silverchase@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Jan 21:35
nextcollapse
So can there be multiverses that contain every other multiverse other than itself?
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:57
collapse
I think you mean, multiverses that every multiverse that doesn’t contain itself. In which case, obviously yes. And it’s made up entirely of barbers.
kryptonidas@lemmings.world
on 26 Jan 21:38
nextcollapse
Infinite options does not mean all options. Eg in the set natural numbers 0-infinity the set of infinite numbers between 0-1 (or between any other 2 adjacent numbers) is absent.
So you can definitely have an infinite multiverse where in all of them infinite multiverses exist.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
on 26 Jan 23:43
nextcollapse
Infinite options does not mean all options.
Right, as you said the natural numbers is an infinite set but it doesn’t contain fractional numbers between adjacent natural numbers. The set of natural numbers also doesn’t contain letters, or colors, or varieties of geese. You can even add other constraints to the set and still have an infinite set that contains even fewer possible values, like you could have the set of all natural numbers that don’t contain the digit 3.
People make the mistake of thinking that an infinite set of universes means that there is every conceivable version of a universe out there, but that’s not the case. Murphy’s law says that anything that can happen will happen, but that means things are still constrained by what can happen. Reality is constrained by consistent logic, the most basic of which is the identity law, p = p. It is a contradiction for both p and ~p to be true, a violation of reality. So if the multiverse is a reality, it is a single reality that is self consistent, meaning there is no Universe in the multiverse for which there doesn’t exist a multiverse.
Ah, but there would be another where someone anticipated this and figured out how to stop it.
Of course that then suggests a universe where a madman figured out how to destroy the multiverse and keep it from being stopped, and one where a dogooder anticipated that…
Such a multiverse could end up existing in a state of indeterminate existance. Like a certain cat…
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:58
collapse
Ahhh, I get it. So you are saying that I need to eat taco Bell beforehand. Because that is the one sure way I can be sure that I will thoroughly shit myself when I am unconscious.
MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
on 27 Jan 04:21
collapse
Precisely! Only then will you achieve super saiyan!
Wait wouldn’t that only be super saying? As in we would super be talking about it?
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Jan 23:23
nextcollapse
Given an unlimited number of fries, I can go super fat.
kryptonidas@lemmings.world
on 27 Jan 09:37
collapse
Do you make your back tingle?
DaddleDew@lemmy.world
on 26 Jan 21:49
nextcollapse
Given an unlimited amount of tries, anything that has a non-zero chance of happening, no matter how unlikely will happen. But what has absolute zero chance of happening will still not happen.
Chronographs@lemmy.zip
on 26 Jan 21:55
nextcollapse
I’d argue that multiverse theory being true would be a property of the multiverse, not a property of any individual universe, but the ‘infinity not including all possibilities’ part is true too
Given infinite buckets, there’s a bucket where the other buckets don’t exist
MossyFeathers@pawb.social
on 26 Jan 23:30
nextcollapse
I love multiverse theory! I also love how a lot of people don’t really understand how finite infinites work in the context of multiverse theory!
There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That’s because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0, being accepted into a witching school is something that’ll never happen for me.
So no, within the context of multiverse theory there is no universe in which multiverse theory doesn’t exist, because that is a paradox and as such, has 0 chance of existing. However, it totally possible that a magical universe does exist (I would say we don’t know enough about the formation of the universe to accurately judge whether or not such a universe could be possible under the right formative circumstances); it’s just that the chances of any of us existing in that universe is 0.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz
on 27 Jan 04:05
nextcollapse
However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That’s because I was born into a mundane version of the universe
Doubt.
lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.today
on 27 Jan 09:22
collapse
There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That’s because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0
That doesn’t really follow. Specifically, you’re putting way too much credit (infinity times as much credit as you should, in fact) on your ability to know exactly how your universe works. You’re saying there are zero hypothetical worlds in which you are the person you are now and also magic exists. I’m sure you can see how this is not true; for all you know magic is very obvious in your world and you just got mind-controlled, a minute ago, to your current state of mind. Or maybe you just never noticed it and hence grew up thinking you are in a mundane universe, which is very unlikely but not probability-0. Or one of many many other explanations, which are all unlikely (nothing involving a universe with magic in it is going to be likely), but very much not probability-0.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 05:27
collapse
Except in the universe where that is how it works.
Etterra@discuss.online
on 27 Jan 00:17
nextcollapse
You’re getting into omniverse territory here, I think. But if accurate, then the dimensions without multiverses just lack the ability to perceive, observe, understand, measure, prove, or travel outside of their own universes. There’s a whole multiverse of such isolated bubbles that will “know” that there’s no multiverse, and we have a 50/50 chance of being in one.
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 00:56
collapse
If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.
In the “multiverse of all possibilities” there will be 50% without a multiverse
We’re getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can’t map to every possibility of a higher infinity
I know. But I case of the multiverse that many people think about, the one where there is a universe for EVERYTHING, there will be exactly as many universes where triangles exist as there are universes where triangles dont exist. And the same is true for everything else.
And it is exactly the same number, not just the same type of infinity. Because for every universe with triangles there must also exist the exact same universe without triangles (and vice versa), otherwise the multiverse wouldn’t contain all possible universes.
Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
on 27 Jan 13:43
nextcollapse
What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.
I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).
And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.
There is no probability. No rolling dice. It is every combination of everything. I know Hilberts infinite hotel, I know (enough about) probability and statistics.
I am talking about the multiverse that many people imagine. The one where you can say “there is a universe in which I am president. And one where Lincoln is a velociraptor, and a universe where chairs sit on people instead of the other way round”. In that multiverse, I can construct a universe without triangles that is identical to another universe with triangles in every regard except for the existence of triangles. And I can do that for every universe with triangles. Its a bijection.
We dont permute a (in)finite set of initial parameters and then evolve the universe from there, we have a universe for every CURRENT state.
In the hypothetical reality where such a multiverse exists (it would be a case of Russells paradox as OP has discovered), there is a 50% chance to be in a universe where it doesn’t.
Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.
In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.
It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.
Under quantum mechanics this can’t explain non-even distributions. With no effects making high probability events more prevalent than others you can not (reliably) observe differentiated probabilities.
And once again, cardinalites appears. A thing whose possible variations correspond to infinite integers can’t match that with have variations matching the real numbers. An infinite line won’t correspond to an infinite hypercube in infinite dimensions. Gotta consider combinatorics from statistics too, as well as entropy. The number of permutations mapping to normal states simply has to far exceed the strange states for us to observe a normal universe.
Omniverse is what you get when you sort multiple multiverses, that’s all. It’s a way of categorizing multiverses sharing some common element. Because infinity is so vast that it’s basically meaningless to us humans, so organizing it at least makes it vaguely easier to understand.
The dumbest and easiest way to understand it is with media franchises as an and analogy. All of Marvel is one multiverse, all of DC is one multiverse, all of Terminator are another, all of Star Trek another, etc. it’s sloppy but here’s my point across.
In reality it’s more like; this multiverse has universes with identical physical parameters, that multiverse has a slightly higher amount of gravity, that multiverse has a slightly different amount of weak magnetic force, that multiverse has a different speed of light, etc.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Jan 00:18
nextcollapse
If there is an infinite Multiverse, there is a universe where the inhabitants believe the Multiverse doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it true.
If there is no infinite Multiverse, the inhabitants could also believe that it exist.
No paradoxes.
Edit: A computer can run Virtual Machines, but there could be some VMs where another VM can be run, while other VMs have some “system corruption” that make the VMs impossible, but VMs still exist. Just because one VM cannot run VMs within itself, doesn’t nullify the existence VMs
So you’re saying that some 'verses have VT-x/AMD-V enabled and others don’t?
How does the signal factor in?
BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 01:19
nextcollapse
Infinite doesn’t mean everything. Infinite can include a repeating pattern, even a huge repeating pattern which seems random at first. Not everything you could possibly imagine would necessarily have to exist in the multiverse.
And even if infinite and perfectly random, some things may just not be feasible and just not exist.
Firipu@startrek.website
on 27 Jan 02:52
nextcollapse
In an infinite list of letters, every single book ever written, every word ever spoken (and to be written/spoken) should be present no?
I guess the only caveat is that in an infinite universe certain physical laws could be universal (which would prevent eg any universe to break the speed of light)? But some version of me having hair past my 30s should certainly exist no?
