4 ms·

Ask HN: Do you believe in multiverse theory? Why or why not?

6 points by trifit 4y ago

noduerme 4y ago
The fact that you exist and are aware enough to believe anything at all is so stupendously unlikely that the only possible explanation is that you're living in one of the only universes where it's possible for you to live, and have consciousness; that's the only one you're conscious of, because it's the only one you can be conscious of. Ultimately though, from the time you're born, the number of universes you can possibly exist in will get fewer as more and more branches lead to death. You'll only be aware of the ones you still survive in, of course, but those will probably include fewer and fewer people. Eventually, you'll be the last living person. Lonely, miserable and immortal.
- trifit 4y ago
  Poetic, but you didn’t answer my question.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    well yeah, I do. The alternative would be that this abomination is the only universe, and that's just stupid. [edit] It's not exactly an abomination, because there are waterfalls, birds, great books, galaxies, Miles Davis, and scotch whisky. But it's completely crazy to think this is the only way things could pan out.
- roystonvassey 4y ago
  AKA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
  - noduerme 4y ago
    I know. I was so disappointed when I found out I wasn't the first person who deduced this from Everett. I still reserve the right to explain it in my own off-brand way. The part about fewer paths going forward, and what that implies about longevity and loneliness, is mine. I didn't get into my corollary, which is that the limitation of (un)consciousness in future dead paths must exert a reverse time pressure on present events.
jjgreen 4y ago
Not, because it's evidently not falsifiable
dusted 4y ago
I am entirely unqualified to understand any of the multiverse theories beyond the explanations offered by analogies in popular science writing. But in short: No. I'm as hard a determinist as can be, to the point that I believe that any nondeterminism in quantum mechanics have deterministic explanations which are yet to be uncovered. I am also entirely unqualified to understand quantum theory.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
For me it depends if I believe that the big bang repeats itself at some point. Time is irrelevant if you are dead. A bit like being woken up for school or work and believing you just fell asleep a moment ago. So in case the universe dies a heat death and some kind of fluctuation leads to a new big bang and the process repeats infinitely, you will at some point indeed live the same life again. Long story short, you will again need to go to work or school and not even death can save you from that. A bit like it already feels in life too. But if that were true a multiverse would just be another iteration of the existence of the universe with a different path. That they maybe don't happen concurrently isn't relevant, they are just out of phase. So I would guess that counts as a multiverse too, even if it isn't founded in physics, some string theory landscape or possibilities that were not realized.
mikewarot 4y ago
It's an untestable hypothesis, thus unscientific, for the moment. Thus, we're all qualified to speculate, just as we are in matters of religion, politics, etc. It's my personal belief that the multiverse makes great science fiction. It's also my belief that it, along with "quantum woo" is used to hoodwink people. Color me agnostic, at best.
McLaren_Ferrari 4y ago
Generally if trends will be transformative you see it from the get go. Zuckerberg keynote was received very coldly and the cartoonish avatars can't possibly be taken seriously in a working enviornment. The whole metaverse can't be even defined as a space to work or play. If it's a space to play then how is it different than VR headsets and why it merits a whole world to upsell it as an ecosystem?
Comevius 4y ago
This is a big rabbit hole to go down, but you can't entirely ignore Everett's many-worlds interpretation with a "not falsifiable" claim. The nature of probability is an important one to ponder. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.11591.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.11591.pdf
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mgh2 4y ago
No, because there is no scientific evidence and it can be used as propaganda for the rich: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe [2] https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf8095812 https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...

6 points by trifit 4y ago

The fact that you exist and are aware enough to believe anything at all is so stupendously unlikely that the only possible explanation is that you're living in one of the only universes where it's possible for you to live, and have consciousness; that's the only one you're conscious of, because it's the only one you can be conscious of. Ultimately though, from the time you're born, the number of universes you can possibly exist in will get fewer as more and more branches lead to death. You'll only be aware of the ones you still survive in, of course, but those will probably include fewer and fewer people. Eventually, you'll be the last living person. Lonely, miserable and immortal.

trifit 4y ago
Poetic, but you didn’t answer my question.
- noduerme 4y ago
  well yeah, I do. The alternative would be that this abomination is the only universe, and that's just stupid. [edit] It's not exactly an abomination, because there are waterfalls, birds, great books, galaxies, Miles Davis, and scotch whisky. But it's completely crazy to think this is the only way things could pan out.
roystonvassey 4y ago
AKA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
- noduerme 4y ago
  I know. I was so disappointed when I found out I wasn't the first person who deduced this from Everett. I still reserve the right to explain it in my own off-brand way. The part about fewer paths going forward, and what that implies about longevity and loneliness, is mine. I didn't get into my corollary, which is that the limitation of (un)consciousness in future dead paths must exert a reverse time pressure on present events.

jjgreen 4y ago

Not, because it's evidently not falsifiable

dusted 4y ago

I am entirely unqualified to understand any of the multiverse theories beyond the explanations offered by analogies in popular science writing. But in short: No. I'm as hard a determinist as can be, to the point that I believe that any nondeterminism in quantum mechanics have deterministic explanations which are yet to be uncovered. I am also entirely unqualified to understand quantum theory.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

For me it depends if I believe that the big bang repeats itself at some point. Time is irrelevant if you are dead. A bit like being woken up for school or work and believing you just fell asleep a moment ago. So in case the universe dies a heat death and some kind of fluctuation leads to a new big bang and the process repeats infinitely, you will at some point indeed live the same life again. Long story short, you will again need to go to work or school and not even death can save you from that. A bit like it already feels in life too. But if that were true a multiverse would just be another iteration of the existence of the universe with a different path. That they maybe don't happen concurrently isn't relevant, they are just out of phase. So I would guess that counts as a multiverse too, even if it isn't founded in physics, some string theory landscape or possibilities that were not realized.

mikewarot 4y ago

It's an untestable hypothesis, thus unscientific, for the moment. Thus, we're all qualified to speculate, just as we are in matters of religion, politics, etc. It's my personal belief that the multiverse makes great science fiction. It's also my belief that it, along with "quantum woo" is used to hoodwink people. Color me agnostic, at best.

McLaren_Ferrari 4y ago

Generally if trends will be transformative you see it from the get go. Zuckerberg keynote was received very coldly and the cartoonish avatars can't possibly be taken seriously in a working enviornment. The whole metaverse can't be even defined as a space to work or play. If it's a space to play then how is it different than VR headsets and why it merits a whole world to upsell it as an ecosystem?

Comevius 4y ago

This is a big rabbit hole to go down, but you can't entirely ignore Everett's many-worlds interpretation with a "not falsifiable" claim. The nature of probability is an important one to ponder. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.11591.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.11591.pdf

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mgh2 4y ago

No, because there is no scientific evidence and it can be used as propaganda for the rich: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe [2] https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf8095812 https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...