4 ms·

I take "The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other" to mean there does not exist any notion of multiverse that has to do with many-wo

I take "The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other" to mean there does not exist any notion of multiverse that has to do with many-worlds.

ars 8y ago
Did you actually read https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf ? As best as I can tell the multiverse he describes is not the type with varying laws of physics. He's using yet another definition of the term.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  You said it has nothing to do with multiverse, not "it has nothing to do with one particular notion of the multiverse". The examples are countering the former. And what about the other examples?
  - ars 8y ago
    You are overdoing it. I specifically defined what I meant by multiverse in my first message. You can't nit pick my words by giving them a new definition, then argue that my words don't work for that new definition.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      You defined it and treated it as the only meaning the word has, making the blanket statement that MW has nothing at all to do with the notion of the multiverse. So you accept that it does have something to do with how many people use the term?
      - ars 8y ago
        Did you forget that there is an actual article we are discussing here? And it uses the term? And it has a specific definition of it? The same one I used? I mean you did object to this article right? Not some other one, that used a completely different definition of the word?
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        The article is not sacrosanct -- a number of people here, including myself, have made criticisms of it -- and you seem to be forgetting that my point started with a criticism of the article, not of your comment. It, like you, talks of _the_ multiverse in one specific way, and I was pointing out a problem with that. It said: "The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules." See where it says "The multiverse is" and "This theory is", as if the multiverse notion is only that? and the full text of my response to that point was > It's really misleading to present the multiverse notion as an attempt to explain a universe suitable for life. > > There are many other reasons people have proposed it. For example, in the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
        ars 8y ago
        Yes, but we are not talking about that theory. It's about as relevant as complaining about epicycles. That theory simply has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, other than the name. Why are you bringing up a random theory that has nothing to do with article at hand? Is it just because the name reminded you of it? It is unfortunate that two completely different theories both have the same name, but there's nothing I can do about that. You simply have to pay attention to which one is being discussed.

I take "The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other" to mean there does not exist any notion of multiverse that has to do with many-worlds.

ars 8y ago

Did you actually read https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf ? As best as I can tell the multiverse he describes is not the type with varying laws of physics. He's using yet another definition of the term.

jamesrcole 8y ago
You said it has nothing to do with multiverse, not "it has nothing to do with one particular notion of the multiverse". The examples are countering the former. And what about the other examples?
- ars 8y ago
  You are overdoing it. I specifically defined what I meant by multiverse in my first message. You can't nit pick my words by giving them a new definition, then argue that my words don't work for that new definition.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    You defined it and treated it as the only meaning the word has, making the blanket statement that MW has nothing at all to do with the notion of the multiverse. So you accept that it does have something to do with how many people use the term?
    - ars 8y ago
      Did you forget that there is an actual article we are discussing here? And it uses the term? And it has a specific definition of it? The same one I used? I mean you did object to this article right? Not some other one, that used a completely different definition of the word?
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        The article is not sacrosanct -- a number of people here, including myself, have made criticisms of it -- and you seem to be forgetting that my point started with a criticism of the article, not of your comment. It, like you, talks of _the_ multiverse in one specific way, and I was pointing out a problem with that. It said: "The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules." See where it says "The multiverse is" and "This theory is", as if the multiverse notion is only that? and the full text of my response to that point was > It's really misleading to present the multiverse notion as an attempt to explain a universe suitable for life. > > There are many other reasons people have proposed it. For example, in the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
        ars 8y ago
        Yes, but we are not talking about that theory. It's about as relevant as complaining about epicycles. That theory simply has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, other than the name. Why are you bringing up a random theory that has nothing to do with article at hand? Is it just because the name reminded you of it? It is unfortunate that two completely different theories both have the same name, but there's nothing I can do about that. You simply have to pay attention to which one is being discussed.