That all is Eve fault. Hasn’t she eaten that forbidden fruit, we would still be there. But the paradise is lost and with it the one world in that we had a nice and secure place. No longer part of nature we were forced to look for ourselves. We had to built us the world in that we could and wanted to live. The worlds we created differ due to the people and the place where they were created. Hence the first sin was also the birth of the parallel worlds. But we still were longing for the lost garden of Eden. We didn’t accept our separation from nature and our fate to have to built our own worlds. But of course the fall of man couldn’t be undone. Therefore we couldn’t do more than persuading ourselves that we still are in our mother nature womb. The stories to do so changed al lot, but until now they are told.
The first story of the one world in that we were still part derived from our shock finding us lost by nature. Since even when we were separated from nature, we were influenced, affected and impressed by it. We couldn’t cope with the impressive force of nature and what we wanted most of all was to return to our mothers womb. But knowing that the fall of nature couldn’t be undone we created the myths.
Fall and winter resulted from now on from Hades kidnapping of Demeters daughter Presphone. Spring and summer were due to the joy that Presphone returned to earth. The trick was to explain something natural and therefore strange as something personal. The resemblance between the personal gods and us humans managed to close the gap between us and the really other: nature. We told us this narratives about nature and life in order to undo our fall from nature at least in fiction.
When the mythical ages were over the dream to return to nature didn’t die too. The dream survived even the sokratic enlightment that is still fundamental for philosophy today. But which argument can keep the power of the myths, can shelter the old dream? The ancient Greek word for all human proficiency was "techn?" (technique). Its meaning was much wider than that of our word technique. Every human creation, from art to building skills, were meant by "techn?".
But the decisive aspect is the following. The art of building and what we call art was thought as an imitation of nature. All what humans produced and how they did it was thought in that way. Even building houses Aristoteles told us once is doing the same as nature, when were would grow houses. Isn’t that a sophisticated and nice argument to close the gap between us and nature? So that was the new story to persuade ourselves that there is still one nature and that we are a lucky part of it. Still we didn’t accept the parallel worlds.
The argument to see all human proficiency as imitation of nature survived until today. The philosopher Hans Blumenberg tells us a story about the reluctance of man to admit our fall from nature in that way. It is a story about inventions and about the attempt to deny the meaning of inventions. Hans Blumenberg refers to the invention of the airplane by the Wright brothers. He tells us that after becoming famous because of their flight in the Kitty Hawk Orville Wright wrote an essay about their experience. In "How we invented the airplane" he stressed the aspect of reading a book about birds in order to learn something about flying. Blumenberg points out that he thereby spoke about their invention as an imitation of nature. That means in exact the way Aristoteles did.
But, like Blumenberg argues, exactly this is not true. To fly like a bird that has been the old dream of mankind. But unlike Lilienthals attempt the success of the Wrights was due not to an imitation but to an invention. Or have you ever seen something like a propeller in nature? The way birds fly is totally different from the way an airplane fly. As Blumenberg supposes the airplane would have been invented even if birds had never existed. But why was Wright talking about birds then? Why was he referring to the concept of imitation of nature? Perhaps even he felt uncomfortable to affirm our fall from nature and therefore told us a new story of the old dream of the one world.
To eat the forbidden fruit was to fall from nature and explore the own power. Eve didn’t accept the rules. To create new ones was the logical consequence. This was the birth of the parallel worlds. Mankind out of it own power began to create their own worlds. Of course not only through inventions, also through language, customs and many other things. The consequence of the fall of nature was the creation of many different cultures. Cultures that could become parallel worlds when they didn’t communicate with each other. So everything is rosy in the not any more garden of Eden? Can we be proud of so many different worlds?
I think to remember the assets of the parallel worlds don’t has to mean to affirm them generally. It is right that to create something new is a human proficiency, but to learn from each other nevertheless also is it. Perhaps we can put it that way: Even when parallels only intersect in eternity, Mathematics might not be right concerning parallel worlds – perhaps they intersect a bit faster. To motivate them there are a lot of reasons. The best one perhaps is that uniting worlds makes every part stronger. In economics there is a phrase for that: synergy effect.