Or am I getting this completely wrong?
leftytighty@slrpnk.net
on 27 Jan 03:04
nextcollapse
MajorSauce@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jan 03:49
nextcollapse
This infinite list of letters could be "any random combination of letters EXCEPT when that makes the word “banana”. A subset of an infinite set can still be infinite.
Ah, fair enough. So that’s similar to “infinite universes of infinite possibilities, except light can never go faster than 300.000 km/sec”?
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:48
collapse
Or am I getting this completely wrong?
I mean, the whole premise is getting this completely wrong. The actual physics idea behind multiple universes is that every possibility in specific quantum events happens, each one being in a separate, ‘parallel’, universe where everything else in the universe is exactly the same. All the laws of physics stay the same, just the results of all the cumulative random possibilities are different.
This is also not the only explanation of that strange phenomenon in quantum mechanics.
BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 07:26
nextcollapse
except in the universe it is feasible and exists
RandomVideos@programming.dev
on 27 Jan 09:38
collapse
if I recall correctly Russell’s Paradox was how ZFC set theory became the standard set theory
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 04:38
collapse
ZF handles it. The C adds the axiom of choice. But ZF is enough for dealing with the Russel paradox. Oddly enough, Zermelo, the Z in ZF, published the Russel paradox a year before Russel.
MeatPilot@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 02:36
nextcollapse
I know one thing that’s absolutely true about the multiverse!
The multiverse is a convenient excuse to reboot superheroes for a new audience to make money.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz
on 27 Jan 04:03
nextcollapse
If there are multiple countries on the planet Earth, that must mean there’s a country where the other countries don’t exist.
Most Americans acknowledge the existence of other countries, that just refuse to believe those other countries have access to electricity, plumbing, or the internet.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:40
collapse
Infinite countries. Which mumblemumble clearly makes it all work.
This is such anti-intellectual cliche, and it’s a damn shame that a generation of Reddit pseudo-intellectuals parroting a Feynman quote has made it so wide spread.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:53
nextcollapse
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 11:20
collapse
You mean the post at the top? Or the comment you replied to? Either way I don’t really see the cliché.
Do you mean that something being non-falsifiable making it non-scientific is a cliché? That’s how science works: by having theories that can be differentiated with experiment.
Or, of the post, that multiverses contain every conceivable universe, then why anti-intellectual, when it’s just a silly joke?
The one I replied too. The habit of immediately and smugly going “It can’t be falsified and is therefore the same as the tooth-fairy!” to any ideas that class with their intuition is very much a well worn cliche of reddit style pseudo-intellectual “I fucking love science” types. Bonus points if it is falsifiable.
And yes, falsifiablity is a part of science, but this idea that science means going “if you don’t have a definite experiment that you can perform right now then the idea is stupid and wrong and you’re an idiot for even talking about it” is massively reductive at best and flat out wrong at worst, and if these people applied it in all cases - rather than just to the ones that their gut feeling is against - they’d be throwing out a huge amount of ideas that are most definitely science.
I mean jesus, imagine how arrogant you would have to be to discard all of the very detailed work extremely talented scientists have done in Quantum Foundations as being no different to believing in the tooth fairy.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 12:17
collapse
I see. Thank you for your more explanatory reply. I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché. Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.
The incredible thing with these weird results is they are falsifiable - this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense. Bell’s inequality, that lies at the heart of the trouble, is experimentally demonstrable.
But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it. And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.
But in the end, after re-writing much of my comment, I have to concede the point. I feel you’ve made a bit of a straw man to attack, but I agree a thing can seem unapproachable scientifically - non-falsifiable - but still be valid science. Even in this area, IIRC, part of the debate over the main quantum mechanics interpretations is quite whether they can be falsified or experimentally differentiated: and that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!
I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché.
Possibly. Give it time I suppose
Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.
Perhaps, but you’d have a hard time tying to convince Princeton University that the the paper they gave Hugh Everett a PhD in Physics for is in fact “not science” and is in fact more like “the boogey man or the tooth fairy.” Or trying to convince the scientific community that people like Sean Carroll and David Deutsch and all the other physicists doing work in Quantum Foundations from a many worlds perspective aren’t scientists.
this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense.
I’m sorry, but this is just straight up not true; Einstein absolutely did not dismiss entanglement as nonsense
But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it.
Different “interpretations” (really they are different theories) absolutely have experimental differences. Some aren’t performable today, but if that is your criteria, then the Higgs Boson was like the tooth fairy for decades. But even beyond that some are performable, and have been performed, we have done test for dynamical collapse interpretations. Had they come back positive they would have falsified Many Worlds, ie. they are literally a form of falsification.
And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.
And many worlds is not one of those wilder speculations that is nothing more than unprovable imaginations.
that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!
Indeed, which means not dismissing and idea as nonsense without understanding it.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:52
collapse
It’s not purely a wild, non-falsifiable idea. It comes from a theory to reconcile the very-much-falsifiable-but-not-falsified results of quantum mechanics. IIRC there are three main theories to interpret the results and all of them are down-and-out weird. Last I looked, one of them at least is controversial about whether or not it could (in principle) be experimentally differentiated from the others.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 22:21
collapse
More or less. There’s a bit more nuance to it, and I was thinking particularly of the case of entangled particles at a distance rather than a self-interfering particle through a slit - but it probably resolves down to much the same mathematics.
Bell’s inequality proves the simple (‘realist’, above) option can’t be true, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accepted interpretation of the alternative. Wikipedia lists three such interpretations, and IIRC “many worlds” is a separate one to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Though again, it’s a bit more nuanced. When I was studying, I think they basically assumed Copenhagen, though not treating that entirely as settled fact, and leaving other interpretations as niche.
answersplease77@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 07:03
nextcollapse
I have not seen not even on paper a universe which allows casual paradoxes like that comment says
because you arent in the universe that has that paper
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:38
collapse
It’s being suppressed by Big Paper. Or by Big Universe.
smiletolerantly@awful.systems
on 27 Jan 07:12
nextcollapse
Oof that reminds me…
When my partner and I had already been living together for a while, we had one of those “cuddle on the couch and deeptalk” days, when she confided that, while she was not religious in any traditional sense of the word, she felt immensely comforted by the thought of an infinite multiverse existing.
“If there’s an infinite amount of parallel worlds, then I choose to believe that even if I die here, life goes on in another world, so in a sense my being and existence do not simply vanish completely. Same for you! And hey, even if we both die, we’ll get to continue living together in some version of the infinite multiverse!”
It was clearly a thought that comforted her a lot, and at the same time a rather intimate belief that she chose to share with me. So, like the idiot I am, I stared her in the face blankly and went “There’s an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and none of them are 2”.
I really regret that. She let me know later that that one sentence shattered the belief for her. Which is sad, because it’s such an innocent thought. There’s no religious behaviors or conditions or rituals attached to it, it’s just comforting.
Your comment doesn’t really make sense though, a two doesn’t appear in the numbers between zero and one because it’s not the type of thing that appears in that set. Alternative version of you absolutely are things that appear in a multiverse.
smiletolerantly@awful.systems
on 27 Jan 07:59
collapse
Sorry, I should have gone more into the actual belief. For her it was less of an “if I make a decision that leads to my death in this universe, there surely is a parallel universe where I did not!”, it was “if I die in this universe, thanks to an infinite multiverse, there must be one where I spontaneously start exisitng with all my exact memories from the previous life”.
There’s an infinite amount of numbers within a range but the limits of the range are still constraints. What’s to say the end of our lives is a constraint on the multiverse? Maybe within a local minima of historically similar universes one individual’s life could be so important that theres a shared constraint, but I kinda doubt that that exists across the entire multiverse. But really we will never know. As such your partner isn’t wrong still, they just have to take an agnostic approach that there’s no way to know. But it’s not wrong to choose to believe that your deaths are not constraints on the entire multiverse, that’s just their interpretation.
That’s a nice belief of hers but it also neglects the negatives of what that implies. If each of us had infinite variations of ourselves somewhere in a multiverse, then there are varieties where the two of you continue living a nice happy life together even if one of you dies.
However, there would also be versions where you never met and got together with other people, other versions where you hate each other, other versions where you go through terrible things together or by yourselves, versions where one of you or both are drug addicts living in the street, versions where you become millionaires but don’t want to share your wealth, versions where you become supreme leaders and act like despotic authoritarian rulers or versions where both of you just never meet or connect with one another.
If there are infinite variations of ourselves out there, not all of them will be happy comforting stories. Maybe this is one of those versions that are good. Maybe this is one of the best versions.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jan 07:34
nextcollapse
It’s funny, outside of Hollywood, Comic Books, and Bertrand Russel trying to disprove religion by taking Hawking out of context, is there any real evidence for a multiverse?
