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.
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.
there is a universe full to the brim with chickens, all that chicken space.
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??
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!
As I’ve said before: All hail Azathoth!
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.
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.
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
hits blunt
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)
Multimultiverse 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.
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 😞
Don’t you love it when people say random, illogical bullshit that sounds vaguely sciency and pretends to be deep?
Of course that’s why we use Reddit
Of course not, I hate jokes
this is stupid. The existence of an infinite number of universes does not at all imply they must represent infinite variability.
I never realized I til this moment that is a TF2 model.
“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?
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?”
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.
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.
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.
Well, fair enough then.
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 day have some kind of schizophrenic disorder or maladaptive day dreaming. I don’t know, and I probably never will.
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 “sark 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.
This is illogical. That is all.
