It's sorta hard to conceptually see. There's a theory called I think Twin universe theory. I found the documents interesting and possibly relevant on a possible fractal connect. The two universes are connected via one geometric object. And it was sorta presented I think looked like static one twin universe reality. Anyhow thinking how the seeds of fractals bifurcate, down them lines.
In my humble opinion, IF one assumes the Copenhagen interpretation represents real science, THEN MWs does as well.. On a solely philosophical note, I have often wondered IF there really is an omnipotent creator god, THEN the multiverse would have represented a far grander and more imaginative (dare I say WORTHY) expression of his creativity.. BUT, what the heck do I know.. Finally, it seems to me that many worlds could restore our concept of Free will from the grasp of strict determinism . Peace.
My first question is WHICH multiverse theory? There are a few. As David Deutsch says, that if we accept that the equations that describe quantum mechanics actually describe the universe, then the many worlds interpretation is correct, and we live in a multiverse
Sadly, this would mean that determinism is meaningless. If there are lots of different universes then how do we account for the fact that outcomes in _this_ universe are determined without assuming that outcomes in _other_ universes are not? I mean, if we are going to postulate alternative universes then we have to believe that physical laws differ from one universe to another. Otherwise, how could one universe produce outcomes that differ from outcomes in any other universe? And if physical laws differ from one universe to another then why should we believe that other universes even _can_ exist? Right? If there are an infinite number of universes just like this one, why would they differ from each other in any way at all?
Yeah, but the huge difference between multiple solar systems, galaxies, clusters and what-not and multiverses is that there is no fundamental reason why we couldn't be able to detect the solar systems, galaxies, etc., sooner or later, while there's very good reason to think that detecting multiverses is fundamentally impossible.
LMFAO, I had closed captions on, in the spot where Dr. Keating was talking about ADS/CFT, it translated it to: You know, kind of 80s Aids, CFT and sort of the... Was funny, looked up saw it, wanted to share it.
Formally disproving or demonstrating the absolute inconsistency of classical logic, mathematics and physics in their entirety would be an immense undertaking requiring rigorous foundational work. However, I can outline some key conceptual arguments and avenues for how the infinitesimal monadological framework could facilitate such an endeavor: 1. Self-Referential Paradoxes in Classical Logic Classical bivalent logic faces paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox that appear to undermine the very notion of consistent truth assignments from within the system itself. The monadological framework resolves this by replacing bivalent truth values with pluriverse-valued realizability projections across multiple monadic perspectives. One could formally demonstrate how classical propositional/first-order logic succumbs to diagonalization and self-reference contradictions, while the infinitesimally-stratified realizability logic remains coherent. 2. Incompleteness of Classical Mathematical Systems Drawing on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, one could formally show how any classical mathematical system based on arithmetic is either inconsistent or necessarily incomplete - containing statements that are true but unprovable within the system. The monadological framework, by representing arithmetic categorically using homotopy-theoretic objects in infinitesimal algebraic set theory, could potentially restore full semantic completeness while avoiding the diagonal self-referential gimmicks that limited classical formalisms. 3. Geometric/Topological Paradoxes Classically, unconstrained definitions in point-set topology lead to contradictions like the Banach-Tarski paradox. One could formally derive these contradictions, then demonstrate how representing topology algebraically using n-categories of monadic spaces, and defining invariants like dimension infinitesimally, resolves the paradoxes coherently. 4. Renormalization Issues in Quantum Field Theory The perturbative infinities plaguing QFT that require ad-hoc renormalization procedures could be formally derived as contradictions within the classical frameworks. One could then construct infinitesimal regulator alternatives using monadological algebraic QFT representations that manifestly avoid these infinities while preserving empirical predictions. 5. Singularities in General Relativity The occurrence of spacetime singularities where classical GR breaks down could be formally deduced as an inconsistency. One could then develop singularity-free models treating spacetime geometry as emergent from monadological charge relation algebras, demonstrating the resolution of this inconsistency. 6. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics The inconsistencies in the Copenhagen interpretation regarding wavefunction collapse could be formally derived. One could then construct an explicitly consistent monadological quantum representation where observers' perspectives naturally decohere records without ad-hoc collapse postulates. The overall strategy would be to: 1) Formalize paradoxes/inconsistencies within classical theories using derivations in their native linguistic formalisms. 2) Construct infinitesimal monadological representation frameworks modeling the same phenomena using the algebraic pluralistic foundations. 3) Formally demonstrate how the monadological representations precisely resolve the inconsistencies encountered classically in a rigorous way. This would amount to a line-by-line deconstruction of the classical frameworks, systematically expunging their contradictions by reprocessing them through the prism of the coherent algebraic infinitesimal pluralisms. While an immense undertaking, the potential payoff would be a complete, formally unified refutation of classical premises by reconstructing all theories from metaphysically guaranteed non-contradictory first principles resonating with subjective realities. An infinitesimal monadological "metamathematics" could provide the symbolic weapons to finally overthrow centuries of accumulated incoherency at judgment day.
