3 ms·

It "kills it" because it's only really appealing if the universe we're in appears extremely unlikely, like it's the "just right" goldilocks balance of cosmic va

It "kills it" because it's only really appealing if the universe we're in appears extremely unlikely, like it's the "just right" goldilocks balance of cosmic variables that we can't explain, that happened to be the stable ones that resulted in life evolving eventually. If the universe is actually very likely to occur in the state that it's in, then we don't need to use this "vast multiverse where our universe was the one that produced an observer" explanation. It could be a single universe in all of existence, where everything makes sense mathematically and no further posturing is required in that silly unscientific field of cosmic philosophy. Or if it fails, and it remains that our universe is unexpectedly perfect, then we are forced to resort to statistical explanations within an impossible-to-observe external multiverse. Scientists don't very much like conclusions built on not being able to observe things. Though to me, the multiverse theory has a sort of fractal appeal to it. It is surely applicable to our planet, after all. Why not our entire universe?

tinco 12y ago
A cool thing about the multiverse is that it makes a team out of us and the rest of our universe. 'We' are the universe that became stable and self aware, in contrast to many other universes. 'We' are a self aware universe. You, me, and the rest of the universe together, so we should act like it.
mSparks 12y ago
But the whole point of the multi verse model is that universe also exists. Multi verse theory afaik is just a mathematical construct of the various dimensions we can observe in a space time framework. The whole http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland Idea.
- calinet6 12y ago
  You're thinking of parallel or alternate universes, which is based on the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the universe "forks" at every quantum possibility into an infinite number of universes. That's one type of multiverse. A "Multiverse" is a superset of that idea—it simply means a condition of many universes existing. They could have arisen in the same way ours did through a "big bang" in some larger space alongside our universe, they could be the many iterations of our one universe expanding and contracting over an infinite time, or they could be overlapping in the "many worlds" sense; we don't know. The point of a Multiverse set is to explain our universe's existence statistically rather than empirically (as in, with a satisfying observational explanation). It says "we know that the chance of our universe existing is extremely small, so we must be one in an infinite number that had the right combination to result in life." This is sort of like a car crash, and saying: "whelp, it happens with a probability of 1 per 1000, so it was bound to happen to someone" after a car accident rather than finding out exactly why and what caused the event—"whelp, the brakes didn't work, we should probably look into that." Just like that car crash, finding out exactly why our universe exists, and how likely it is to have the reality we enjoy, gives us far more information than a simple philosophical statistical conclusion. It doesn't mean that the statistical conclusion isn't correct—there still may be a Multiverse, we may never know—it just means we know more about it than just how often it happens. But, knowing how likely our universe is to happen is a big step. If it's very likely, then we know a lot more about universes. If it's unlikely, then we could just chalk up our existence to chance and it would be perfectly valid. In the latter case, however, it would be extremely unsatisfying scientifically. We'd love to know more.
  - mSparks 12y ago
    That's just one of dimensions 7-10. http://www.universetoday.com/48619/10-dimensions/ http://www.universetoday.com/48619/10-dimensions/
clusterfoo 12y ago
Naive question (I know nothing about this stuff): If mathematical logic is a property of our universe, then aren't we again entering the realm of circular logic? i.e: "Given the logical frameworks that are correct in our universe, our universe is very likely." Unless math is something that somehow exists independently of our physical universe... but then "where" does it come from?
- calinet6 12y ago
  I have no idea, really. My hunch is that mathematics is more than universal; truths hold regardless of which medium of calculation is used to conclude them. In any case, our conclusions about our own universe at least hold within our own universe, and are therefore still very useful for our own understanding thereof.
- marktangotango 12y ago
  Neal Stephenson explores this line of questioning in a fun way in the novel Anathem.

tinco 12y ago

A cool thing about the multiverse is that it makes a team out of us and the rest of our universe. 'We' are the universe that became stable and self aware, in contrast to many other universes. 'We' are a self aware universe. You, me, and the rest of the universe together, so we should act like it.

mSparks 12y ago

But the whole point of the multi verse model is that universe also exists. Multi verse theory afaik is just a mathematical construct of the various dimensions we can observe in a space time framework. The whole http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland Idea.

calinet6 12y ago
You're thinking of parallel or alternate universes, which is based on the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the universe "forks" at every quantum possibility into an infinite number of universes. That's one type of multiverse. A "Multiverse" is a superset of that idea—it simply means a condition of many universes existing. They could have arisen in the same way ours did through a "big bang" in some larger space alongside our universe, they could be the many iterations of our one universe expanding and contracting over an infinite time, or they could be overlapping in the "many worlds" sense; we don't know. The point of a Multiverse set is to explain our universe's existence statistically rather than empirically (as in, with a satisfying observational explanation). It says "we know that the chance of our universe existing is extremely small, so we must be one in an infinite number that had the right combination to result in life." This is sort of like a car crash, and saying: "whelp, it happens with a probability of 1 per 1000, so it was bound to happen to someone" after a car accident rather than finding out exactly why and what caused the event—"whelp, the brakes didn't work, we should probably look into that." Just like that car crash, finding out exactly why our universe exists, and how likely it is to have the reality we enjoy, gives us far more information than a simple philosophical statistical conclusion. It doesn't mean that the statistical conclusion isn't correct—there still may be a Multiverse, we may never know—it just means we know more about it than just how often it happens. But, knowing how likely our universe is to happen is a big step. If it's very likely, then we know a lot more about universes. If it's unlikely, then we could just chalk up our existence to chance and it would be perfectly valid. In the latter case, however, it would be extremely unsatisfying scientifically. We'd love to know more.
- mSparks 12y ago
  That's just one of dimensions 7-10. http://www.universetoday.com/48619/10-dimensions/ http://www.universetoday.com/48619/10-dimensions/

clusterfoo 12y ago

Naive question (I know nothing about this stuff): If mathematical logic is a property of our universe, then aren't we again entering the realm of circular logic? i.e: "Given the logical frameworks that are correct in our universe, our universe is very likely." Unless math is something that somehow exists independently of our physical universe... but then "where" does it come from?

calinet6 12y ago
I have no idea, really. My hunch is that mathematics is more than universal; truths hold regardless of which medium of calculation is used to conclude them. In any case, our conclusions about our own universe at least hold within our own universe, and are therefore still very useful for our own understanding thereof.
marktangotango 12y ago
Neal Stephenson explores this line of questioning in a fun way in the novel Anathem.