Parallel Universe

We commonly interpret the term ‘parallel universe’ in a physical manner. A lay man might define it as a separate, but similar, world that we cannot sense. In other words, while both our universe and a parallel universe obey the same physical laws, not a single one of our senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing or touch) can help us to detect its presence. By transforming this definition from a physical level to a psychological or cognitive level, we may see that parallel universes actually exist. Here, ‘universe’ refers to a world of thoughts and not a world of physical objects. Where living creatures inhabit our physical universe, axioms and theories exist in its psychological counterpart.

Try thinking of the last heated argument you had with another person. For me, that will be regarding the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Singapore. Because everyone holds different issues close to their hearts, I will expect yours to differ from mine. However, the contents of our arguments aside, our experiences are likely to be somewhat similar – we could neither get the other party to see our point of view nor get ourselves to see from the other person’s of view. The other party’s point of view, then, is the parallel universe. To see how this might be the case, let us return to the definition of a parallel universe. Firstly, parallel universes obey the same laws. Secondly, we cannot ‘see’ objects in the parallel universe. I will use the last heated debate I had as an example. For a start, I realised that the other party’s arguments were entirely logical. Because the way he moves from one proposition to the next is similar to how I move from one proposition to the next, I know that we both follow the same logical principles. This satisfies the first definition that parallel universes obey the same laws. Instead of physical laws, however, we now talk about logical laws. Next, while I could ‘see’ the arguments in my world of thoughts, I could not do the same for his arguments. ‘see’ here means to understand his claims. Let me illustrate this point. For example, the other person might have said, “If we decriminalise homosexuality, then we will threaten the family unit”. I do not see his point here because there is no axiom in my logical world that either is his claim, or can lead me to his claim by reason. Of course, my definition of ‘see’ is somewhat contestable. This problem arose because I found it difficult to arrive at the best psychological equivalent to the physical sense of sight. If you follow my argument, however, you may see that because the other party’s point of view meets the two definitions of a parallel universe, we can say that it is a form of parallel universe. At the very least, this holds true on a cognitive level.

What this leads me to is rather disconcerting. Although many of us share the same physical space, the person sitting right in front of you may very likely be in a parallel universe in the psychological or cognitive sense. When I draw an analogy between the physical and the psychological world, I feel that I am in a better position to understand, not others’ arguments, but why we disagree. Also, if agreement between two people is of the essence, the metaphor of a parallel universe seems to offer a solution as well. A pair of parallel lines can be made to intersect in two ways – we can either change the other line or change ours.