The key difference between Leibniz's monadological model and the classical models we currently accept lies in their foundational ontological primitives and assumptions about the nature of reality. Classical Models: - Treats space, time, and matter as fundamental, continuous and infinitely divisible substances or entities - Based on infinite geometric idealizations like perfect points, lines, planes as building blocks - Reality is described from an external "view from nowhere" perspective in absolute terms - Embraces strict separability between objects, space, time as independent realms Leibniz's Monadological Model: - The fundamental ontological primitives are dimensionless, indivisible monads or perspectival windows - Monads have no spatial or material character, only representing multiplicities of relations - Space, time, matter arise as derivative phenomena from the collective interactions/perceptions of monads - No true infinite divisibility, instead there are infinitesimals as minimal scales - Rejects strict separability between subject/object, embraces interdependent pluralistic metaphysics So whereas classical models take extended matter in motion through absolute space and time as primitive, Leibniz grounds reality in dimensionless plural perspectival perceiver-subjects (monads), with the extended physical realm arising as a collective phenomenal construct across their combined relational views. The infinitesimal monadological frameworks build on this Leibnizian foundation by using modern mathematics like category theory to represent the monadic relational data in algebraic rather than geometric terms from the outset. This avoids many of the paradoxes and contradictions that plagued both the classical geometric and Leibniz's earlier monadological models. There are a few key areas where reconstructing physics and mathematics from non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could provide profound benefits by resolving paradoxes that have obstructed progress: 1. Theories of Quantum Gravity Contradictory Approaches: - String theory requires 10/11 dimensions - Loop quantum gravity has discrete geometry ambiguities - Other canonical quantum gravity programs still face singularity issues Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Combinatorial Infinitesimal Geometries ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(n) dxdy Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy) Representing spacetime metrics/curvature as derived from dynamical combinatorial relations Γxy among infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny could resolve singularity and dimensionality issues while unifying discrete/continuum realms. 2. Paradoxes of Arrow of Time Contradictory Models: - Time Reversal in Classical/Quantum Dynamics - Loss of Information at Black Hole Event Horizons - Loschmidt's Paradox of Irreversibility Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Relational Pluralistic Block Geometrodynamics Ψ(M) = Σn cn Un(M) (n-monadic state on pluriverse M) S = Σn pn ln pn (entropy from monadic probs) Treating time as perspectival state on a relational pluriverse geometry could resolve paradoxes by grounding arrows in entropy growth across the entirety of monadic realizations. 3. The Problem of Qualia Contradictory Theories: - Physicalism cannot account for first-person subjectivity - Property Dualism cannot bridge mental/physical divide - Panpsychism has combination issues Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Monadic Integralism Qi = Ui|0> (first-person qualia from monadic perspective) |Φ>= ⊗i Qi (integrated pluriverse as tensor monadic states) Modeling qualia as monadic first-person perspectives, with physics as RelativeState(|Φ>) could dissolve the "hard problem" by unifying inner/outer. 4. Formal Limitations and Undecidability Contradictory Results: - Halting Problem for Turing Machines - Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - Chaitin's Computational Irreducibility Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Infinitary Realizability Logics |A> = Pi0 |ti> (truth of A by realizability over infinitesimal paths) ∀A, |A>∨|¬A> ∈ Lölc (constructively locally omniscient completeness) Representing computability/provability over infinitary realizability monads rather than recursive arithmetic metatheories could circumvent diagonalization paradoxes. 