Defense of the Multiverse theory

[DanTrentfield]

So, I've heard this many times: "Those who believe in the multiverse theory either come from a non scientific background and are usually crackpots." But I want to say this: I don't believe in anything.

So yes, the multiverse theory has no where near as many points of evidence with it as against it, but I'd like you to look at a few points I think are relevant to the theory.

 

• Steven Hawking has theorized if not nearly proven that the universe once existed as a black hole, this raises many questions on how this black hole came to be, namely where did it get all that mass from? Matter doesn't simply pop into existence and for as much matter as we have in our universe, that's a helleva beastly black hole. 
• There are some specks of evidence and theories out there that predict that a five dimensional star collapsed and spawned the universe or something along those lines, which suggest that our universe isn't alone (Fermi's Paradox also kinda suggests this if the universe can be considered a living being ).
• The theory of Quantum immortality predicts realities which are units much like ticks in a video game where one single action occurs which causes a new reality in which that change is applied, but at the same time all the possibilities for what that action could be exist as realities as well. 

Given this, I think there is some evidence to support the existence of a multiverse, but there are so many different things we have yet to learn about the universe that the true discovery of such a multiverse (If it exists) is probably not going to happen in our lifetimes. However an interesting point: Every single theory you can possibly come up with is true if Quantum immortality is true, because following the line of thought of one action creates a reality, then because of the nearly infinite (if not infinite) number of actions that are possible any such reality you can conceive exists, but you do not exist in it. However, that does not mean that any of those realities you think of exist, or that any theories of a multiverse you think of are true, because of one important fact: We live in our reality, not Tolkien's Middle Earth, or George Lucas' (He created it though he is dead to me) Star Wars, or your reality of whatever the hell it is. This is possible because existence and by consequence scientific fact  is only relevant to the reality it is in, therefore my theory of the universe being a multiverse would never be applicable to another universe because it is confined to my knowledge of this universe, and I would never have knowledge of the physical laws or the reality of the prospective "Other Universe". 

[Area54]

In no particular order:

• Would you mind calling it a hypothesis, rather than a theory? I'm reasonably sure it is not a theory.
• Could you provide relevant citations for your first two bulleted points?
• On the third bullet point, are you trying to describe the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?
• If you were meaning Many Worlds, then in what way do you think it has any bearing on a multiverse hypothesis? (Hint: it probably doesn't)

[DanTrentfield]

On 10/9/2017 at 1:49 PM, Area54 said:

In no particular order:

• Would you mind calling it a hypothesis, rather than a theory? I'm reasonably sure it is not a theory.
• Could you provide relevant citations for your first two bulleted points?
• On the third bullet point, are you trying to describe the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?
• If you were meaning Many Worlds, then in what way do you think it has any bearing on a multiverse hypothesis? (Hint: it probably doesn't)

It is not mine to call a theory. I did not conceive the multiverse theory, or hypothesis, or whatever it is called officially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (I must have been mistaken, I thought the multiverse theory was an official theory.) I just wish there wasn't so much religious and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo surrounding this.

Yes indeed, this is the best I could find about Steven Hawking's prediction of the universe being originally a black hole, in which case my citation of that may be incorrect, if so, my apologies. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

No, specifically this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality as each action produces a different reality according to this, or at least that is what my interpretation of this is. I may once again be incorrect, but that goes without saying as this notion of quantum immortality is a thought experiment. 

Once again, I did not mean the many worlds hypothesis or theory, I was just noting that since time is often thought of as a differential, that if you "magically" stopped time you would be left with a nearly limitless number of possibilities that coexist because the possibility of anything happening is still present, but nothing is occurring. This is merely my thought on the multiverse hypothesis because it seems that it is both under-documented and the times that it is documented there is very little rational thought backing it. Though this is taking into the assumption that the aforementioned thought experiment is true, which it most likely is not. 

All in all, I merely posted this because I believe it shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, because while there is almost no evidence whatsoever to support this, there is an equal lack of convincing evidence against it. We just don't know at this point, which is why I initiated this dialogue.

On 10/9/2017 at 1:03 PM, DanTrentfield said:

So, I've heard this many times: "Those who believe in the multiverse theory either come from a non scientific background and are usually crackpots." But I want to say this: I don't believe in anything.

