Multiverse Theory

[CreativeThinker]

So, I have a belief of there being infinite universes, each one different from the other, meaning that there's one universe for anything you can think of. There's a universe with absolutely nothing, and there's a universe with floating planet-sized donuts.
Maybe each universe has its own God, maybe all of them are controlled by one god, or maybe each has a set of laws that matter follows, which make different outcomes.

 

[fluffy]

Where would they be?

Next to each other in a higher dimension?

Why can't we interact with them?

 

[fractalwalrus]

Where would they be?

Next to each other in a higher dimension?

Why can't we interact with them?

What if it is merely an idea, whose conduit appears to be based in the material, when the concept itself is not?

 

[CreativeThinker]

Where would they be?

Next to each other in a higher dimension?

Why can't we interact with them?

Well, I think that they are in a higher dimension, and they are each protected by barriers made of something that has a higher dimension than normal matter, something that couldn't be thought of, for it's infinitely large.

 

[CreativeThinker]

Even string theory supports the multiverses, since the 7 compacted dimensions can be in different orientations and therefore make new particles and different universes.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Why can't we interact with them?

because most of them are simulated

 

[fractalwalrus]

Why can't we interact with them?

because most of them are simulated

Stimulation theory

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Stimulation theory

 

[fractalwalrus]

 

[CreativeThinker]

because most of them are simulated

*all of them actually

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

because most of them are simulated

*all of them actually

 

[Bluehalite]

Multiverse, yes. Just know its NOT a simulation. Its real.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Multiverse, yes. Just know its NOT a simulation. Its real.

How do you know anything is real? What does it mean to be real?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Multiverse, yes. Just know its NOT a simulation. Its real.

i'll take a look

i suspect someone doesn't understand epistemological limits

 

[Old Things]

The problem with the multiverse theories is that you have to assume 10 almost impossible things before they become viable. There is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse. IMO, multiverse theories are just made to explain the fine-tuning of their being sentient life in this universe. In other words, it's a natural explanation to get around the idea that God exists. Of course, there is no evidence for it, but if you are really committed to naturalism, it becomes viable.

 

[Bluehalite]

If you can, try Free Guy on Disney plus. It starts out slow, then gets good. A guy stuck in a simulated video game. When he gets virtual reality glasses it gets better.

Watch Free Guy | Disney+

Ryan Reynolds stars in this action-packed comedy set inside a video game.

www.disneyplus.com

 

[fractalwalrus]

There is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse.

Correct, and so all they could fall back on would be deductive arguments (which I think they have proposed in the form of mathematics), but those rely upon valid premises.

 

[Old Things]

There is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse.

Correct, and so all they could fall back on would be deductive arguments (which I think they have proposed in the form of mathematics), but those rely upon valid premises.

Well, that is the question, isn't it? Whether the premises are even valid. It requires string theory, and the string theory you adhere to is going to determine the kind of multiverse you believe in. And string theory itself is not a deduction but a theory. Scientists are still trying to figure out how quantum mechanics works with the theory of relativity because, so far, it just doesn't. So, things like string theory that compound on these things are not something you can say is deduced; they are just assumptions.

 

[fractalwalrus]

There is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse.

Correct, and so all they could fall back on would be deductive arguments (which I think they have proposed in the form of mathematics), but those rely upon valid premises.

Well, that is the question, isn't it? Whether the premises are even valid. It requires string theory, and the string theory you adhere to is going to determine the kind of multiverse you believe in. And string theory itself is not a deduction but a theory. Scientists are still trying to figure out how quantum mechanics works with the theory of relativity because, so far, it just doesn't. So, things like string theory that compound on these things are not something you can say is deduced; they are just assumptions.

A lot of things that they conjecture are quite wacky. Take the concept of imaginary numbers, for example (which is based upon the concept of negative numbers, that become irrelevant without time to factor in). Some of them get paid whether they are correct or not.

 

[Old Things]

There is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse.

Correct, and so all they could fall back on would be deductive arguments (which I think they have proposed in the form of mathematics), but those rely upon valid premises.

Well, that is the question, isn't it? Whether the premises are even valid. It requires string theory, and the string theory you adhere to is going to determine the kind of multiverse you believe in. And string theory itself is not a deduction but a theory. Scientists are still trying to figure out how quantum mechanics works with the theory of relativity because, so far, it just doesn't. So, things like string theory that compound on these things are not something you can say is deduced; they are just assumptions.

A lot of things that they conjecture are quite wacky. Take the concept of imaginary numbers, for example (which is based upon the concept of negative numbers, that become irrelevant without time to factor in). Some of them get paid whether they are correct or not.

Here's something interesting about math...

 

[Bluehalite]

 

[fractalwalrus]

There is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse.

Correct, and so all they could fall back on would be deductive arguments (which I think they have proposed in the form of mathematics), but those rely upon valid premises.

Well, that is the question, isn't it? Whether the premises are even valid. It requires string theory, and the string theory you adhere to is going to determine the kind of multiverse you believe in. And string theory itself is not a deduction but a theory. Scientists are still trying to figure out how quantum mechanics works with the theory of relativity because, so far, it just doesn't. So, things like string theory that compound on these things are not something you can say is deduced; they are just assumptions.

A lot of things that they conjecture are quite wacky. Take the concept of imaginary numbers, for example (which is based upon the concept of negative numbers, that become irrelevant without time to factor in). Some of them get paid whether they are correct or not.

Here's something interesting about math...

The Mandelbrot set is a perfect way of demonstrating the tendency of humans to fill in the blanks with whatever they wish when they do not understand something. The Mandelbrot set, only exists if imaginary numbers do. Imaginary numbers are contingent upon the existence of negative numbers. Negative numbers are a mathematical "construct" that is attempting to digitize a concept, this is not a natural phenomenon. Tell me how you can be said to be in possession of -2 cars?

 

[fluffy]

There are material and immaterial things.

A multiverse cannot exist because you can imagine more immaterial than you can make with the material. It would clog the system and nothing would move. Like a TV with every possible image at the same time.

The question arises why this material arrangement and not another?

The Material does follow some math rules and not others.