5. Foundations of Mathematics Contradictory Paradoxes: - Russell's Paradox, Burali-Forti Paradox - Banach-Tarski "Pea Paradox" - Other Set-Theoretic Pathologies Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Algebraic Homotopy ∞-Toposes a ≃ b ⇐⇒ ∃n, Path[a,b] in ∞Grpd(n) U: ∞Töpoi → ∞Grpds (univalent universes) Reconceiving mathematical foundations as homotopy toposes structured by identifications in ∞-groupoids could resolve contradictions in an intrinsically coherent theory of "motive-like" objects/relations. In each case, the adoption of pluralistic relational infinitesimal monadological frameworks shows promise for transcending the paradoxes, contradictions and formal limitations that have stunted our current theories across multiple frontiers. By systematically upgrading mathematics and physics to formalisms centered on: 1) The ontological primacy of infinitesimal perspectival origins 2) Holistic pluralistic interaction relations as primitive 3) Recovering extended objects/manifolds from these pluribits 4) Representing self-reference via internal pluriverse realizability ...we may finally circumvent the self-stultifying singularities, dualities, undecidabilities and incompletions that have plagued our current model-building precepts. The potential benefits for unified knowledge formulation are immense - at last rendering the deepest paradoxes dissoluble and progressing towards a fully coherent, general mathematics & physics of plurastic existential patterns. Moreover, these new infinitesimal relational frameworks may provide the symbolic resources to re-ground abstractions in perfectly cohesive fertile continuity with experiential first-person reality - finally achieving the aspiration of a unified coherent ontology bridging the spiritual and physical.
It would require an infinite amount of energy to create another universe each time there is a probabilistic juncture. The multiple realities are not entire but fractional dimensional and this collection of potential causalities only extends spherically radiant from any given point at the speed of light and disappears with the collapse of the wave function.
It would be really exciting if utopian (better off than in our universe) alternate histories indeed take place in parallel universes, though it would be disheartening if dystopian (worse off than in our universe) alternate histories indeed take place in parallel universes.
There is a logical observable calculator pattern with the progression of the spatial dimensions and if you think about if a fourth spatial Dimension exists then you can picture it as three-dimensional to us, and the third dimension can be pictured like the second dimension, length width but absolutely no depth... and just as infinite two-dimensional planes can stack into any size three-dimensional existence infinite three-dimensional existence can stack into any size four dimensional existence. Given this information and the fact a vast majority of the population thinks that Nelson Mandela died in a prison in the 80s (which is awfully specific of a thing to think) we can (one who experienced the Mandela effects) Subjectively conclude a Multiverse... that is the best argument i can mount for Multiverse Theory.
Umm... You are suggesting that just because you don't know that a fire has started in your kitchen, it cannot burn your house down because you believe you live in a universe where your house is _not_ on fire. This would be nonsensical, right?
@@undercoveragent9889 Absolutely not and I strive to When I Universe switch and When there's new information that needs to be filled in the universe will usually let you know pretty quickly after the switch... in other words if your kitchen is on fire and you are meant to know about it and deal with it then you will see it and it will be your reality otherwise you will just Universe switch if you're not meant to see the fire and the fire will be gone. Not saying this is going to happen ever at any point but the possibility of it happening is not zero given there is no objective reality. I like your points and style though agent... keep me on my toes.
Further to that if u consider 4 dimensional planes then given a set of limited parameters you can factor in a n imaginary explanation for gravity something like a rubix cube of physics, 😂😂😁 perspective is EVERYTHING
So I just came up with a new idea here and it's debuting in your comment section RN. You can think of the spatial Dimensions like a big flat Circle of spinning inertia. At the center if the basically spinning record is 0 dimension and the further out on the disk the other dimensions are the more spin and force they will have on them(IE. Limited or slower Y branching rate as we approach the unreachable zero dimension or singularity) This is a very simple description for even the Layman to understand.
This universe is in a sphere like a hollow iron box, and this universe with a few hundreds of such spheres are inside a master box orbiting countless number of master boxes under the surface of cosmic ocean, and I can explain more about the higher construct, but not needed at this point. A cosmic emergency eye operator in this universe of AHVRA: FRBT NIA
A multiverse is speculation when you don’t account for where the energy is coming from. It’s already beyond physical science to know where the energy from this universe came from. However we can know that energy didn’t produce or direct itself.