I mean I believe that reality is truly infinite and the only reason we have limitations is because we haven’t found a way around them yet (Science distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced in my book), so I’m not calling bullshit, but I’m also asking for evidence beyond going “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if?”
fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jan 08:33
nextcollapse
It was always a hypothesis that filled in a math equation but has no proof.
I used to not believe in Dark Matter, but during a recent shroom trip I saw that it existed and that my being was even composed of it. That to an extent all of us are made of equal parts matter and dark matter, and the parts of us that are made of Dark Matter are the reason why we have paranormal experiences, for they’re actually quite normal experiences just happening to us on a level where we can’t see all the details.
And if I were the Spirit Science guy I’d walk away fully believing THAT.
Dark matter is not a thing, it’s an observation, a phenomenon that was poorly named. There’s so much evidence under the name “[d]ark matter” that we can’t discount it as a real phenomenon. We just don’t have a strong evidence for a single dark matter theory (theory in the scientific sense of the word, not the colloquial one).
Something dark matter like has to exist, because there’s no other reasonable way to describe this behavior (shifted center of gravity matching presence of matter not influenced by friction)
Sure, but anything that tried to explain the observations would be a dark matter theory, and if that theory involved particles, it’d be a particle theory.
Dark matter isn’t a theory, nor is it particles, it’s just a body of observations that’s poorly named. In that sense, dark matter definitely exists, we just don’t know in what shape or form.
kameecoding@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 09:05
nextcollapse
There is the Mandela effect if you want to believe that, but that is also easier to explain by people having shit memory.
Berenstein/berenstain bears are like the main Mandela effect thing(other than mandela)
Personally it was always “Berenstain Bears”
I know it was because I watched the Nick Jr. show as a kid, and the ads would use the “BerenstAin” name
The Mandela Effect is interesting because while I do remember the correct version of most events (Pikachu did not have a black stripe, Rich Uncle Pennybags did not have a Moncole, Nelson Mandela did not die in prison, “No, I AM your father”), there are still some that I straight up know did not happen the way I remember them.
For example: Fruit of the Loom had a Cornucopia, I remember because it was the first time I had ever seen one. The only reason I knew what a cornucopia was, was due to it being on the underwear logo.
That said I have heard about memory being incredibly suggestible, studies about people who were tricked into believing they had been on a Hot Air Balloon when they had not or seeing Bugs Bunny at Disney World despite that not being a Disney character. So Mandela Effect could be bullshit.
There are some stories that interest me from time to time.
Like in a Youtube Video discussing Mandela Effect, James Rolfe better known as the Angry Video Game Nerd, had always remembered the pay off to “My face on the one dollar bill”, being that the money Joker gives out at the end of Tim Burton’s Batman movie was counterfeit with the Joker’s face on it… But that’s never actually revealed in the movie.
The reason that interests me, is that the prop money DID have Jack Nicholson’s face on it, but it’s something you can only find out by reading about the development of the movie as it’s never shown to the camera clearly enough for you to tell. Making it interesting that James remembered a factual detail he couldn’t possibly remember from watching the movie.
Now it’s easy to say “Well James just read about the prop money being Joker themed and got mixed up about where he heard the money from”
My dad is even more interesting, for reasons beyond it being someone I know
My dad claims he is a magnet for this kind of phenomenon, claims that the “Time People” are always messing with him, and that he regularly experiences time out of order. The thing is though he might actually be right.
We’ve had times where we’re talking and he says something that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about and makes no sense at all, and I’m like “Are you okay?”
Like one time I was just checking in on him, and he starts rambling about Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen for some reason… I just assume he’s tired, since he works two jobs and all., often coming home from one just to change uniforms and go to the other.
And then months later, we’re talking about weird experiences we’ve had while high (He’s a stoner, I’m not but I partake from time to time), and I mentioned that sometimes I “see things” before they happen, but I can’t stop them from happening, then when they happen… It’s like… I know they’re going to happen, but I can’t prevent them happening, and I react like I’m “supposed to”
And he says the thing he said before about Dr. Manhattan, referencing the scene where he’s on Mars and knows his lady friend is going to tell him something, she tells him, and he still acts surprised, because he was SUPPOSED to be surprised…
It’s the same thing he said only now there’s context for it, and then our heads start hurting and we flashback to the conversation where he had no reason to say it.
Freaky stuff happens to him.
The weirdest one though, is one time he straight up told me that he was from another universe.
See I don’t live with my dad, he’s a state a way and I only sometimes see him. Last time I saw him it was for my cousin’s graduation, and he says to me, he’s not my dad, he’s a version of him from another universe.
Because he never married my stepmother, and I’m confused because he did and they have a daughter, my half-sister. He tells me a story of how years ago he screwed up on a big date way back when, and never got over her. So he went out drinking with some friends of his at this restaurant, and he sees her at the bar, he’s had a few drinks and they tell him that he needs to win her back, do this one grand romantic gesture.
Now he’s drunk this sounds like a good idea, and he goes up to her, but sees she’s with a guy, having a nice time, and decides not to ruin her night. He tells me, that he goes home in tears, his heart broken, and falls asleep alone. The next day, he wakes up and she’s in the kitchen, finds that he and her have been married for months, she loves him, and has no recollection of being anywhere last night except home with him. So he just smiles, and accepts that he has been given a gift, and just tells her that it was all a bad dream he had been having.
Creepy story if true. Not sure I believe it, but it’s
The big bang theory posits the creation of multiple universes during the event. To accept the big bang theory as a model for the beginning of our universe is to accept the possibility of multiple universes.
You are correct. But this doesn’t restrict the big bang theory’s ability to conclude that other universes would have been created during the event.
Imagine analyzing a moving ball while simultaneously not knowing what caused the ball to move in the first place. We can still say a lot about this ball without the knowledge of how it started moving in the first place…
As Hawkings once said, asking questions about what caused the big bang is fruitless. Cause and Effect assumes a timeline, and there was no timeline before the big bang, therefore, asking what caused the big bang is actually a useless question. Therefore, it’s only fruitful to analyze the effect of the big bang, and through analyzing it’s effect, we conclude that other universes were likely created during the event.
A lot of this is based on the theoretical mathematics which define the big bang, but it’s also based on the standard cosmological model of our universe. The fact is cosmological theories already suggest the possibility of different universes which have different initial parameters. Our universe isn’t special, therefore it makes sense that other universes with different initial parameters could exist. The big bang theory aligns with this idea and suggests that different universes with different initial parameters could have also been created during the event, therefore, the multiverse.
Sure, BBT doesn’t preclude other universes exsiting, and some details may even suggest other universes, but that’s outside the scope of BBT cosmology, and I’d hardly call that evidence when we still have inflation and axion theories floating around ready to radically change our idea of the early universe.
We have more evidence for Dark Matter, and we can’t even agree that that’s matter!
Sort of. It’s kinda similar to science’s conclusion about the existence of intelligent alien life. Have we directly observed evidence of intelligent alien life? No. Are we pretty confident that intelligent alien life exists? Yes. It’s a probability thing. If we can exist in this massive universe, then it’s almost insane to think that we could be the only intelligent life that exists: the principle of mediocrity.
When it comes to the standard cosmological model, it allows for universes with different shaped space-time continuums, different masses of elementary particles, etc.
So, if it allows for all of these variables to be different, then it’s almost insane to think that our universe is the only universe that exists: principle of mediocrity again.
In the BBT, the multiverse hypothesis comes in during the inflation epoch. At some point our universe bubble expanded faster than the speed of light. This creates a sorta localized boundary. Since we observe light with our eyes and we cannot go FTL, then we cannot observe or go places beyond this localized bubble which exists within our localized space. The BBT posits that other localized universe bubbles were also created during the epoch of inflation: the multiverse. Of course, to get to another localized bubble, one would have to travel faster than the speed of light and transverse through literal nothing (no space or time) to get there.
Now keep in mind that the multiverse hypothesis is pretty cutting edge, so yes, there is still a lot of argument regarding its validity. One argument is that it is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no feasible way to observe outside our own localized bubble. Nevertheless there are scientists who are designing tests. For example, some physicists posit that if our localized bubble collided with another localized bubble, then it could result in an observable effect on the cosmic background radiation.
We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.
I am not entirely certain what point you’re making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven’t directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)
Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).
In simpler terms, most of science’s conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.
All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.
