SpecialGuest Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 If the multiverse theory is true, it means that there are infinite number of planets, in fact infinite number of planets exact same as ours. There are infinite number of ''ME'' out there living the exact same life as me. Now you may agree or disagree of the theory, but if we take the path I did, which is that I believe in the theory, then I want to ask some basic questions:1. If the theory is right and there is infinite multiverses out there , existing for eternity without beginning and without an end, does it mean that I personally , after I die, will live again the EXACT same life as I did this life, because according to quantum physics, energy can't be destroyed. The atoms that makes me ''ME'' will eventually fall in the same order at some point in the infinity and therefore will keep on creating ''me'' over and over again. This idea kind of reminds me of Nietzsche's eternal return theory.2.If your life is hard and you suffer in this world, you are basically entitled for eternal hell, without having the ability to escape, because after you die in this world, you are born in another yet exact same one. Your whole life will be the same again down to every atom, and you will keep repeating the miserable life for eternity. I expect answers that will counter attack my theory with ideas like if the infinity exists then there are infinite number of possible outcomes so ''my'' life will not come to exist because it was one time ''chance'' of happening. However I partly agree with this, even though there would be infinite possibilities , it still doesn't eliminate the reappearance of the same possibility. 1
Klaynos Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 The multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interpretation not a theory. If we go with the interpretation being correct. Then I'm not sure that "you" would live an infinite number of lives, surely it would be an infinite number of "you" each living a life. What this needs is a firm definition of what makes you "you".
SpecialGuest Posted September 24, 2016 Author Posted September 24, 2016 The multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interpretation not a theory. If we go with the interpretation being correct. Then I'm not sure that "you" would live an infinite number of lives, surely it would be an infinite number of "you" each living a life. What this needs is a firm definition of what makes you "you". The basic premise proceeds from the assumption that the probability of a world coming into existence exactly like our own is greater than zero (we know this because our world exists). If space is infinite, then cosmology tells us that our existence will recur an infinite number of times. We also know for a fact that we are made of atoms and particles. Giving infinite time and space, there will eventually be same atoms and particles IN SAME ORDER, therefore our existence is cyclical and not linear. Speaking of logic, the only reasonable answer would be that we indeed are living in an eternal and infinite space, where big bangs are occurring infinitely without need for cause. This would also explain the 'free will' problem. Space doesn't care what you think. Its a random generation of algorithms that will make all possible outcomes reality. For an example; I'm president of US in a parallel universe. And in another universe I'm living in a world where star wars really happened. So according to the eternal return theory, we do not have free will. According to this theory, I will live the same life again and again for eternity. Is this proof that we indeed may be living in hell? A hell we can't escape... ever...
swansont Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 If the theory is right and there is infinite multiverses out there , existing for eternity without beginning and without an end, does it mean that I personally , after I die, will live again the EXACT same life as I did this life, because according to quantum physics, energy can't be destroyed. Dying doesn't violate conservation of energy. There is no conservation of "energy in the exact same configuration"
Strange Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 Also, energy conservation has nothing specifically to do with quantum physics. And, we now know that it is conservation of mass-energy. So energy can be "destroyed" by turning it into matter. Plus, there is no such simple conservation law in GR. So apart from being irrelevant, it is largely wrong.
SpecialGuest Posted September 24, 2016 Author Posted September 24, 2016 So what makes you so sure that our universe is unique and a one time event? If the bubble multiverse theory is true, it means that there will be infinite universes coming to existence without end. That also means that our universe will come to existence again. As a matter of fact it always has...
Strange Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 So what makes you so sure that our universe is unique and a one time event? Who said that they are sure of that?
SpecialGuest Posted September 24, 2016 Author Posted September 24, 2016 Who said that they are sure of that? wait for it.
swansont Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 wait for it. Why? Because in some other universe someone has made the claim? One of the constraints of many worlds is that you don't have access to any of the other universes. So would it really be you? It's probably the same conundrum if we discussed the same issue about clones. (#SendInTheClones)
SpecialGuest Posted September 24, 2016 Author Posted September 24, 2016 Why? Because in some other universe someone has made the claim? One of the constraints of many worlds is that you don't have access to any of the other universes. So would it really be you? It's probably the same conundrum if we discussed the same issue about clones. (#SendInTheClones) Just because we don't have access and maybe never will to test multiverse theory, doesnt mean its not existing. The logic tells me that our universe is not unique and why should it be? In my head I can only think of infinity and in infinity everything that can happen will happen. So if we already exist, then the premise of our universe means that it will keep on repeating itself because of infinite space and time but also energy.. Its like a company that have infinite materials, they can keep on producing the same phones forever...
DrmDoc Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 Just because we don't have access and maybe never will to test multiverse theory, doesnt mean its not existing. The logic tells me that our universe is not unique and why should it be? In my head I can only think of infinity and in infinity everything that can happen will happen. So if we already exist, then the premise of our universe means that it will keep on repeating itself because of infinite space and time but also energy.. Its like a company that have infinite materials, they can keep on producing the same phones forever... Although the logic, ideas, interpretations, and theories about a thing exist, those aren't tangible evidence that it actually does. A belief without observable, factual evidence is faith and religion--which isn't science or scientific.
SpecialGuest Posted September 25, 2016 Author Posted September 25, 2016 Although the logic, ideas, interpretations, and theories about a thing exist, those aren't tangible evidence that it actually does. A belief without observable, factual evidence is faith and religion--which isn't science or scientific. Yet.. no one said that we can't test multiverse in future.
DrmDoc Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 Yet.. no one said that we can't test multiverse in future. I'm not denying your faith in what future testing may or may not reveal. I'm merely saying that faith in an idea without rigorous, provable evidence in science is merely religion--which is the antithesis of science.
SpecialGuest Posted September 25, 2016 Author Posted September 25, 2016 I'm not denying your faith in what future testing may or may not reveal. I'm merely saying that faith in an idea without rigorous, provable evidence in science is merely religion--which is the antithesis of science. pardon me, but if we dont have evidence for alien life yet, does our mathematical predictions tells us we are alone in the universe?
DrmDoc Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) pardon me, but if we dont have evidence for alien life yet, does our mathematical predictions tells us we are alone in the universe? Although statistically it is highly likely we are not, we are alone until tangible or observable evidence proves we are not. Furthermore, reservations about whether we are alone in the universe isn't a deterrent to our continued efforts to prove we are not--just as present-day levels of testing are not a deterrent to future efforts to prove your idea of a multiverse. However, until such proof is provided, multiverses do not exist. Edited September 25, 2016 by DrmDoc
SpecialGuest Posted September 25, 2016 Author Posted September 25, 2016 Although statistically it is highly likely we are not, we are alone until tangible or observable evidence proves we are not. Furthermore, reservations about whether we are alone in the universe isn't a deterrent to our continued efforts to prove we are not--just as present-day levels of testing are not a deterrent to future efforts to prove your idea of a multiverse. However, until such proof is provided, multiverses do not exist. What do you think whats outside our universe? A wall? Or do you think that logically speaking there is a vast infinity with all possible configurations? Let's speak out of logic and probability not actual something we can prove.
DrmDoc Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) What do you think whats outside our universe? A wall? Or do you think that logically speaking there is a vast infinity with all possible configurations? Let's speak out of logic and probability not actual something we can prove. I conceptualize the universe as a bubble expanding into to nothingness--meaning nothing exists outside or beyond our universe. This infers that our universe has boundaries; however, as I've tried to explain, there's distinction between what I conceive and what I believe. What I conceive isn't evidence of fact or probability as what I decide to believe surely must be. Edited September 25, 2016 by DrmDoc
SpecialGuest Posted September 25, 2016 Author Posted September 25, 2016 I conceptualize the universe as a bubble expanding into to nothingness--meaning nothing exists outside or beyond our universe. This infers that our universe has boundaries; however, as I've tried to explain, there's distinction between what I conceive and what I believe. What I conceive isn't evidence of fact or probability as what I decide believe surely must be. Yeah I understand that but when you say you believe our universe is a bubble expanding into nothingsness, then I assume that we came from something and what is it that makes you believe that there isnt anything outside our bubble?
DrmDoc Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 Yeah I understand that but when you say you believe our universe is a bubble expanding into nothingsness, then I assume that we came from something and what is it that makes you believe that there isnt anything outside our bubble? I've observed or received no tangible evidence confirming that anything does exist outside our universe.
SpecialGuest Posted September 25, 2016 Author Posted September 25, 2016 I've observed or received no tangible evidence confirming that anything does exist outside our universe. yeah I understand, it was merely a question of belief. For some reason I can't grasp the idea of everything that exist is finite.
DrmDoc Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 yeah I understand, it was merely a question of belief. For some reason I can't grasp the idea of everything that exist is finite. I have a similar issue with the idea that something can essential arise from nothing, which is a idea many respected physicists believe.
Mordred Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) I have a similar issue with the idea that something can essential arise from nothing, which is a idea many respected physicists believe. Thats not as popular an idea as pop media may lead you to believe. I would suggest more feel that the cyclic models are more likely. The problem universe from nothing models fail to adequately adress is that it takes energy for virtual particles to form. The zero energy universe uses a balancing act to accomodate this. However uses psuodo tensors to describe curvature. Many frown upon this. Out of the numerous "universe from nothing" models this is probably one of the more sucessful in popularity. Though Lawrence Krauss's model may seem more popular the zero energy model was more widely accepted yeah I understand, it was merely a question of belief. For some reason I can't grasp the idea of everything that exist is finite. Funny I find something existing for infinity more unlikely. Good thing science doesn't rely on personal feelings Edited September 25, 2016 by Mordred 1
SpecialGuest Posted September 26, 2016 Author Posted September 26, 2016 Thats not as popular an idea as pop media may lead you to believe. I would suggest more feel that the cyclic models are more likely. The problem universe from nothing models fail to adequately adress is that it takes energy for virtual particles to form. The zero energy universe uses a balancing act to accomodate this. However uses psuodo tensors to describe curvature. Many frown upon this. Out of the numerous "universe from nothing" models this is probably one of the more sucessful in popularity. Though Lawrence Krauss's model may seem more popular the zero energy model was more widely accepted Funny I find something existing for infinity more unlikely. Good thing science doesn't rely on personal feelings so you believe that if we could go beyond our universe there is a limit? A wall?
Mordred Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 (edited) No I wouldn't try to place a measurable boundary to our universe. The thing is science cannot prove or disprove a multiverse. Nor has science been able to determine whether our universe is finite or infinite. A multiverse doesn't preclude the possibility of an infinite universe. You can possibly have an infinite number of infinite universes. As science can neither prove nor disprove these mathematically accurate possibilities. The best we can say is its plausible. Beyond that its sheer wild guesses. Edited September 26, 2016 by Mordred
SpecialGuest Posted September 26, 2016 Author Posted September 26, 2016 No I wouldn't try to place a measurable boundary to our universe. The thing is science cannot prove or disprove a multiverse. Nor has science been able to determine whether our universe is finite or infinite. A multiverse doesn't preclude the possibility of an infinite universe. You can possibly have an infinite number of infinite universes. As science can neither prove nor disprove these mathematically accurate possibilities. The best we can say is its plausible. Beyond that its sheer wild guesses. wait what? Isnt big bang proof that our universe is finite?
Recommended Posts