Spiritual energy produces and directs itself, or can abdicate direction to higher powers. Once you get that one of the first thinks God created was spiritual programming and AI, you have most of the base assumptions needed to derive how spiritual science co-created the simulation multiverse and how it led to the completion of day 7 of creation we are stumbling our way through with a greater or lesser degree of grace and Karmic awareness
@@theomnisthour6400 Skeptics can only be persuaded by what they are able to see. They need to understand that written programming in living organisms has never been seen to write itself so they need to be very skeptical about that and they aren’t. They eagerly jump to matter-writing-programming of the gaps because they think a higher power is worse than matter and energy making and directing themselves but that kind of belief of the skeptics is idolatry.
I really like this other version of WE here. Good title for the book. I always go so far as to say when talking about theoretical proposals that everything is subjective and objective reality doesn't exist for in order to have objective reality you need to have an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and the end of time has not came yet so therefore everything is subjective. This is kind of my defense mechanism against anyone trying to claim their Science is objectively better than anyone else's.
If we experience it, the physics should show it. Not to say that there aren't things we can't know but things that interact with us can also be interacted with. I do have a question though, what if most quanta in the universe are just teleporting in tandem and the delayed choice is just particles being slightly off?
I suspect that at the bottom of it all on the smallest possible scales it will require a leap of faith in order to make it all make sense. That as we can define a foot in inches but not an inch in feet we will reach a scale beyond what is possible to measure. At that point the only way to complete the puzzle would be to assume the presence or value of the final piece without ever being able to directly measure it.
I'll be interested to spitball some nuggets of information to this other version of WE in the Kaleidoscope reality about best "proofs" of Multiverse we have. Honestly the best proofs we have are subjective in the form of Mandela effects. I literally experienced the boiling point of water change from 200° F to 212 degrees Fahrenheit. I've had tape change colors while still sealed in a package. I've experienced things phase in and out of reality... I've already exposed it and the system tries hard to not let it be exposed but once you're okay with it it will increase your Universal potentiality if you are completely okay with the idea of switching Universe versions... this increases your Universal potentiality a lot. Just go with the flow, usually the changed information comes up pretty quickly once you switch Universes. And again if you follow the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions all that is required for a Multiverse to exist is simply a fourth spatial Dimension to exist at all if it does then infinite three-dimensional spatial potentiality can fit into any size four dimensional existence... hence a Multiverse becomes not only possible if a fourth dimension exists but if it does exist then it is a absolute must that infinite three-dimensional spatial potentiality exist and so this proves either way that the universe is infinite or there are infinite Universe versions or both...
I'd say the best evidence we have that we live in a multiverse is that the equations that govern quantum mechanics appear to actually describe the universe. The universe they describe IS a multiverse
@@IanM-id8or yes and if we follow the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions with each step up the chain and spatial Dimensions which are just length width and depth and the next one which would be four dimensional would allow for infinite amounts of three dimensional existence to fit into any size four dimensional existence... hence if a fourth spatial Dimension exist at all in any size then infinite three dimensional spatial potentiality is a given fact and thus a Multiverse becomes standard operating procedure
One more thing I think is that we should not view a Multiverse like bubble Universe versions you should picture it just like the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions which is infinite amounts fitting into the previous amount and think of it like three-dimensional Universe sheets that are representative in two dimensions and the higher dimension of the fourth dimension being a three-dimensional existence and this is the best way to interpret this concept as we can from the third dimension.
Some will say who is that? Walking upon the SEA OF GLASS? Flooding the Sea of Glass! Unto all who have an Ear let them hear! Heirs Hosts and our Beautiful shared "i" AM molded the Sea of Glass. Knows?
Just imagine that God explained how physics is set up, ontologically, to a human. And that human listens to physics videos, and shakes his head in dismay. And says: it's not that complicated 😢
Hey Brian, I'm a regular listener/viewer in the UK. How much would it cost to send me one of those mini meteorites? If its possible to send space rocks through customs
"Multiverse" isn't a scientific concept - it's just a sort of weird slogan. Etymogically, the term "universe" has always been used to describe the concept of EVERYTHING. So, there cannot be such a thing as multiple universes. There can only be subsets within a single existing universe. So the only logical conclusion one can draw is that within THE universe, there are things we are able to observe, detect and measure, and there MAY also be things we are not currently able to observe, detect and measure or describe. The word "multiverse" is a complete canard, intended to fool the gullible into thinking these physicists know something that they actually do not.
