Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SysAdminShow t1_j4by83g wrote

I’ve been thinking of this more recently and you bring up an interesting point I didn’t consider yet. A multiverse with ever possible outcome is already unimaginable, but if true then some of them must be able to contact others which compounds the complexity to infinity. It becomes a never ending loop of sorts.

Personally I don’t like the use of the multiverse in fiction. It’s an easy solution/plot device that too powerful to be enjoyable. If it exists than you have already won and lost every possible scenario, so the story becomes somewhat pointless.

16

EponymousPancake t1_j4ck75p wrote

> if it exists then you have already won and lost every possible scenario, so the story becomes somewhat pointless

This brings up other interesting ideas though, such as perspectives on nihilism, and whether a meaningless universe is tragic and awful or liberating and beautiful, or all of the above or nothing at all. Characters can be apathetic and depressed in the face of nihilism, or compassionate and optimistic. In an existential vacuum, do people become corrupted or reveal their true selves? I think multiverses can be a good setting for philosophical conflicts

11

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4cmufr wrote

The issue with multiverse is that another universe implies a different set of natural laws.

In order for it to be different at all. Something has to be different. And that means that either somehow universes would effect each other, just be duplicates, or have different physics

Infinity is by definition a never ending loop lol

4

sirhandstylepenzalot t1_j4d1yyv wrote

>Infinity is by definition a never ending loop lol

well, that's entirely false

5

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d7x3p wrote

What could be infinite that doesnt loop? Infinite space is infinite space.

Pi. Contains every number in every organization which also means it repeats

If it goes forever than it is a pattern. A pattern of never ending loops.

Any set in an infinite system repeats or loops

3

sirhandstylepenzalot t1_j4d9y0y wrote

i wouldn't say a vector of infinite length could be considered a loop just because the numbers used to measure it are made of a repeating loop

but

i'll reverse the 2 point deduction if you draw me a cool picture

3

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4dnbgj wrote

Your right. I was thinking of loop like a repeating sequence. I dont kniw why it was stuck in my head vs an actually loop shape

2

[deleted] t1_j4crump wrote

[deleted]

3

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d2daa wrote

Infinity could exist and not everything could be possible.

All signs point to the universe of empty space being infinite. We have never had any evidence that the laws of nature change.

Infinite emptiness doesnt mean infinite matter or energy.

Even if there was infinite energy, the infinite nothingness could be larger.

Chaos still wants everything to settle into its lowest energy state. So that infinity besides our visible universe could just be dissociated quarks

We also use infinity in physics. We havent proved infinity but we have used infinity to discover other things.

4

SysAdminShow t1_j4cxe2p wrote

I watched this documentary and enjoyed the infinity hotel example. Best visualization of infinity I’ve seen.

3

[deleted] t1_j4cxqrv wrote

[deleted]

0

SysAdminShow t1_j4cyy27 wrote

Yeah another cool thought experiment, but a drastic over simplification and likely highly inaccurate. Still fun to think about what happens over an infinite amount of time.

2

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d2tnw wrote

None of that makes any sense.

The laws of nature can still be implied with something being infinite.

Entropy is still a thing. There is a reason why 99 percent of everything is hydrogen.

2

[deleted] t1_j4d41x0 wrote

[deleted]

0

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d7emx wrote

That makes no sense at all.

Again entropy. Infinity time doesn't mean infinity mass or energy. Its far more likely it would just become susceptible to heay death like the rest.

Furthermore... if it was truely industructibe in a way that is impossible in nature, no outside sources would be able to influence it. No pressute change, no heat, no cold. It wouldnt get to become a super fluid. It wouldnt subliminate.

2

[deleted] t1_j4d8lmg wrote

[deleted]

1

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d9gq1 wrote

It is a really good theory because we have no evidence to the contrary.

Also guess what. There are loads of physicists that write fiction. Infact... an INSANE amount.