So yes, the multiverse theory has no where near as many points of evidence with it as against it, but I'd like you to look at a few points I think are relevant to the theory.

 

• Steven Hawking has theorized if not nearly proven that the universe once existed as a black hole, this raises many questions on how this black hole came to be, namely where did it get all that mass from? Matter doesn't simply pop into existence and for as much matter as we have in our universe, that's a helleva beastly black hole. 
• There are some specks of evidence and theories out there that predict that a five dimensional star collapsed and spawned the universe or something along those lines, which suggest that our universe isn't alone (Fermi's Paradox also kinda suggests this if the universe can be considered a living being ).
• The theory of Quantum immortality predicts realities which are units much like ticks in a video game where one single action occurs which causes a new reality in which that change is applied, but at the same time all the possibilities for what that action could be exist as realities as well. 

Given this, I think there is some evidence to support the existence of a multiverse, but there are so many different things we have yet to learn about the universe that the true discovery of such a multiverse (If it exists) is probably not going to happen in our lifetimes. However an interesting point: Every single theory you can possibly come up with is true if Quantum immortality is true, because following the line of thought of one action creates a reality, then because of the nearly infinite (if not infinite) number of actions that are possible any such reality you can conceive exists, but you do not exist in it. However, that does not mean that any of those realities you think of exist, or that any theories of a multiverse you think of are true, because of one important fact: We live in our reality, not Tolkien's Middle Earth, or George Lucas' (He created it though he is dead to me) Star Wars, or your reality of whatever the hell it is. This is possible because existence and by consequence scientific fact  is only relevant to the reality it is in, therefore my theory of the universe being a multiverse would never be applicable to another universe because it is confined to my knowledge of this universe, and I would never have knowledge of the physical laws or the reality of the prospective "Other Universe". 

And I messed up on the wording "therefore my theory"

                                                                               ^

                                                                            The

[Dubbelosix]

Lovely... If you didn't start the topic, I eventually would have started the topic against. I will add something as soon as I can, I take my time, not because I have it though lol

Ok just read some of it... oh dear...  

I read middle earth, had a mind-shock, saw the eye of Sauron only once.

[DanTrentfield]

8 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Lovely... If you didn't start the topic, I eventually would have started the topic against. I will add something as soon as I can, I take my time, not because I have it though lol

Ok just read some of it... oh dear...  

I read middle earth, had a mind-shock, saw the eye of Sauron only once.

I am not a raving frothing madman. I actually am a chemist. But if you follow my rather convoluted train of thought (This was written on little sleep) I basically say this:

Blah blah, the thought experiment of quantum immortality (assuming it is true) supports the multiverse theory in the circumstance of if you stop time you are left with all the possibilities left over from the last moment before you stopped time, forming a nearly limitless number of realities which may occur but have not. Which is the main thought of this. The rest of the post as I have found, is mumbo jumbo, as I had not slept in a while due to someone giving me a paper to write on War and Peace. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[Dubbelosix]

I didn't say you were, and if you found me simplistic in my answer I am sorry, I am not here to offend anyone. 

There is no multiverse... scientists right now are now questioning things like inflation, only because it is leading to crazy megaverses, as Susskind calls them. Though it seems like Susskind is open to the idea, I have had him quote he tends to think the universe is a holograph, but he is a bold thinker anyway. The general feeling with some good scientists is something is definitely wrong with theories that cannot be falsified: Take to date, this is after the discovery of possible cosmic bruising... it just doesn't ring true and where do you go from there?

To me, defence of multiverse will shade into the likes of those who defended anti-Darwinism, 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

the thought experiment of quantum immortality (assuming it is true) supports the multiverse theory

Isn't that about the Many Worlds interpretation, not the multiverse?

[DanTrentfield]

10 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I didn't say you were, and if you found me simplistic in my answer I am sorry, I am not here to offend anyone. 

There is no multiverse... scientists right now are now questioning things like inflation, only because it is leading to crazy megaverses, as Susskind calls them. Though it seems like Susskind is open to the idea, I have had him quote he tends to think the universe is a holograph, but he is a bold thinker anyway. The general feeling with some good scientists is something is definitely wrong with theories that cannot be falsified: Take to date, this is after the discovery of possible cosmic bruising... it just doesn't ring true and where do you go from there?