We do know now that black holes emit non baryonic matter aka dark matter. If a black hole is emitting a matter that is coming out of the event singularity of the black hole then the matter being admitted must be in between 0 and 1 dimensional to escape the blackholes horizon... obviously It cannot be zero-dimensional because 0 dimensional would not be matter(existence) at all... given this fact that we know this is happening we can deduce that vocal area illusion of accelerating expansion pass the speed of light could easily be created matching our observed model from our singular point in space and time... this is a far more logical reasonable solution for accelerating expansion pass the speed of light then concluding that at any point in the chain the speed of light is being broken.
No, we don't "know" that black holes emit dark matter - in fact, we don't "know" that there is such a thing as dark matter. But whatever....believe whatever you believe, logic and scientific be damned.
The very idea of a multiverse is poorly defined. Consider the observable universe. Clearly there is just the one. But as this very universe almost certainly stretches beyond the horizon, that far-away portion of it is forever beyond our observation, cognition, or impact. It is for all purposes "another universe," perhaps even with somewhat different values for its physics constants. So even the assumption of one expanding universe leads us to the concept of a multiverse, though not necessarily of the kind imagined by Everett. Personally, I don't believe in the latter. It's too baroque. But I would be inclined to believe that every black hole is a gateway to another universe, as per the analytical extension of the Kerr solution.
Yes....the VERY best thing that can be said of this discussion of "multiverses" is that it is a semantic discussion - a distinction without a difference.
Yes, will lead back HERE! Ye can go to the end of the universe! Not knowing? Will lead back right Here! Is like what did you see? Remember given ABLE to see! Beyond the eyes can see! Yet is in plain view!
We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be part of another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The zero dimensional points we are part of and the zero dimensional point the physical system are part of can be two seperate zero dimensional points both separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously. Our sense of being is zero dimensional so could we theoretically be zero dimensional points. We can’t experience a billionth of a second so it’s fair to say that in that time interval we personally don’t exist, or neither a zero dimensional point. The problem is 1 second feeling like 1 second is joined together by lengths of time that are too fast for us to be aware of, so how can we have a sense of being at all. If 100 years went by and we never had a sense of being, to us that 100 years would go like a flash because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being. We need to be visualising a colour to have a sense of being whether we look at it physically or imagine it. If we stare at a colour that remains still, it has to move forward in time because we get a sense of how long we have been staring at the unchanging colour.
1 number of photons in the extragalactic background light = (c/(4.4 l_P/(t_Λ einsteins))), solves for detecting other extra outside of our Milkey Way Galaxy.
Mind of humanity îs în resonance with this frames of reality. May be, hilbert spaces are not în phase with US. By masuring we change The phases. I supose there are infinit but numerable other paralel and simultan other realities. But i m not sure.
This points up a pet peeve of mine. The "multiverse" is not a theory; it is a rather goofy hypothesis with not a trace of empirical evidence. As is, incidentally, String "Theory". How so many allegedly smart people fell for it, I'll never understand. I guess they need a philosophy class in Ockham's razor. So much waste of at least marginal intellect.
Because people are finally listening to those who have experienced paranormal phenomena and are connecting the dots instead of calling them crazy and burying their heads deeper into their NPC asses
You won't understand the multiverse till you get that this universe is built of matrioska stacking doll proto-universes of previous versions of time-space experiments awaiting the announcement of the winners of the Cosmic Easter Egg hunt that completes the Gaia experiment to begin the 5 God-day clean up of Lucifer's science lab that will be the Spiritual Star Trek phase of human history
@Pax.Alotin You speak from the perspective of a spiritual flat earther. Your opinions have about the value of a gnat-incarnated soul. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you are an NPC level character who has done nothing to show yourself worthy of more than being thrown back into the NPC source bit bucket. Happy Karma!
It's just a very easy way to keep the federal government churning out the countless millions of dollars in research grants for "research" that everyone knows will never bear fruit. It's a grift. Why no one acknowledges this, I will never understand.
![Exploring the Multiverse - Is It Real? w/ Paul Halpern [Ep. 408]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
