Multiverse

Aadee

THE MULTIVERSE

Advances in particle physics have changed our understanding of the underpinnings of our 4 dimensional universe, and will continue to do so. At times it seems that the only application multiverse theory has anymore is in Marvel movies or the "Rick and Morty" show. In my opinion there is still much to learn.

Stepping away from the idea or model with infinite. I assert that infinite is simply an answer for "I don't know". There is considerable information to support a limited multiverse. In the Information Universe the variations that allow for the same life form to exist as that life form in multiple universes are extremely limiting. There is no need to argue semantics as I assert only that it is a finite amount.

In actuality I suspect that this could be achieved with micro variation in time, or perhaps fractal fragmenting reality. Regardless of the how, the result is a plethora of extremely closely related realities in which a limited quantity of me's are running around doing essentially the same thing.

That multiverse reality is not limited to consciousness, but instead transcendent to the Information Universe its self. As it is simply a way to allow the maximum amount of information to be gathered. I understand how close this is to saying we are living in a simulation. I reject this, as simulation or not this is my reality.

Increasing complexity and density over time. If I want to know what it is like to live in, or derive the maximum amount of information out of, a universe then I must ask the question in as many ways possible and detect the information related to that answer as completely as possible. Detect not just the most likely answer but the least likely result as well.

Terrapin Station

There is considerable information to support a limited multiverse. — Aadee

It seems to me that the only thing there is to support it is some rather loose fantasizing based on reifying mathematical conventions.

Aadee

"the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel

Echarmion

"the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel — Aadee

This is, in and of itself, merely a claim. Would you care to sketch the actual argument?

tim wood

https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732

In a brief summary chapter are the end of his book, the author shares the theory (in my words, not his) that the universe we occupy, understood to be highly tuned with respect to at least the six parameters that the book is mainly about, is located in a "super-verse" in which universes are always coming and going. Ours just turned out to support life like us. But it needn't have, and there are no end of ways the universe could have been that would not have supported life - or even galaxy formation. And the superverse, with respect to the universe, would be immense, holding at any time any number of universes, each evolving in its own way.

Such a theory, admittedly unverifiable, does resolve certain problems. No God needed, at lease on any scale that's comprehensible And the unlikelihood of our galaxy is answered in that ours is one of very, very many.

Terrapin Station

"the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel — Aadee

That's another way of referring to the rather loose fantasizing based on reifying mathematical conventions that I'm talking about.

Not to mention the sheer ignorance of instrumentalism in that comment from Siegel.

kill jepetto

Consciousness doesn't require such complex conditions as our universe to be possible, so based on this note, other universes probably exist.

We can measure that there are probably more than one universe based on the complexity of our universe, and all phenomenon in it.

Two examples:

One is where consciousness has arisen over billions of years in logical conditions. One is where consciousness is spawned into a simulate environment.

I think that simulations existed before and co-exist with our universe, so I believe in a 'multi-verse'.

However, people don't think using their sense and prefer the tongue now a days; there is nil wrong with what I said but it doens't translate well, capiche?

Rank Amateur

Such a theory, admittedly unverifiable, does resolve certain problems. No God needed, at lease on any scale that's comprehensible And the unlikelihood of our galaxy is answered in that ours is one of very, very many. — tim wood

Actually, multi universe while an alternative for the design argument other than God, does open an entire can of worms. If you allow for multi universes almost anything is possible. There are no pink flying unicorns? Well maybe there are on universe X, The garden of eden didn't exist, well maybe it did on universe Y. Every claim is now possible.

All that said, as

↪Terrapin Station

has said, there is nothing even close to any kind of scientific theory (technical definition) that supports the multi universe.

tim wood

Every claim is now possible. — Rank Amateur

"Every claim" is a verbal concept. But we're still in the realm of physics. So "every claim" is subject to some laws-of-physics constraints. As to flying pink unicorns or the garden of eden, no. Those are earth-born, earth-bound concepts. Might there be something like them? Sure. Why not? But you shall have to be much more creative to think of something that this universe cannot present, that another could.

there is nothing even close to any kind of scientific theory (technical definition) that supports the multi universe. — Rank Amateur

Sure there is. I just cited one, and its source. If you'd said "no currently testable scientific theory," then, yes. The "super-"verse, while not testable, has a certain amount to sense to it and is not immediately objectionable, or at least not more so than a lot of theories. And it remains in the realm of the plausible without needing to escape into the implausible, fantastic, or supernatural. Does it answer ultimate how or why questions? Does any scientific theory? There's still room for faith - there always was and likely always will be, in some or other form. Science, on the matter of faith, merely drives us from being just stupid - or those of us who try to think, at any rate. .

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

i specifically said the technical definition of scientific theory which is,

a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

One has to be careful when using scientific and theory in the same sentence, it has a specific meaning as above.

The multi universe concept is no where near a theory yet.

tim wood

I specifically said the technical definition of scientific theory — Rank Amateur

Your correction accepted.