To me, defecse of multiverse will shade into the likes of those who defended anti-Darwinism, 

 

Offended? Hardly. I am a student, to be the butt of jokes and to make grievous mistakes is my job because it is how you learn.

Yes indeed. I agree with the notion that this is quite similar to defending anti-Darwinism. It is pointless. 

But, I want to preserve this notion of a multiverse as a possibility because there is insignificant information on both sides to support a conclusion of either case, and there is so much left to learn about the universe that we will probably never find this out. So it is best not dismiss the possibility of something you have little to no information on, because that, much like the mumbo jumbo of my sleepily written OP, is assumption.

Edited October 10, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[Dubbelosix]

You can believe what you want of course. No one can take that away from you.

[DanTrentfield]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Isn't that about the Many Worlds interpretation, not the multiverse?

You teach me much.

26 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

You can believe what you want of course. No one can take that away from you.

"I don't believe in anything" Why? Belief is assumption with a fancy tag on it. Assumption is not bad when used correctly, but it can be quite misleading.

                                                                                                   ^

                                                                        Is often riddled with assumption

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

"I don't believe in anything" Why? Belief is assumption with a fancy tag on it.

What about believing something you've thoroughly researched and studied? If you knew everything humans currently know about X, wouldn't your beliefs about X be much more than assumption? At some point, doesn't a belief that's backed up by mountains of evidence become trustworthy?

[Strange]

On 09/10/2017 at 6:03 PM, DanTrentfield said:

So yes, the multiverse theory has no where near as many points of evidence with it as against it, but I'd like you to look at a few points I think are relevant to the theory.

I'm not sure that there is really any evidence for or against it. It is a possible consequence of some big bang models.

One thing I agree with Dubbelosix about is that it is (currently) unfalsifiable. But I don't think that means it should be discounted or considered to be wrong. (I am actually not particularly interested in it for that reason, though.)

It might be that a quantum theory of gravity sheds more light on the early universe. That might make a multiverse model more or less plausible. I think it is one of those things we can never have direct evidence of, but it might seem be an inevitable consequence of some future theory. Or the reverse. (It is all too speculative for me to care much either way!)

Edited October 10, 2017 by Strange

[DanTrentfield]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What about believing something you've thoroughly researched and studied? If you knew everything humans currently know about X, wouldn't your beliefs about X be much more than assumption? At some point, doesn't a belief that's backed up by mountains of evidence become trustworthy?

Agh, *Phi for All uses literalism! It is very effective!*. Yes. 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure that there is really any evidence for or against it. It is a possible consequence of some big bang models.

One thing I agree with Dubbelosix about is that it is (currently) unfalsifiable. But I don't think that means it should be discounted or considered to be wrong. (I am actually not particularly interested in it for that reason, though.)

It might be that a quantum theory of gravity sheds more light on the early universe. That might make a multiverse model more or less plausible. I think it is one of those things we can never have direct evidence of, but it might seem be an inevitable consequence of some future theory. Or the reverse. (It is all too speculative for me to care much either way!)

I agree completely. 

[Strange]

Just came across this blog post. If inflation happened then it suggests that a multiverse is inevitable: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-311fd1825c6

[Butch]

I see the multiverse as a web of black holes each containing a universe which contains black holes...

On 10/23/2017 at 2:48 PM, Strange said:

Just came across this blog post. If inflation happened then it suggests that a multiverse is inevitable: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-311fd1825c6

Excellent article, it has occurred to me that if the universe is infinite it still has a finite number of possibilities defined by physical laws, hence it would reduce to a fractal... An infinite number of the same occurrences.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Butch said:

it has occurred to me that if the universe is infinite it still has a finite number of possibilities defined by physical laws, hence it would reduce to a fractal...

That is a non-sequitur. Unless ...

Quote

An infinite number of the same occurrences.

... you don't know what the word fractal means.

[DrP]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:29 PM, DanTrentfield said:

I am not a raving frothing madman. I actually am a chemist.

....  there is a fine line.