My oint is that we have a plethora of direct evidence of exoplanets, but only a small handfull of indirect evidence for other universes at best.
That’s not necessarily evidence against other universes, but when asked about exactly how much evidence for other universes we have, “The math suggests they are possible” isn’t very strong, especially when the math makes massively incorrect predictions elsewhere that we still haven’t explained.
What is the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of other universes, and the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter? There are serious theories attempting to explain the universe without dark matter right now, so jf the evidence for other universes is weaker than dark matter, people aren’t going to take it seriously.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 27 Jan 09:36
collapse
Quantum results are hard to explain, but proven (by experiment) to be real. There’s a particular mathematical/logical definition of something being ‘real’ and ‘local’, that I’ve still only half got my head around, and it should be true but isn’t.
The main experiment is two particles that, if you check one, it affects what you’ll see in the other in a particular, but subtle , way. And it’s proven mathematically impossible to find an explanation where they don’t either communicate faster than the speed of light (so, not ‘local’) but the effect actually happens (‘real’).
The trick is in the statistics - the pattern of results - that match up between the two particles in this very particular way. And one way to explain it is that different options are also happening, but in a different universe - i.e. every time two different things could happen, reality splits into two realities, one where this happens and one where that happens.
That’s for specific quantum events, but some think those such quantum events underlie all choices and possibilities in reality. So, scale up that idea and you get ‘infinite’ (actually just very very many) parallel universes, one for every possibility that could ever have happened, branching off into more each time a (quantum) choice happens.
Lol, good joke but wrong, even existing an infinite number of Universe, to be stables they need a infinite number of physical conditions, if not they can’t exist. A multiverse, even if there are formong an infinite number of universes, most of them are destroyed in the same moment when are not present this conditions, even so it can exist an infinite number of survivor universes with the correct conditions (∞/n = ∞), paradox conditions are not among these (apart of the infinite itself, used in physics)
Nah there’s definitely different universes/timelines in star trek. The series just have the one main timeline they follow.
spoiler
In TNG theres the dark Romulan war timeline in which Yar doesn’t die in that confrontation with the evil tar pit guy and goes on to prevent war with the Romulans, switching us back to the main timeline where the war doesn’t happen but Yar’s descendant is a Romulan warlord.
I think this is the same timeline in DS9 where evil Kira and all of them exist. It’s mentioned in DS9 that the Kirk in this timeline also switched places with the Kirk in the main timeline at some point but I didn’t watch TOS so I cannot confirm.
The final season of Lower Decks was also a huge step into multiverse theory. So perhaps there is more to come.
Yeah! Until lower decks there was only ever the “mirror universe” (and a few alternate timeline shenanigans that were never clearly a different universe, just a different ‘time line’.)
It’s a common trend for people that don’t understand that infinite possibilities do not mean every possibility.
The way I usually explain this to people is that the quantity of even number is also infinite, but that doesn’t mean you’ll ever find a value of three in that infinite range.
Right, in any case, infinity is only a manageable magnitude in mathematics, but not in physics where it represents a nightmare and headaches.
In physics, only an indeterminate magnitude can be accepted, which can be very large or also very small, but only up to a certain limit. In physics, infinity and absolute nothingness can’t exist.
Knelt6526@lemmynsfw.com
on 27 Jan 13:37
nextcollapse
hits blunt
TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl
on 27 Jan 16:00
nextcollapse
VoterFrog@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 17:10
nextcollapse
Nah but here’s the real staggering part. It should be far easier for universes to form locally conscious beings than it is to form all the pieces necessary to naturally evolve conscious beings. These would mostly be very short-lived arrangements of energy with no hope of surviving but certain arrangements would even have false memories, making them believe that they have existed far longer than they actually have.
They may even have false memories of living on earth.
They may even have false memories of your exact life.
And they would be, by far, more common than any form of actual sustainable life. It is vastly more likely that you have experienced this post as a false memory created inside one of these short-lived consciousnesses than for any of this to be real.
kerrigan778@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 18:03
nextcollapse
No, it’s not. This is only true if every arrangement of matter is equally likely to come into being randomly. The multiverse is not an infinite non repeating randomized collection. Every possibility is not necessarily present and every possibility is certainly not equally likely. Life emerging evolutionarily through relatively very simple processes in areas where the right amount of usable energy exists and the right amount of certain elements exist in the right forms is relatively very likely and possible. A random assortment of cold stellar gasses or just pure energy self assembling through quantum bullshit into a false consciousness with complex logic and memories and the ability to experiment and test its reality in logical ways is pie in the sky nonsense in likeliness. Airplanes appearing out of nothing and people falling through the Earth because “the atoms just happened to arrange themselves just right” are neat things to argue are technically not impossible in our current predictive mathematical models of the universe. They are not things we have any real evidence are possible and real phenomena on a macro scale.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 27 Jan 17:15
nextcollapse
Aargh! Okay, I’m going to fix this and the fine tuned universe argument all at once.
Nature does not care about your silly numbers and hypotheses. All of our scientific mechanics are models of the observed universe. The ones we call theories are just models good enough to be usefully predictive as to forecast outcomes, allowing us to safely land airplanes, build bridges, make safe pharmaceuticals (or super addictive ones, if we want), split atoms safely to produce power (or unsafely to level cities) and so on.
We care about the math and the numbers because they give us results that are consistent with nature. But nature is doing what it’s doing because it’s behaving as a giant causal engine (ever-smaller forces that drive observable phenomena, at least until we get to Planck scale). So when it comes to the fine tuned hypothesis, to quote a Texas physicist whose name I can’t remember These numbers ain’t for fiddlin’
If there are any storm gods at all, anywhere in the world, to the last, they are content to allow lightning to behave strictly according to static-electricity electrodynamics. And ball lightning happens whether or not we have a model that explains it. (Presently, we don’t.)
If one or more of the many-worlds hypotheses are true, no given universe cares what its science-savvy inhabitants have determined and whether their mathematical models allow for models that are factual. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Facts don’t care about your science either. It’s more that the science does is best to describe what’s going on in the facts.
Irreducible complexity is solved.
PS: This also stabilizes the cosmic horror scenario of Azathoth’s dream, that Azathoth gibbers in the center of the universe dreaming its whole, and each and every one of us is a mere figment, who will vanish to oblivion when eventually he awakes: From what we can observe Azathoth has been dreaming consistently for thirteen billion years, and doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to wake up, and his dream is profoundly consistent so that the mathematics we use to send probes from planet to planet, eventually into the outer solar system always works. Azathoth has our back!
Classy@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jan 17:39
nextcollapse
Upvoted just because you referenced the Lovecraft Dream Cycle, epic l
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 27 Jan 18:56
collapse
Azathoth just happens to be really useful to make idealism and the simulation hypothesis plausible. Either way, the mechanics that govern the universe are profoundly consistent and are not as fragile as our own dreams / our own simple, buggy simulations. So yeah.
mehdi_benadel@lemmy.balamb.fr
on 27 Jan 18:20
nextcollapse
Group theory already solved that one 😄
JackbyDev@programming.dev
on 27 Jan 19:08
nextcollapse
One night I was thinking about multiverse stuff and I wondered if you could cause a paradox in another timeline. I got stuck on thinking that it might not immediately destroy the timeline and then I began to worry what it would be like if we lived there. (I was not sober lol.)
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
on 27 Jan 19:36
nextcollapse
There’s a parallel universe in which the fundamental laws of physics are different:
the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, how many fundamental particles there are, the cosmological constant, …
That universe isn’t the boss of the multiverse and doesn’t get to decide that.
Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 21:22
nextcollapse
The set of all possible universes does not include impossible universes. If you assume all possible universes exist, you’ve already eliminated universes that are the only universe as impossible.
threaded - newest
So can there be multiverses that contain every other multiverse other than itself?
I think you mean, multiverses that every multiverse that doesn’t contain itself. In which case, obviously yes. And it’s made up entirely of barbers.
Infinite options does not mean all options. Eg in the set natural numbers 0-infinity the set of infinite numbers between 0-1 (or between any other 2 adjacent numbers) is absent.
So you can definitely have an infinite multiverse where in all of them infinite multiverses exist.
Right, as you said the natural numbers is an infinite set but it doesn’t contain fractional numbers between adjacent natural numbers. The set of natural numbers also doesn’t contain letters, or colors, or varieties of geese. You can even add other constraints to the set and still have an infinite set that contains even fewer possible values, like you could have the set of all natural numbers that don’t contain the digit 3.
