So you might have an evil twin out there in the Multiverse...

[Kelli Fury]

If there is a universe that was equipped with a more nefarious me out there , it is definitely destroyed by now.

[Weeping Sore]

Weeping Sore,

What's wrong with a priori?

Well some a priori thinking is necessary to maintain a rigorous, consistent framework of thought. But it's by definition an unexamined assumption, something we already "know" to be true.

Take Einstein's theory of special relativity for example. A contemporary of Einstein's might have said, "We know that space and time are constant. They do not dilate or contract." How would they have known this? Just a priori, something they already knew to be true. Of course according to Eintein's (now nearly universally accepted) theory, this is not true. So that's the problem with a priori truths; sometimes they are not actually true.

Now special relativity can't be proven absolutely conclusively. It demonstrates internal logical rigor and is bourne out by continued scientific observation, so it is well supported. But I suppose you could come up with some other explanation of the results of measurements made at high relative speed and continue to assert that space and time are immutable if you wanted to hold onto that a priori truth. Just as pre-copernicans drafted extremely complicated charts to show the sun and planets all revolving around the Earth. The chart of the planets (including Earth) revolving around the sun is of course much simpler.

This is what the multiple worlds theory seems like to me. An inelligant, brute-force solution to avoid jettisoning the a priori truth that the universe is materially determined.

[Sci-2]

Weeping Sore,

What's wrong with a priori?

He's saying that the MWI was constructed to escape certain conclusions. I kind of lean toward agreeing with him on that.

Ron Garret sort of says the same thing in that Google talk I've mentioned here & there. I do think the conclusion that, as Garret puts it, "We are our thoughts", might have more impact on philosophy than the MWI...not that I fully groked the explanation for why he thinks the MWI versus Idealism-of-a-sort are our only options.

I prefer to remain agnostic until we have some more conclusive evidence, though the possibilities are truly fascinating.

[1918me]

Like Fez, I prefer to just stick with Futurama's theory and be done with it.

[Reposado]

first i think we need to expand the multiverse to three. after all, it isnt as if noone in this universe wears a hat. logically that implies three universes. our universe, in which some wear hats. one all hat universe. and one no hat universe

[all swedes are racist]

and one no hat universe

Ugh. That should be the first universe we destroy. Fucking savages.

[IheartIheartTesla]

The ultimate multiverse supercharges that idea: it says that anything that is logically possible (as defined by mathematics rather than by physical reality) is actually real.

How about a universe in which the multiverse is not true? Since that is definitely logically possible and doesnt contradict anything, such a universe must be real. So we have a paradox where our universe states that the multiverse is true, and this other universe where the multiverse is not true. I see no way of reconciling this without assuming that universe is the same as our universe. QED.

[Francis Buck]

How about a universe in which the multiverse is not true? Since that is definitely logically possible and doesnt contradict anything, such a universe must be real. So we have a paradox where our universe states that the multiverse is true, and this other universe where the multiverse is not true. I see no way of reconciling this without assuming that universe is the same as our universe. QED.

How is a universe within a greater multiverse where "there is no multiverse" in any way a logical possibility? The possibility isn't logical if aforementioned multiverse exists.

[ThinkerX]

I have to take the stance put forth by Baggot in 'Farewell to Reality':

Many of the 'theories' in modern physics - such as string theory or dark energy or the multiverse concept - are not really theories, but mathematical concepts lacking any sort of verifiable evidence.

Not saying they're false, just saying no evidence.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

IHT,

You can't perceive it therefore it cannot be real and it's a waste of time to look for it. That's my problem with materialism, right there.

Fez,

If some of the multiverse hypothesis are correct the hat universe exists.

Wouldn't materialism say: "You can't percieve it, therefore we have no way of determining whether or not it can be real"? Saying it "cannot be real" is a claim put forth about a position, requiring evidence. Witholding belief about something that you cannot determine to be true or not sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[sologdin]

gah. i'm gonna hunt down and destroy my copies. time to go highlander on those motherfuckers.

[TrueMetis]

Edit: nevermind.

[Francis Buck]

Is that not the stuff of paradox?

Sure, but then it seems silly to call it a logical possibility. If I propose that there's a multiverse, but in one of those universes nothingness exists, is that a logical possibility? If you're already presupposing a hypothetical multiverse then I don't see how a paradoxical concept within that framework is somehow a logical possibility. If anything it's the opposite.

[Tears of Lys]

My evil twin would be a multiverse groupie.

Your evil twin would heartEdison. :smug:

[Francis Buck]

Sorry, I responded to your last post kind of as a post in and unto itself rather than a post that took into context the previous.