Gregory Benford (born 1941) Gregory Benford (born 1941) ... Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) ... Robert L. ... Poul Anderson (1926 – 2001) ... Sir Fred Hoyle (1915 – 2001) ... C.P. ... Vladimir Nabokov (1899 – 1977)

1

f_d t1_j4d6kpr wrote

>If infinity exists literally anything is possible and if it doesn’t that is a different story.

Divide one by three. You'll get endless threes without ever finding any other digits.

Divide one by seven. You'll get six repeating digits without ever finding any of the others.

Infinity doesn't mean everything has to happen. It only means there is no end to whatever happens.

2

[deleted] t1_j4d6zm8 wrote

[deleted]

0

f_d t1_j4dxahc wrote

Infinite time doesn't have to mean endless possibilities. Everything could all play out the exact same way an infinite number of times. Nothing has to change between instances of a repeating universe.

You can also have a finite starting point that expands endlessly to infinity, like a simple graph that keeps going up and up and up the farther you plot it. If the universe keeps expanding and entropy keeps increasing, eventually you get a cold universe where everything is too far apart and too depleted for anything new to happen. Even though many different things happened earlier in that universe, all of its future will be spent quietly in the dark with everything more or less uniform.

2

[deleted] t1_j4dyt36 wrote

[deleted]

0

f_d t1_j4egd0c wrote

>For something to happen the same way an infinite number of times in itself is the most improbable of actions .

You are assuming the universe is not already set up so that everything repeats perfectly. There's nothing improbable about a predestined outcome.

>We do know a lot of galaxies are being sucked to a certain spot in the universe right now called the great attractor and we don’t know why.

All you need is gravity. It's on the other side of our galaxy, so we just can't get a good look at it.

>The problem with the heat death theory is we don’t have enough information to say that is even probable it is just a theory like everything else.

We know what happens to space and energy over time in this universe. We can predict what will happen far into the future based on this. It isn't guaranteed to happen, but it is by far the most likely outcome if nothing drastically changes about what is currently understood. Things like being a simulation that is suddenly turned off are so far outside our normal experience that there is no point trying to assign probability to them. We can predict based on the things we can experience, not outside intervention.

>We see a little picture and extrapolate a big picture and even though that is one of the most popular theory’s it is still as likely as we get to a certain point and it all sucks back and restarts.

You can't make useful predictions about likelihood based on that kind of supposition. You only can make useful predictions about likelihood if you begin from the currently understood behavior of the universe and build from there. And you certainly can't say that on the one hand, heat death is equally likely because anything can happen with equal probability, but on the other hand, an infinitely repeating universe is less likely than everything else. Either we stick to things we can actually predict with different amounts of likelihood based on current observations, or we make up whatever we want and call any of our made-up scenarios as likely as anything else.

An infinitely repeating sequence of events is completely possible as long as everything is lined up the right way at the start. And if there is somehow any kind of eternal repetition of the birth and death of the universe, an infinitely repeating cycle of events would be much more stable and likely to repeat itself than a different sequence each time. Existing in such a cycle would make the likelihood of that cycle existing one hundred percent, no matter how easy or hard it is to create the cycle in the first place.

2

Maplicious2017 t1_j4e4sdj wrote

Not necessarily, the idea of the multiverse isn't only a change in natural laws, it's a change in variables.

In one universe everything can be the same save for an atom bouncing left or right.

Or it could be one in which atoms don't exist.

The trouble is that we currently have no way of observing those different possibilities to know if they can exist or not, not to mention if observing them will change them in any way like in quantum physics.

1

red75prime t1_j4d65rl wrote

> if true then some of them must be able to contact others

Nope. It may be an impossible outcome.

2

Fritzzz333 t1_j4g5dhr wrote

actually no, the point of the quantum muktiverse theory is that the multiverses diverge, so they can never interact with each other. (that's why it's called Multiverses and not Multiregions or something)

0