Multiverse
Multiverse
154 comments
-
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.
-
There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them is 2.
-
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.
-
Yes, even in an infinite multiverse, there is no universe where science_memes commenters have sex.
-
Mitosis in every single one of them.
-
-
-
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!
-
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.
-
except in the universe it is feasible and exists
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
-
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".
-
-
Ouch. I feel that comment on many levels.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
"If there is an infinite number of buckets, there must be a bucket where the other buckets don't exist."
-
this is stupid. The existence of an infinite number of universes does not at all imply they must represent infinite variability.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is illogical. That is all.
-
-
Except in the universe where that is how it works.
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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?
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
I never realized I til this moment that is a TF2 model.
-
-
hits blunt
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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 an interesting tale to say the least.
Now, it's possible that my Dad is just fucking with me because he thinks it's funny, but... believe what you want I guess. Maybe my Dad has some kind of undiagnosed schizophrenic disorder or maladaptive day dreaming. I don't know, and I probably never will.
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
there is a universe full to the brim with chickens, all that chicken space.
-
If multiverse theory was true and infinite, there would be a universe where someone figured out how to destroy every universe.
-
Luckily the Flash stopped them.
-
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!
-
-
I'm having an aneurysm
-
But there's a universe where you aren't.
-
-
🤫 Don't.
-
Only if destroying every universe were possible
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
huh
isn't this just Russell's paradox
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.
-
-
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 :)
-
-
-
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
-
-
-
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.
-
I don't come without credentials. I have a phd in physics.
I also don't see any problem with Feynman's standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0
-
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?
Bell's Theorem pretty well settles this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
-
-
-
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.)
-
Well yes, but actually no.
-
Group theory already solved that one 😄
-
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?
-
154 comments