Philosophy Now Forum

In the multiverse, it's said all things are possible. So we can have time running backwards, dark energy accelerating the contraction of the universe, the speed of light isn't a constant, the existence of God, no laws of science to help predict, increasing entropy, etc.

The multiverse is currently just a concept, but what a concept! Have you ever given thought to it? What say you to this?

PhilX

I say: don't care! If I can't know about it, I don't want to waste time trying.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:In the multiverse, it's said all things are possible. So we can have time running backwards, dark energy accelerating the contraction of the universe, the speed of light isn't a constant, the existence of God, no laws of science to help predict, increasing entropy, etc.

Permitting "all things to be possible" would seem to be exceeding the supposed naturalism-prescribed bounds of the system of physics and mathematics which theories or predictions of "many worlds" fall out of to begin with. IOW, such cannot appeal to a deeper level - from whence many diverse systems of cosmic governance could arise - that escapes the very constraints of the working philosophical assumptions and quantitative disciplines that allow it.

IF there was a nomothetic (or better, nomogenic) pre-condition that serves as the "mutable code-base" for these variations in laws or general regularities attributed to multiple universes, then the possibilities engendered from it would still have to fit into the limitations of methodological naturalism and its tools. This nomogenic provenance could not be as free as a supernatural or magical realm in terms of the liberties it granted new or diverging universes; or rather, the science giving theoretical birth to such could not tolerate it slipping away from the apron strings of its most fundamental principles. Physics could make no headway in inferring anything further about it if it was so extra-noumenal. [Going beyond even Kant's conception of the term, since the "nou-" still implies an umbilical connection with reason, even if the validating sensory faculty lacked access or the cognitive forms (categories) remained phenomenally empty.]

.




.......................................LOVE this concept.






..................................................



I have been referring to this as our existence in a multidimensional continuum but the term multiverse is fine also.




Thanks OP.



.

It doesn't seem to me that multiverse is a coherent concept. Could you provide a definition?

Yon Yalvin wrote:It doesn't seem to me that multiverse is a coherent concept. Could you provide a definition?

How about more than one universe with its own set of laws? Would that work for you?

PhilX

It seems interesting yet it is still over-speculating without a more grounded (empirical) perspective. But still, I am interested in looking into the 'higher realms'.

In the multiverse, all possible things exist. This does not mean all things are possible.

So, let me see if i get this wright.


As far as science goes, we most likely seem to live in a uni verse, where thus only one and the opposite would be,
like energy and the absence, light and darkness or something like that. But despite it being a proven fact there is
an actual balance of equilibrium, meaning we would be able to measure the water level in a bathtub as we influence it,
with the bathtub being the universe, it still can be a part of a multi verse. The only way to actually prove this
is to find something outside of this bathtub while it at the same 'time' is inside, but as far as i seem to understand
proving an one and only universe is impossible, simply because maybe there is something more than we are able to perceive.

In other words, measuring no energy doesn't mean there is no energy. There might be something unmeasurable,
or an constant that either doesn't change or changes as it changes all around it with it. Time could have stopped
for an hour in what you experienced to be the last second, but the only way to disprove this seems to be by being
unable to prove it, which is in the end either a lack motivation, accepting it as it is, or maybe just being unable
to prove what actually happened, because perhaps our minds are some what limited.. On the other hand, there
might actually be no energy where you measure none.


Anything possible is also impossible, as long as it isn't actually is of course. who says this is a universe? Maybe its just a
matrix and we're just trying to figure out what has been made by who ever for what ever reason, how ever and why and so on.


It will always be possible we might have forgotten something. Perhaps all the multiverses form an universe in the end,
by having an underlying connection for one complete balance, but maybe that is just part of another multi verse.


Never say never, i suppose.

Questionmark wrote:So, let me see if i get this wright.


As far as science goes, we most likely seem to live in a uni verse, where thus only one and the opposite would be,
like energy and the absence, light and darkness or something like that. But despite it being a proven fact there is
an actual balance of equilibrium, meaning we would be able to measure the water level in a bathtub as we influence it,
with the bathtub being the universe, it still can be a part of a multi verse. The only way to actually prove this
is to find something outside of this bathtub while it at the same 'time' is inside, but as far as i seem to understand
proving an one and only universe is impossible, simply because maybe there is something more than we are able to perceive.

