sense that "you reap what you sow". But I don't believe everything happening is due to our own actions.
My problem with karma (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you basically have to look at a person dying with cancer and come to the conclusion that it's the persons own fault. It must had happened because they were a bad person.
But I'm very ignorant on the subject, so would be interresting to hear some feedback. I could totally be misunderstanding the concept of karma