People make the mistake of thinking that an infinite set of universes means that there is every conceivable version of a universe out there, but that’s not the case. Murphy’s law says that anything that can happen will happen, but that means things are still constrained by what can happen. Reality is constrained by consistent logic, the most basic of which is the identity law, p = p. It is a contradiction for both p and ~p to be true, a violation of reality. So if the multiverse is a reality, it is a single reality that is self consistent, meaning there is no Universe in the multiverse for which there doesn’t exist a multiverse.
There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them is 2.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5oM5AGnJfo
Yes, even in an infinite multiverse, there is no universe where science_memes commenters have sex.
Mitosis in every single one of them.
If multiverse theory was true and infinite, there would be a universe where someone figured out how to destroy every universe.
🤫 Don’t.
Luckily the Flash stopped them.
I’m having an aneurysm
But there’s a universe where you aren’t.
Ah, but there would be another where someone anticipated this and figured out how to stop it.
Of course that then suggests a universe where a madman figured out how to destroy the multiverse and keep it from being stopped, and one where a dogooder anticipated that…
Such a multiverse could end up existing in a state of indeterminate existance. Like a certain cat…
Aha! The one from Cheshire!
Only if destroying every universe were possible
Given an unlimited amount of tries, I can win any major lottery 10 times in a row.
Given an unlimited amount of tries, I still cannot go super saiyan. Believe me, I’m close to that amount of tries!
Have you tried screaming and flexing really hard?
Ya, I pooped a little and lost consciousness.
Only a little? There’s your problem!
Ahhh, I get it. So you are saying that I need to eat taco Bell beforehand. Because that is the one sure way I can be sure that I will thoroughly shit myself when I am unconscious.
Precisely! Only then will you achieve super saiyan!
Wait wouldn’t that only be super saying? As in we would super be talking about it?
Given an unlimited number of fries, I can go super fat.
Do you make your back tingle?
Given an unlimited amount of tries, anything that has a non-zero chance of happening, no matter how unlikely will happen. But what has absolute zero chance of happening will still not happen.
I’d argue that multiverse theory being true would be a property of the multiverse, not a property of any individual universe, but the ‘infinity not including all possibilities’ part is true too
Given infinite buckets, there’s a bucket where the other buckets don’t exist
I love multiverse theory! I also love how a lot of people don’t really understand how finite infinites work in the context of multiverse theory!
There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That’s because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0, being accepted into a witching school is something that’ll never happen for me.
So no, within the context of multiverse theory there is no universe in which multiverse theory doesn’t exist, because that is a paradox and as such, has 0 chance of existing. However, it totally possible that a magical universe does exist (I would say we don’t know enough about the formation of the universe to accurately judge whether or not such a universe could be possible under the right formative circumstances); it’s just that the chances of any of us existing in that universe is 0.
Doubt.
That doesn’t really follow. Specifically, you’re putting way too much credit (infinity times as much credit as you should, in fact) on your ability to know exactly how your universe works. You’re saying there are zero hypothetical worlds in which you are the person you are now and also magic exists. I’m sure you can see how this is not true; for all you know magic is very obvious in your world and you just got mind-controlled, a minute ago, to your current state of mind. Or maybe you just never noticed it and hence grew up thinking you are in a mundane universe, which is very unlikely but not probability-0. Or one of many many other explanations, which are all unlikely (nothing involving a universe with magic in it is going to be likely), but very much not probability-0.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/01f16686-3e53-4d76-be27-3619d1a4be8b.jpeg">
Except in the universe where that is how it works.
You’re getting into omniverse territory here, I think. But if accurate, then the dimensions without multiverses just lack the ability to perceive, observe, understand, measure, prove, or travel outside of their own universes. There’s a whole multiverse of such isolated bubbles that will “know” that there’s no multiverse, and we have a 50/50 chance of being in one.
That’s not how statistics works lol
If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.
In the “multiverse of all possibilities” there will be 50% without a multiverse
We’re getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can’t map to every possibility of a higher infinity
I know. But I case of the multiverse that many people think about, the one where there is a universe for EVERYTHING, there will be exactly as many universes where triangles exist as there are universes where triangles dont exist. And the same is true for everything else.
And it is exactly the same number, not just the same type of infinity. Because for every universe with triangles there must also exist the exact same universe without triangles (and vice versa), otherwise the multiverse wouldn’t contain all possible universes.
What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.
I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).
And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.
There is no probability. No rolling dice. It is every combination of everything. I know Hilberts infinite hotel, I know (enough about) probability and statistics.
I am talking about the multiverse that many people imagine. The one where you can say “there is a universe in which I am president. And one where Lincoln is a velociraptor, and a universe where chairs sit on people instead of the other way round”. In that multiverse, I can construct a universe without triangles that is identical to another universe with triangles in every regard except for the existence of triangles. And I can do that for every universe with triangles. Its a bijection.
We dont permute a (in)finite set of initial parameters and then evolve the universe from there, we have a universe for every CURRENT state.
In the hypothetical reality where such a multiverse exists (it would be a case of Russells paradox as OP has discovered), there is a 50% chance to be in a universe where it doesn’t.
Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.
In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.
It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.
Is there some use I am missing?
Under quantum mechanics this can’t explain non-even distributions. With no effects making high probability events more prevalent than others you can not (reliably) observe differentiated probabilities.
And once again, cardinalites appears. A thing whose possible variations correspond to infinite integers can’t match that with have variations matching the real numbers. An infinite line won’t correspond to an infinite hypercube in infinite dimensions. Gotta consider combinatorics from statistics too, as well as entropy. The number of permutations mapping to normal states simply has to far exceed the strange states for us to observe a normal universe.
Omniverse is what you get when you sort multiple multiverses, that’s all. It’s a way of categorizing multiverses sharing some common element. Because infinity is so vast that it’s basically meaningless to us humans, so organizing it at least makes it vaguely easier to understand.
The dumbest and easiest way to understand it is with media franchises as an and analogy. All of Marvel is one multiverse, all of DC is one multiverse, all of Terminator are another, all of Star Trek another, etc. it’s sloppy but here’s my point across.
In reality it’s more like; this multiverse has universes with identical physical parameters, that multiverse has a slightly higher amount of gravity, that multiverse has a slightly different amount of weak magnetic force, that multiverse has a different speed of light, etc.
If there is an infinite Multiverse, there is a universe where the inhabitants believe the Multiverse doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it true.
If there is no infinite Multiverse, the inhabitants could also believe that it exist.
No paradoxes.
Edit: A computer can run Virtual Machines, but there could be some VMs where another VM can be run, while other VMs have some “system corruption” that make the VMs impossible, but VMs still exist. Just because one VM cannot run VMs within itself, doesn’t nullify the existence VMs
So you’re saying that some 'verses have VT-x/AMD-V enabled and others don’t?
How does the signal factor in?
Infinite doesn’t mean everything. Infinite can include a repeating pattern, even a huge repeating pattern which seems random at first. Not everything you could possibly imagine would necessarily have to exist in the multiverse.
And even if infinite and perfectly random, some things may just not be feasible and just not exist.
In an infinite list of letters, every single book ever written, every word ever spoken (and to be written/spoken) should be present no?
I guess the only caveat is that in an infinite universe certain physical laws could be universal (which would prevent eg any universe to break the speed of light)? But some version of me having hair past my 30s should certainly exist no?
Or am I getting this completely wrong?
“A” repeating is an infinite list of letters
Lol, OK. Yeah. Didn’t think about caveats. :D
This infinite list of letters could be "any random combination of letters EXCEPT when that makes the word “banana”. A subset of an infinite set can still be infinite.
Infinite != all possibilities
Ah, fair enough. So that’s similar to “infinite universes of infinite possibilities, except light can never go faster than 300.000 km/sec”?
I mean, the whole premise is getting this completely wrong. The actual physics idea behind multiple universes is that every possibility in specific quantum events happens, each one being in a separate, ‘parallel’, universe where everything else in the universe is exactly the same. All the laws of physics stay the same, just the results of all the cumulative random possibilities are different.
This is also not the only explanation of that strange phenomenon in quantum mechanics.
except in the universe it is feasible and exists
If pi is infinite, that means pi must contain i
Well obviously. It’s right there next to the p.
It does not contain e though.
e^(i*pi) + 1
huh
isn’t this just Russell’s paradox
wikipedia
if I recall correctly Russell’s Paradox was how ZFC set theory became the standard set theory
ZF handles it. The C adds the axiom of choice. But ZF is enough for dealing with the Russel paradox. Oddly enough, Zermelo, the Z in ZF, published the Russel paradox a year before Russel.