For what it's worth, I feel I should clarify, since this is one of those topics where semantics can get weird.

The statement: "It's definitely logically possible that, from the perspective of our universe, there is no multiverse," is completely fine. Nothing wrong with that at all.

However, the statement: "There's a multiverse, but in one of those universes the multiverse doesn't exist,"...well, okay. Nice paradox. What's the point? It's like a paradox for the sake of a paradox. What are we learning here? The very idea of a multiverse precludes the notion of a "universe where there is no multiverse". It's not a logical possibility because it makes no sense (thus, a paradox). So in the end I'm left wondering, what's the point of this idea? It doesn't really achieve anything. Again I reference the "multiverse where one universe is complete nothingness". It's nonsensical. You cannot have a universe of ANY KIND that includes true nothingness, and likewise you can't have a multiverse where one particular universe has laws that say...there's no such thing as a multiverse. It's kinda one or the other. The whole point of the multiverse (though I prefer OMNI-verse) theory, to me, is that anything that can exist (logically), does exist. A universe, within that model, where there's no such thing as an omniverse, simply doesn't make sense logically.

Infinity's a strange, strange thing. It sometimes (even often) represents something different than what people take it to mean (I.E. endlessness).

To further clarify: I'm not actually directing my thoughts at anyone in particular, just kinda fleshing out what I think about the topic at hand.

[Sci-2]

What Universe Is This, Anyway?

Let's take a walk on the wild side and assume, for the sake of argument, that our universe is not the only one; let's say there are many others, possibly infinitely many, "out there." The totality of this bizarre ensemble is what cosmologists call the "multiverse," a hypothesis that sounds more mythic than scientific, a conceptual troublemaker that inspires some and outrages others.

It all started in the 1980s, when physicists , from Stanford University, and , from Tufts University, independently proposed that if the universe underwent a very fast expansion early on in its existence — what is called an inflationary expansion — then our universe is not the only one.

[DaveSumm]

I picture the multiverse like a giant revolving door, each universe being one section of it. The distance between the doors and the floor is the Planck length, so as far as subatomic particles are concerned there are no doors; they're free to mingle and bump into all the other subatomic particles from all the other sections. Us tall people can't even see the gap, let alone get under it, so we're confined to our section. If we were to carry out a double slit experiment on the floor, the particles in our section alone can't account for the interference pattern we see emerging, but that's because we are discounting the other sections. Neighbouring particles are interfering with a system we're assuming is a closed system when it isn't.

The trouble is, science fiction has been far more responsible for most people's perception of the multiverse than actual science. The idea that at every decision faced, the universe rips in two and goes in both directions only ends up returning us to the anthropocentrism we were trying to avoid; I see no reason to believe the universe rips at any point, nor that it recognises our decisions as anything special. It is simply one grand multi-physics at work, one that could potentially lead us back to the determinism we abandoned last century.

So yes, the idea that a universe could exist where the multiverse doesn't is flawed; that wouldn't be permitted by multi-physics. Nor would prevalence or non prevalence of hats, I suspect.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Is that not the stuff of paradox?

What's that? My face feels like it's about to unclench... the thing called larry is confused....

[IheartIheartTesla]

To me the fact that these universes have to follow the rules of logic rather than physics is a bug not a feature. But I have not much more to say on the topic.

[Weeping Sore]

I picture the multiverse like a giant revolving door, each universe being one section of it. The distance between the doors and the floor is the Planck length, so as far as subatomic particles are concerned there are no doors; they're free to mingle and bump into all the other subatomic particles from all the other sections. Us tall people can't even see the gap, let alone get under it, so we're confined to our section. If we were to carry out a double slit experiment on the floor, the particles in our section alone can't account for the interference pattern we see emerging, but that's because we are discounting the other sections. Neighbouring particles are interfering with a system we're assuming is a closed system when it isn't.

The trouble is, science fiction has been far more responsible for most people's perception of the multiverse than actual science. The idea that at every decision faced, the universe rips in two and goes in both directions only ends up returning us to the anthropocentrism we were trying to avoid; I see no reason to believe the universe rips at any point, nor that it recognises our decisions as anything special. It is simply one grand multi-physics at work, one that could potentially lead us back to the determinism we abandoned last century.

consciousness's role only equals anthropocentrism if you're talking about human consciousness exclusively. And your multi-physics doesn't remove the role of observation/consciousness. Because why do the particles decide not to slide through the gap and interfere when we're looking/measuring?

The universe is a field of consciousness and matter is its epiphenomenon.