Multiverse theory?

Really? Are you kidding me. Is this what someone made up because the odds are so astronomically high that there is no way this could be a matter of chance? Definitely this is not science. Not even close. And absolutely no evidence at all to support this.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Abstraction · 61-69, M

It's a rational possibility, but it isn't science. I do suspect for many it's a hiding place based on the recognition of strong emergence and understanding of fine tuning questions. I suspect that from listening to some (not all) of the prominent physicists and the way they posit it.
This is a very discussion of it.
[media=https://youtu.be/QHa1vbwVaNU]
Some really stupid discussions associated with this - people often say, everywhere, that if there are infinite universes then there must be a universe exactly the same as this one except you are wearing a different coloured shirt or a universe where spiders drive cars. I've heard intelligent people make this logical error. This is simply equivocation on the meaning of 'infinite'. Infinite means unlimited in number, it isn't required to be unlimited in variety.
There is an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2, and none of them are 3.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Abstraction You are equivocating upon the meaning of "infinity", which ought to necessarily imply that an unlimited number of universes would *have* to include an unlimited *variety*, since "infinite" is not posited, a priori, to have restrictions such as the one you impose in an ad hoc manner.

The point about fractions between two integers being different than the fractions between two other integers is true but has no projection on the problem which you claim to address.

That's a logical problem.

But I'm not sure you understand the multiverse concept other than as discussed by persons who think movies somehow "got it right".

Abstraction · 61-69, M

@SomeMichGuy No, sorry. I understand precisely what I mean. Infinite number of universes does not require that every logical possibility is included in the set. This is quite basic logic. Infinite ≠everything. It means unlimited in one or more specific aspects. Infinite intelligence doesn't have to mean infinite power. etc.

And my information is not from movies but from some of the best physicists. The people I poke fun at, ie, 'different coloured shirt' - are not physicists but many are reasonably intelligent and fall into the same trap of equivocation, confusing the concepts of infinite and everything.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Abstraction LOL

You can definitely posit an infinite number of Ford cars, red buttons, blue mackeral, etc., as the terms of some imaginary set for purposes of argument.

There is no a priori reason why, if there *is* some form of multiverse, that any such crazy straightjacket could be a condition imposed on the variety.

In particular, it would violate a fundamental principle that what is not forbidden is allowed. There is no rational way to say that shirts of a given color are somehow forbidden somewhere in an infinite ensemble of universes.

If you want to posit such things for purposes of discussion (the set of universes not having a certain shirt), go ahead. But don't pretend that that means that you can restrict nature in such an arbitrary fashion.

Abstraction · 61-69, M

@SomeMichGuy Didn't realise my draft had posted. I clarified in the meantime.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Abstraction Your clarification doesn't make it right with respect to the infinite *universes*.

Abstraction · 61-69, M

@SomeMichGuy Rather, your 'clarification' and logic doesn't comprehend the problem. Infinite doesn't require every possibility to be filled in order to be infinite. If you think so you're missing very basic logic. And there is nothing inherently in the multiverse theory that requires every possible variety. Prove it (your statement above doesn't come close.) Why should it include all possible permutations? If your mind says, 'because then it wouldn't be infinite' then you've fallen into a bit of a logical hole.