In other words, measuring no energy doesn't mean there is no energy. There might be something unmeasurable,
or an constant that either doesn't change or changes as it changes all around it with it. Time could have stopped
for an hour in what you experienced to be the last second, but the only way to disprove this seems to be by being
unable to prove it, which is in the end either a lack motivation, accepting it as it is, or maybe just being unable
to prove what actually happened, because perhaps our minds are some what limited.. On the other hand, there
might actually be no energy where you measure none.


Anything possible is also impossible, as long as it isn't actually is of course. who says this is a universe? Maybe its just a
matrix and we're just trying to figure out what has been made by who ever for what ever reason, how ever and why and so on.


It will always be possible we might have forgotten something. Perhaps all the multiverses form an universe in the end,
by having an underlying connection for one complete balance, but maybe that is just part of another multi verse.


Never say never, i suppose.

Multiverse theory is largely a product of mathematics. Obviously, multiverses and extra dimensions may or may not exist. We can never hope to make any direct observations.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Ginkgo wrote:We can never hope to make any direct observations.

What do you mean by that? And please tell me where i miss that what is largely a part of math, besides the dimensions?

I understand there are gaps in science, and an extra dimension would possibly explain the hierarchy problem, but tell me how could you prove a universe to be on its own and not part of something more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Questionmark wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:We can never hope to make any direct observations.

What do you mean by that? And please tell me where i miss that what is largely a part of math, besides the dimensions?

I understand there are gaps in science, and an extra dimension would possibly explain the hierarchy problem, but tell me how could you prove a universe to be on its own and not part of something more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Extra dimensions usually means extra degrees of freedom that we don't experience in this world. In our case 3 dimensions of space and one one time. In it impossible for us to imagine what extra dimension s would look like. Mathematics has no problem in dealing in extra dimensions, aka string theory.

As you point out the problem still is explaining why gravity so weak compared to the other fundamental forces. As far as I know string theory postulates that gravity is weak because of other dimensions. The idea being that gravity is a closed loop string, so if this is true then the LHC might be able to detect a graviton disappearing into extra dimensions. A lot of ifs and buts associated with this, especially since the graviton is only a theoretical particle at this stage.

So if a graviton would explain what i want to know i try to prove it false.

if we live in a universe we could never prove it, its only possible to prove there is more..

Questionmark wrote:So if a graviton would explain what i want to know i try to prove it false.

You could, but if it explained what you wanted to to know then I am not sure why you then want to prove it false.

Questionmark wrote: if we live in a universe we could never prove it, its only possible to prove there is more..

I'm not a theoretical physicist so all I can do is give you my understanding. When we collide particles together at near the speed of light a lot of energy is released. If you measured the total energy and found that some of the energy is missing then you can speculate as to where this energy has gone. A theory of extra-dimensions is probably a reasonable hypothesis.

As I say this is my limited understanding of the problem.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:In the multiverse, it's said all things are possible. So we can have time running backwards, dark energy accelerating the contraction of the universe, the speed of light isn't a constant, the existence of God, no laws of science to help predict, increasing entropy, etc.

The multiverse is currently just a concept, but what a concept! Have you ever given thought to it? What say you to this?

PhilX

After a long enough time and considerable complaints from intelligent people within their own ranks, Big Bang cosmologists actually realized that their theory made no sense. Physical singularities do not exist in the real world. (Singularities are mathematical concepts.)

They also figured out that if something kind of like a singularity, a tiny little lump of mass-energy smaller than a proton actually existed, it would be absolutely stable. The near-infinitely massive micro-pea would have wrapped itself in space, akin to a black hole, except worse. It could not have exploded on its own.

Realizing that the Big Bang notion was about 2% theory and 98% dogma, yet needing to protect professorships gleaned by promoting such nonsense, these geniuses did what dogmatists of all stripes do-- they "explained" their nonsense by inventing another theory, The Multiverse, then waving their hands and claiming that somehow their made-up multiverse, which is conveniently infinite in extent, can do whatever it wants.

They learned this bullshit from the Catholic Church. The Multiverse is the scientist-priest's version of an omnipotent God, and is equally absurd.