I know one thing that’s absolutely true about the multiverse!
The multiverse is a convenient excuse to reboot superheroes for a new audience to make money.
If there are multiple countries on the planet Earth, that must mean there’s a country where the other countries don’t exist.
I think that’s North Korea
You spelled United States of America wrong.
Other countries exist, they just belong the United Empire.
Most Americans acknowledge the existence of other countries, that just refuse to believe those other countries have access to electricity, plumbing, or the internet.
Infinite countries. Which mumblemumble clearly makes it all work.
Or, the conjecture of the multiverse, being non falsifiable, makes it as scientific as the boogie man or the tooth fairy. God of the gaps anyone?
This is such anti-intellectual cliche, and it’s a damn shame that a generation of Reddit pseudo-intellectuals parroting a Feynman quote has made it so wide spread.
Which is the anti-intellectual cliché?
The post I replied to.
You mean the post at the top? Or the comment you replied to? Either way I don’t really see the cliché.
Do you mean that something being non-falsifiable making it non-scientific is a cliché? That’s how science works: by having theories that can be differentiated with experiment.
Or, of the post, that multiverses contain every conceivable universe, then why anti-intellectual, when it’s just a silly joke?
The one I replied too. The habit of immediately and smugly going “It can’t be falsified and is therefore the same as the tooth-fairy!” to any ideas that class with their intuition is very much a well worn cliche of reddit style pseudo-intellectual “I fucking love science” types. Bonus points if it is falsifiable.
And yes, falsifiablity is a part of science, but this idea that science means going “if you don’t have a definite experiment that you can perform right now then the idea is stupid and wrong and you’re an idiot for even talking about it” is massively reductive at best and flat out wrong at worst, and if these people applied it in all cases - rather than just to the ones that their gut feeling is against - they’d be throwing out a huge amount of ideas that are most definitely science.
I mean jesus, imagine how arrogant you would have to be to discard all of the very detailed work extremely talented scientists have done in Quantum Foundations as being no different to believing in the tooth fairy.
I see. Thank you for your more explanatory reply. I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché. Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.
The incredible thing with these weird results is they are falsifiable - this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense. Bell’s inequality, that lies at the heart of the trouble, is experimentally demonstrable.
But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it. And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.
But in the end, after re-writing much of my comment, I have to concede the point. I feel you’ve made a bit of a straw man to attack, but I agree a thing can seem unapproachable scientifically - non-falsifiable - but still be valid science. Even in this area, IIRC, part of the debate over the main quantum mechanics interpretations is quite whether they can be falsified or experimentally differentiated: and that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!
Possibly. Give it time I suppose
Perhaps, but you’d have a hard time tying to convince Princeton University that the the paper they gave Hugh Everett a PhD in Physics for is in fact “not science” and is in fact more like “the boogey man or the tooth fairy.” Or trying to convince the scientific community that people like Sean Carroll and David Deutsch and all the other physicists doing work in Quantum Foundations from a many worlds perspective aren’t scientists.
I’m sorry, but this is just straight up not true; Einstein absolutely did not dismiss entanglement as nonsense
Different “interpretations” (really they are different theories) absolutely have experimental differences. Some aren’t performable today, but if that is your criteria, then the Higgs Boson was like the tooth fairy for decades. But even beyond that some are performable, and have been performed, we have done test for dynamical collapse interpretations. Had they come back positive they would have falsified Many Worlds, ie. they are literally a form of falsification.
And many worlds is not one of those wilder speculations that is nothing more than unprovable imaginations.
Indeed, which means not dismissing and idea as nonsense without understanding it.
I don’t come without credentials. I have a phd in physics.
I also don’t see any problem with Feynman’s standpoint. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0
Hugh Everett also had a PhD in Physics.
It’s not purely a wild, non-falsifiable idea. It comes from a theory to reconcile the very-much-falsifiable-but-not-falsified results of quantum mechanics. IIRC there are three main theories to interpret the results and all of them are down-and-out weird. Last I looked, one of them at least is controversial about whether or not it could (in principle) be experimentally differentiated from the others.
Is this what you are referring to?
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/61094d5f-9ace-4978-b60d-cf2a09502ddc.jpeg"> <img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d7a13169-2e7a-49b7-baf3-1e3d2c96a07e.jpeg">
Bell’s Theorem pretty well settles this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
More or less. There’s a bit more nuance to it, and I was thinking particularly of the case of entangled particles at a distance rather than a self-interfering particle through a slit - but it probably resolves down to much the same mathematics.
Bell’s inequality proves the simple (‘realist’, above) option can’t be true, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accepted interpretation of the alternative. Wikipedia lists three such interpretations, and IIRC “many worlds” is a separate one to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Though again, it’s a bit more nuanced. When I was studying, I think they basically assumed Copenhagen, though not treating that entirely as settled fact, and leaving other interpretations as niche.
I have not seen not even on paper a universe which allows casual paradoxes like that comment says
because you arent in the universe that has that paper
It’s being suppressed by Big Paper. Or by Big Universe.
Oof that reminds me…
When my partner and I had already been living together for a while, we had one of those “cuddle on the couch and deeptalk” days, when she confided that, while she was not religious in any traditional sense of the word, she felt immensely comforted by the thought of an infinite multiverse existing.
“If there’s an infinite amount of parallel worlds, then I choose to believe that even if I die here, life goes on in another world, so in a sense my being and existence do not simply vanish completely. Same for you! And hey, even if we both die, we’ll get to continue living together in some version of the infinite multiverse!”
It was clearly a thought that comforted her a lot, and at the same time a rather intimate belief that she chose to share with me. So, like the idiot I am, I stared her in the face blankly and went “There’s an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and none of them are 2”.
I really regret that. She let me know later that that one sentence shattered the belief for her. Which is sad, because it’s such an innocent thought. There’s no religious behaviors or conditions or rituals attached to it, it’s just comforting.
Ouch. I feel that comment on many levels.
Your comment doesn’t really make sense though, a two doesn’t appear in the numbers between zero and one because it’s not the type of thing that appears in that set. Alternative version of you absolutely are things that appear in a multiverse.
Sorry, I should have gone more into the actual belief. For her it was less of an “if I make a decision that leads to my death in this universe, there surely is a parallel universe where I did not!”, it was “if I die in this universe, thanks to an infinite multiverse, there must be one where I spontaneously start exisitng with all my exact memories from the previous life”.
Ah ok.
Sounds like she’s essentially describing the Quantum Immortality concept. It’s definitely highly speculative but it’s not beyond the pale.
It’s comments like this that make me glad I know how to read the room
😭
I usually do, I promise. Anyways, that was 6 years ago. We’re stil going strong, making the most of life in this universe :)
There’s an infinite amount of numbers within a range but the limits of the range are still constraints. What’s to say the end of our lives is a constraint on the multiverse? Maybe within a local minima of historically similar universes one individual’s life could be so important that theres a shared constraint, but I kinda doubt that that exists across the entire multiverse. But really we will never know. As such your partner isn’t wrong still, they just have to take an agnostic approach that there’s no way to know. But it’s not wrong to choose to believe that your deaths are not constraints on the entire multiverse, that’s just their interpretation.
That’s a nice belief of hers but it also neglects the negatives of what that implies. If each of us had infinite variations of ourselves somewhere in a multiverse, then there are varieties where the two of you continue living a nice happy life together even if one of you dies.
However, there would also be versions where you never met and got together with other people, other versions where you hate each other, other versions where you go through terrible things together or by yourselves, versions where one of you or both are drug addicts living in the street, versions where you become millionaires but don’t want to share your wealth, versions where you become supreme leaders and act like despotic authoritarian rulers or versions where both of you just never meet or connect with one another.
If there are infinite variations of ourselves out there, not all of them will be happy comforting stories. Maybe this is one of those versions that are good. Maybe this is one of the best versions.
This is illogical. That is all.
It’s funny, outside of Hollywood, Comic Books, and Bertrand Russel trying to disprove religion by taking Hawking out of context, is there any real evidence for a multiverse?
I mean I believe that reality is truly infinite and the only reason we have limitations is because we haven’t found a way around them yet (Science distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced in my book), so I’m not calling bullshit, but I’m also asking for evidence beyond going “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if?”
It was always a hypothesis that filled in a math equation but has no proof.
So, bout as much evidence as Dark Matter.
I used to not believe in Dark Matter, but during a recent shroom trip I saw that it existed and that my being was even composed of it. That to an extent all of us are made of equal parts matter and dark matter, and the parts of us that are made of Dark Matter are the reason why we have paranormal experiences, for they’re actually quite normal experiences just happening to us on a level where we can’t see all the details.
And if I were the Spirit Science guy I’d walk away fully believing THAT.
Dark matter is not a thing, it’s an observation, a phenomenon that was poorly named. There’s so much evidence under the name “[d]ark matter” that we can’t discount it as a real phenomenon. We just don’t have a strong evidence for a single dark matter theory (theory in the scientific sense of the word, not the colloquial one).
Something dark matter like has to exist, because there’s no other reasonable way to describe this behavior (shifted center of gravity matching presence of matter not influenced by friction)
caltech.edu/…/dark-matter-flies-ahead-of-normal-m…
Sure, but anything that tried to explain the observations would be a dark matter theory, and if that theory involved particles, it’d be a particle theory.
Dark matter isn’t a theory, nor is it particles, it’s just a body of observations that’s poorly named. In that sense, dark matter definitely exists, we just don’t know in what shape or form.
There is the Mandela effect if you want to believe that, but that is also easier to explain by people having shit memory.
Berenstein/berenstain bears are like the main Mandela effect thing(other than mandela)
Personally it was always “Berenstain Bears” I know it was because I watched the Nick Jr. show as a kid, and the ads would use the “BerenstAin” name
The Mandela Effect is interesting because while I do remember the correct version of most events (Pikachu did not have a black stripe, Rich Uncle Pennybags did not have a Moncole, Nelson Mandela did not die in prison, “No, I AM your father”), there are still some that I straight up know did not happen the way I remember them.
For example: Fruit of the Loom had a Cornucopia, I remember because it was the first time I had ever seen one. The only reason I knew what a cornucopia was, was due to it being on the underwear logo.
That said I have heard about memory being incredibly suggestible, studies about people who were tricked into believing they had been on a Hot Air Balloon when they had not or seeing Bugs Bunny at Disney World despite that not being a Disney character. So Mandela Effect could be bullshit.
There are some stories that interest me from time to time.
Like in a Youtube Video discussing Mandela Effect, James Rolfe better known as the Angry Video Game Nerd, had always remembered the pay off to “My face on the one dollar bill”, being that the money Joker gives out at the end of Tim Burton’s Batman movie was counterfeit with the Joker’s face on it… But that’s never actually revealed in the movie.
The reason that interests me, is that the prop money DID have Jack Nicholson’s face on it, but it’s something you can only find out by reading about the development of the movie as it’s never shown to the camera clearly enough for you to tell. Making it interesting that James remembered a factual detail he couldn’t possibly remember from watching the movie.
Now it’s easy to say “Well James just read about the prop money being Joker themed and got mixed up about where he heard the money from”
My dad is even more interesting, for reasons beyond it being someone I know
My dad claims he is a magnet for this kind of phenomenon, claims that the “Time People” are always messing with him, and that he regularly experiences time out of order. The thing is though he might actually be right.
We’ve had times where we’re talking and he says something that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about and makes no sense at all, and I’m like “Are you okay?”
Like one time I was just checking in on him, and he starts rambling about Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen for some reason… I just assume he’s tired, since he works two jobs and all., often coming home from one just to change uniforms and go to the other.
And then months later, we’re talking about weird experiences we’ve had while high (He’s a stoner, I’m not but I partake from time to time), and I mentioned that sometimes I “see things” before they happen, but I can’t stop them from happening, then when they happen… It’s like… I know they’re going to happen, but I can’t prevent them happening, and I react like I’m “supposed to”
And he says the thing he said before about Dr. Manhattan, referencing the scene where he’s on Mars and knows his lady friend is going to tell him something, she tells him, and he still acts surprised, because he was SUPPOSED to be surprised…
It’s the same thing he said only now there’s context for it, and then our heads start hurting and we flashback to the conversation where he had no reason to say it.
Freaky stuff happens to him.
The weirdest one though, is one time he straight up told me that he was from another universe.
See I don’t live with my dad, he’s a state a way and I only sometimes see him. Last time I saw him it was for my cousin’s graduation, and he says to me, he’s not my dad, he’s a version of him from another universe.
Because he never married my stepmother, and I’m confused because he did and they have a daughter, my half-sister. He tells me a story of how years ago he screwed up on a big date way back when, and never got over her. So he went out drinking with some friends of his at this restaurant, and he sees her at the bar, he’s had a few drinks and they tell him that he needs to win her back, do this one grand romantic gesture.
Now he’s drunk this sounds like a good idea, and he goes up to her, but sees she’s with a guy, having a nice time, and decides not to ruin her night. He tells me, that he goes home in tears, his heart broken, and falls asleep alone. The next day, he wakes up and she’s in the kitchen, finds that he and her have been married for months, she loves him, and has no recollection of being anywhere last night except home with him. So he just smiles, and accepts that he has been given a gift, and just tells her that it was all a bad dream he had been having.
Creepy story if true. Not sure I believe it, but it’s
The big bang theory posits the creation of multiple universes during the event. To accept the big bang theory as a model for the beginning of our universe is to accept the possibility of multiple universes.
Well, fair enough then.
Does it? As far as I am aware, the Big Bang modle only describes how the early universe developed, not how it began.
You are correct. But this doesn’t restrict the big bang theory’s ability to conclude that other universes would have been created during the event.
Imagine analyzing a moving ball while simultaneously not knowing what caused the ball to move in the first place. We can still say a lot about this ball without the knowledge of how it started moving in the first place…
As Hawkings once said, asking questions about what caused the big bang is fruitless. Cause and Effect assumes a timeline, and there was no timeline before the big bang, therefore, asking what caused the big bang is actually a useless question. Therefore, it’s only fruitful to analyze the effect of the big bang, and through analyzing it’s effect, we conclude that other universes were likely created during the event.
A lot of this is based on the theoretical mathematics which define the big bang, but it’s also based on the standard cosmological model of our universe. The fact is cosmological theories already suggest the possibility of different universes which have different initial parameters. Our universe isn’t special, therefore it makes sense that other universes with different initial parameters could exist. The big bang theory aligns with this idea and suggests that different universes with different initial parameters could have also been created during the event, therefore, the multiverse.
Sure, BBT doesn’t preclude other universes exsiting, and some details may even suggest other universes, but that’s outside the scope of BBT cosmology, and I’d hardly call that evidence when we still have inflation and axion theories floating around ready to radically change our idea of the early universe.
We have more evidence for Dark Matter, and we can’t even agree that that’s matter!
Sort of. It’s kinda similar to science’s conclusion about the existence of intelligent alien life. Have we directly observed evidence of intelligent alien life? No. Are we pretty confident that intelligent alien life exists? Yes. It’s a probability thing. If we can exist in this massive universe, then it’s almost insane to think that we could be the only intelligent life that exists: the principle of mediocrity.
When it comes to the standard cosmological model, it allows for universes with different shaped space-time continuums, different masses of elementary particles, etc. So, if it allows for all of these variables to be different, then it’s almost insane to think that our universe is the only universe that exists: principle of mediocrity again.
In the BBT, the multiverse hypothesis comes in during the inflation epoch. At some point our universe bubble expanded faster than the speed of light. This creates a sorta localized boundary. Since we observe light with our eyes and we cannot go FTL, then we cannot observe or go places beyond this localized bubble which exists within our localized space. The BBT posits that other localized universe bubbles were also created during the epoch of inflation: the multiverse. Of course, to get to another localized bubble, one would have to travel faster than the speed of light and transverse through literal nothing (no space or time) to get there.
Now keep in mind that the multiverse hypothesis is pretty cutting edge, so yes, there is still a lot of argument regarding its validity. One argument is that it is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no feasible way to observe outside our own localized bubble. Nevertheless there are scientists who are designing tests. For example, some physicists posit that if our localized bubble collided with another localized bubble, then it could result in an observable effect on the cosmic background radiation.
We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.
I am not entirely certain what point you’re making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven’t directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)
Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).
In simpler terms, most of science’s conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.
All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.
My oint is that we have a plethora of direct evidence of exoplanets, but only a small handfull of indirect evidence for other universes at best.
That’s not necessarily evidence against other universes, but when asked about exactly how much evidence for other universes we have, “The math suggests they are possible” isn’t very strong, especially when the math makes massively incorrect predictions elsewhere that we still haven’t explained.
What is the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of other universes, and the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter? There are serious theories attempting to explain the universe without dark matter right now, so jf the evidence for other universes is weaker than dark matter, people aren’t going to take it seriously.
Quantum results are hard to explain, but proven (by experiment) to be real. There’s a particular mathematical/logical definition of something being ‘real’ and ‘local’, that I’ve still only half got my head around, and it should be true but isn’t.
The main experiment is two particles that, if you check one, it affects what you’ll see in the other in a particular, but subtle , way. And it’s proven mathematically impossible to find an explanation where they don’t either communicate faster than the speed of light (so, not ‘local’) but the effect actually happens (‘real’).
The trick is in the statistics - the pattern of results - that match up between the two particles in this very particular way. And one way to explain it is that different options are also happening, but in a different universe - i.e. every time two different things could happen, reality splits into two realities, one where this happens and one where that happens.
That’s for specific quantum events, but some think those such quantum events underlie all choices and possibilities in reality. So, scale up that idea and you get ‘infinite’ (actually just very very many) parallel universes, one for every possibility that could ever have happened, branching off into more each time a (quantum) choice happens.
They don’t “communicate” faster than light, the wave function itself is non-local and collapses non-locally.
“If there is an infinite number of buckets, there must be a bucket where the other buckets don’t exist.”
If there are an infinite number of road junctions, there must be one that reaches a place where road junctions don’t exist.
That’s the airstrip.
Taxiways would like a word.
Ooo, look at you with your fancy infrastructure. I bet you even have commercial flights!
In all seriousness, some airstrips have only a paved runway, and it’s just dirt for everything else.
Fair enough. The ice runways in Antarctica seem like a good example of ‘no intersections,’ don’t they?
There are infinite numbers, but none of the numbers are the apple I ate last week.
<img alt="Screenshot_20250127_103307_Gallery" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6904fde9-c8d1-40bf-90a2-6ff48cbd3194.jpeg">
I never realized I til this moment that is a TF2 model.
this is stupid. The existence of an infinite number of universes does not at all imply they must represent infinite variability.
Don’t you love it when people say random, illogical bullshit that sounds vaguely sciency and pretends to be deep?
Of course not, I hate jokes
Of course, that’s why we use Reddit
Lol, good joke but wrong, even existing an infinite number of Universe, to be stables they need a infinite number of physical conditions, if not they can’t exist. A multiverse, even if there are formong an infinite number of universes, most of them are destroyed in the same moment when are not present this conditions, even so it can exist an infinite number of survivor universes with the correct conditions (∞/n = ∞), paradox conditions are not among these (apart of the infinite itself, used in physics)
Multiverse theory does not necessarily mean infinite universes to cover all possibilities, just multiple universes.
Star Trek: Just the two, thanks
Nah there’s definitely different universes/timelines in star trek. The series just have the one main timeline they follow.
spoiler
In TNG theres the dark Romulan war timeline in which Yar doesn’t die in that confrontation with the evil tar pit guy and goes on to prevent war with the Romulans, switching us back to the main timeline where the war doesn’t happen but Yar’s descendant is a Romulan warlord. I think this is the same timeline in DS9 where evil Kira and all of them exist. It’s mentioned in DS9 that the Kirk in this timeline also switched places with the Kirk in the main timeline at some point but I didn’t watch TOS so I cannot confirm.
The final season of Lower Decks was also a huge step into multiverse theory. So perhaps there is more to come.
Yeah! Until lower decks there was only ever the “mirror universe” (and a few alternate timeline shenanigans that were never clearly a different universe, just a different ‘time line’.)
I want lower decks back 😞
It’s a common trend for people that don’t understand that infinite possibilities do not mean every possibility.
The way I usually explain this to people is that the quantity of even number is also infinite, but that doesn’t mean you’ll ever find a value of three in that infinite range.
Right, in any case, infinity is only a manageable magnitude in mathematics, but not in physics where it represents a nightmare and headaches. In physics, only an indeterminate magnitude can be accepted, which can be very large or also very small, but only up to a certain limit. In physics, infinity and absolute nothingness can’t exist.
hits blunt
There is no such thing called Multiverse
If there’s no multiverse then what was Dr Strange fighting? Check mate atheists.
He (a fictional character) fights Fiction
You’re very smart.
Nah but here’s the real staggering part. It should be far easier for universes to form locally conscious beings than it is to form all the pieces necessary to naturally evolve conscious beings. These would mostly be very short-lived arrangements of energy with no hope of surviving but certain arrangements would even have false memories, making them believe that they have existed far longer than they actually have.
They may even have false memories of living on earth.
They may even have false memories of your exact life.
And they would be, by far, more common than any form of actual sustainable life. It is vastly more likely that you have experienced this post as a false memory created inside one of these short-lived consciousnesses than for any of this to be real.
No, it’s not. This is only true if every arrangement of matter is equally likely to come into being randomly. The multiverse is not an infinite non repeating randomized collection. Every possibility is not necessarily present and every possibility is certainly not equally likely. Life emerging evolutionarily through relatively very simple processes in areas where the right amount of usable energy exists and the right amount of certain elements exist in the right forms is relatively very likely and possible. A random assortment of cold stellar gasses or just pure energy self assembling through quantum bullshit into a false consciousness with complex logic and memories and the ability to experiment and test its reality in logical ways is pie in the sky nonsense in likeliness. Airplanes appearing out of nothing and people falling through the Earth because “the atoms just happened to arrange themselves just right” are neat things to argue are technically not impossible in our current predictive mathematical models of the universe. They are not things we have any real evidence are possible and real phenomena on a macro scale.
Boltzman brains?
Aargh! Okay, I’m going to fix this and the fine tuned universe argument all at once.
Nature does not care about your silly numbers and hypotheses. All of our scientific mechanics are models of the observed universe. The ones we call theories are just models good enough to be usefully predictive as to forecast outcomes, allowing us to safely land airplanes, build bridges, make safe pharmaceuticals (or super addictive ones, if we want), split atoms safely to produce power (or unsafely to level cities) and so on.
We care about the math and the numbers because they give us results that are consistent with nature. But nature is doing what it’s doing because it’s behaving as a giant causal engine (ever-smaller forces that drive observable phenomena, at least until we get to Planck scale). So when it comes to the fine tuned hypothesis, to quote a Texas physicist whose name I can’t remember These numbers ain’t for fiddlin’
If there are any storm gods at all, anywhere in the world, to the last, they are content to allow lightning to behave strictly according to static-electricity electrodynamics. And ball lightning happens whether or not we have a model that explains it. (Presently, we don’t.)
If one or more of the many-worlds hypotheses are true, no given universe cares what its science-savvy inhabitants have determined and whether their mathematical models allow for models that are factual. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Facts don’t care about your science either. It’s more that the science does is best to describe what’s going on in the facts.
Irreducible complexity is solved.
PS: This also stabilizes the cosmic horror scenario of Azathoth’s dream, that Azathoth gibbers in the center of the universe dreaming its whole, and each and every one of us is a mere figment, who will vanish to oblivion when eventually he awakes: From what we can observe Azathoth has been dreaming consistently for thirteen billion years, and doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to wake up, and his dream is profoundly consistent so that the mathematics we use to send probes from planet to planet, eventually into the outer solar system always works. Azathoth has our back!
Upvoted just because you referenced the Lovecraft Dream Cycle, epic l
Azathoth just happens to be really useful to make idealism and the simulation hypothesis plausible. Either way, the mechanics that govern the universe are profoundly consistent and are not as fragile as our own dreams / our own simple, buggy simulations. So yeah.
As I’ve said before: All hail Azathoth!
Group theory already solved that one 😄
One night I was thinking about multiverse stuff and I wondered if you could cause a paradox in another timeline. I got stuck on thinking that it might not immediately destroy the timeline and then I began to worry what it would be like if we lived there. (I was not sober lol.)
There’s a parallel universe in which the fundamental laws of physics are different: the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, how many fundamental particles there are, the cosmological constant, …
And one where I have a goatee and I’m the evil version of myself, right??
no, you are who you choose to be :)
there is a universe full to the brim with chickens, all that chicken space.
The multiverse either exists or it doesn’t. Individual universes have no influence over that.
so it’s basically %50 %50 except for the universe where it is %49 %51
That universe isn’t the boss of the multiverse and doesn’t get to decide that.
The set of all possible universes does not include impossible universes. If you assume all possible universes exist, you’ve already eliminated universes that are the only universe as impossible.
Well yes, but actually no.