But the lack of a scientific theory is not at the same time a free pass for nonsense. Nor does it preclude theories that are not "scientific theories," although clearly some theories are better than others. So I'll hold you agree that not "everything is possible," for the reason adduced. Yes?

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

sure, but just turns into a big game of what if.

My favorite is, quantum mechanics would suggest that our perceived universe is not much more than a time space plane very much like some immense movie screen. And there are an infinite number of other screens. And once you buy into such a concept, what reason can anyone have for objecting to any possibility. With no kind of knowledge whatsoever of what some other universe could be, there is no valid argument against anything, and equally no basis to posit anything. A giant waste of time. Or in honor of

↪Terrapin Station

just one big acid test, que the warlocks, get on Further and drive.

Terrapin Station

All that said, as ↪Terrapin Station has said, there is nothing even close to any kind of scientific theory (technical definition) that supports the multi universe. — Rank Amateur

Yeah, multiverses are seen as upshots of the mathematics used to make predictions for things like quantum mechanics and cosmological inflation (for example, predicting the cosmic background radiation). But, one big mistake folks are making there is in seeing mathematics as making ontological claims/commitments (at all--it's a mistake to parse mathematics that way period) especially about things that aren't at all observable, so that the mathematics itself basically has to invent the ontology (which takes interpretation and imagination that's never admitted--the mathematics, as mathematics, doesn't have any semantic properties other than formal relations), and then we need to figure out how it might make sense. That's reifying mathematics, which a lot of scientists are seduced by, because they tend to be mathematical platonists more or less (because it's such a ubiquitous and useful/successful tool in the field), and it's proceeding in a manner that's pretty much ignorant of instrumentalism.

All of this is exacerbated by the popular science market, by the fact that scientists can sell books to people who aren't scientists, they can appear on popular TV shows, etc. They're a lot more successful in the popular market if they talk loosely about SciFi-sounding ideas like multiverses. So there's more than just the questionable philosophical approaches. There are motivations--motivations that affect income, recognition, prestige, for tending towards interpretations that are sensational, fantastical, etc.

Echarmion

↪Terrapin Station

I have been considering making a thread on that particular (mis-)use of mathematics that seems to be popular currently. Your post eloquently puts into words the suspicion I have about the apparently metaphysical arguments made by a number of well-known physicists (and Elon Musk). I hesitate though because I wonder if I need to understand more about the math first, and whether I am preaching to the choir here.

Out of curiosity, have you heard about the "doomsday argument"? What would be your take on it?

Aadee

↪Echarmion

Without sarcasm not really, :smile: Although between you and Terrapin I spent the day in the library. Always a good day no matter the reason. I am trying to use information from diverse sources. I will compile more data and get back at ya. Or change my model to reflect. Information that I am amassing seems to be that some type of fractured or multi(verse) is scientifically sound as a possibility. Not being an astrophysicist I do not want to try and argue that it "is" or "is not" so much as is possible. Never the less you both surely indicated where i needed research and I thany you.

↪Terrapin Station

Aartieee

Is there a group that you are experimenting on?
First of all, let me introduce myself. Am a banker with no knowledge of the science that’s underlying.
I have been having these connects with parallel universes, whereby I feel strongly connected to a few people and weakly connected to the others. While this type of ‘state of mind’, is also demonstrated as a true phenomenon so to say per certain old scriptures ( that my parents referred to when I was a kid - hidden uyils that explain what personality of the kid would be like with S in 8).

I have dreams that explain how and why I am connected to people this way and what life we are or we’re leading in multiverse. The reality from multiverse does leak into current state universe perhaps, why i get that ‘feeling’ or intuition which is right 100% of the time. I am also the most spied on person even though am just a normal VP, while most others get away with ordinary jobs such as theee. I verified and obtained proof from agencies that infact, the person who am talking about is their client and they have been leaking my phone, bank computer file records by spying on me.

I think we should stay connected for chit-chat at the very least. It’s interesting what data we get, ranging from universe coordinates to strong feelings for a person we never met before and yet know everything about.

fishfry

But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel — Aadee

The multiverse is a purely speculative idea, as one of its leading proponents Alan Guth admits. Especially eternal inflation, which posits that time never ends and is actually infinite. There's no possible way to verify that physically. It's a speculative mathematical theory of physics. You put this right next to QM, a theory that does have experimental verification, but they're very different.

You (or the person you quoted) are entirely wrong. QM has experimental verification but eternal inflation does not. The latter is entirely speculative. If you're talking about inflation without the eternal part, I'm not too well versed in the experimental aspects but my understanding is that it is also fairly speculative.

No God needed — tim wood

The problem with this theory is that that it's less plausible than the alternative. If we just happen to have woken up in this marvelously fine-tuned universe, you can say God did it or you can say we just got lucky. I see no way to rationally choose between one and the other. Anthropic arguments are like that. We're here because if we weren't we couldn't ask the question. That explains nothing; and to people of faith, it's perfectly clear that only God could have done it.

And how do you know God didn't create the multiverse? You can never use a scientific argument to disprove God, even a speculative argument like eternal inflation. And positing an actual infinity of time is more theology than science.

Multiverse

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions