5 ms·

In a Multiverse, What Are the Odds?

29 points by digital55 12y ago

martindale 12y ago
1.
- FlailFast 12y ago
  "Never tell me the odds." -Han Solo, who statistically must exist in the multiverse.
  - Zikes 12y ago
    Also, asteroid belts are so sparse a toddler in a Power Wheels jeep could navigate them with minimal effort.
jonsen 12y ago
What if mathematics is different in other universes?
- kazinator 12y ago
  That is by definition what other universes are. Different rules and axioms generating different worlds. However, is there a universe in which, say, an object that is isomorphic to number theory in this universe has completely different theorems? Like, suppose that the natural numbers are defined in that universe exactly as we define them in this one, as is addition and multiplication and primeness, but the number 25 is found to be prime rather than composite? I would have to say "no" on that one.
kazinator 12y ago
Maybe we simply don't get to test this one. Even if untestable, the Multiverse Hypothesis is immensely valuable in that it serves as a rational replacement for religion. It gives people who have a certain mindset something to believe in. And not just any something, but something exciting that inspires the imagination. Testable or not, here is the thing. The hypothesis being not testable means that it cannot be shown true, and that it cannot be shown false, either! Moreover, hypothesis is quite persuasive: more so than its negation, to many people. All arguments against the hypothesis based on testability ("you don't have proof") are also weapons against the negation of the hypothesis. They do not attack the source of its plausibility; they only attack something which it has in common with it negation. Both the hypothesis and its negation postulate the existence of something: one postulates the existence of an infinite plurality of universes, whereas the other postulates the existence of hidden variables and inexplicable coincidences. So, even though belief in MH seems to have some of the trappings of faith, it is at the same time rationally convincing to those who find hidden variables and coincidences less plausible than a plurality of universes.
- apta 12y ago
  > And not just any something, but something exciting that inspires the imagination. Are you implying that believing in religion does not inspire imagination?
  - kazinator 12y ago
    I'm not merely implying it, but saying it outright: but with the qualification that it is true in "people who have a certain mindset". People who have a different mindset from that one find religion inspiring. It's nice for others to have something that is more in line with how they think.
    - s_baby 12y ago
      The idea of a multiverse is a derivative idea from Western religion/philosophy. It's a modern variation of the principle of plenitude. "The principle of plenitude asserts that the universe contains all possible forms of existence."[1] It's not a peripheral idea either but a cornerstone of pre-modern western ontologies. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude
notastartup 12y ago
I think this is where science and religion converges. Religion describes God as all seeing all being, the catch phrase is everything, everywhere, etc. Multi-verse is also something like an omnipresence, an infinite permutation of realities or simple rules that give rise to every possible scenarios. My one suspicion with multi-verse is that if every possible scenario is possible, isn't there a universe where nothing is possible? Isn't it possible that there's an anti-multiverse universe that cannabalizes other instances of a universe? Isn't it also possible that there's an equally pro-multiverse universe that creates faster than the anti-multiverse can destroy? So perhaps like cells, universes are being created and destroyed at an equal rate so that there is only one instance of it (ours). My brain hurts.
- kazinator 12y ago
  > So perhaps like cells, universes are being created and destroyed at an equal rate so that there is only one instance of it (ours). The idea here is that universes are not being created or destroyed any more than, say, the integers are being created or destroyed. They just are. The universes in which nothing is possible are probably the universes of the empty set, the zero-dimensional space, an N-dimensional point and such. Not much is possible in some universes which are somewhat more complicated than theses.

29 points by digital55 12y ago

martindale 12y ago

FlailFast 12y ago
"Never tell me the odds." -Han Solo, who statistically must exist in the multiverse.
- Zikes 12y ago
  Also, asteroid belts are so sparse a toddler in a Power Wheels jeep could navigate them with minimal effort.

jonsen 12y ago

What if mathematics is different in other universes?

kazinator 12y ago
That is by definition what other universes are. Different rules and axioms generating different worlds. However, is there a universe in which, say, an object that is isomorphic to number theory in this universe has completely different theorems? Like, suppose that the natural numbers are defined in that universe exactly as we define them in this one, as is addition and multiplication and primeness, but the number 25 is found to be prime rather than composite? I would have to say "no" on that one.

kazinator 12y ago

Maybe we simply don't get to test this one. Even if untestable, the Multiverse Hypothesis is immensely valuable in that it serves as a rational replacement for religion. It gives people who have a certain mindset something to believe in. And not just any something, but something exciting that inspires the imagination. Testable or not, here is the thing. The hypothesis being not testable means that it cannot be shown true, and that it cannot be shown false, either! Moreover, hypothesis is quite persuasive: more so than its negation, to many people. All arguments against the hypothesis based on testability ("you don't have proof") are also weapons against the negation of the hypothesis. They do not attack the source of its plausibility; they only attack something which it has in common with it negation. Both the hypothesis and its negation postulate the existence of something: one postulates the existence of an infinite plurality of universes, whereas the other postulates the existence of hidden variables and inexplicable coincidences. So, even though belief in MH seems to have some of the trappings of faith, it is at the same time rationally convincing to those who find hidden variables and coincidences less plausible than a plurality of universes.

apta 12y ago
> And not just any something, but something exciting that inspires the imagination. Are you implying that believing in religion does not inspire imagination?
- kazinator 12y ago
  I'm not merely implying it, but saying it outright: but with the qualification that it is true in "people who have a certain mindset". People who have a different mindset from that one find religion inspiring. It's nice for others to have something that is more in line with how they think.
  - s_baby 12y ago
    The idea of a multiverse is a derivative idea from Western religion/philosophy. It's a modern variation of the principle of plenitude. "The principle of plenitude asserts that the universe contains all possible forms of existence."[1] It's not a peripheral idea either but a cornerstone of pre-modern western ontologies. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude

notastartup 12y ago

I think this is where science and religion converges. Religion describes God as all seeing all being, the catch phrase is everything, everywhere, etc. Multi-verse is also something like an omnipresence, an infinite permutation of realities or simple rules that give rise to every possible scenarios. My one suspicion with multi-verse is that if every possible scenario is possible, isn't there a universe where nothing is possible? Isn't it possible that there's an anti-multiverse universe that cannabalizes other instances of a universe? Isn't it also possible that there's an equally pro-multiverse universe that creates faster than the anti-multiverse can destroy? So perhaps like cells, universes are being created and destroyed at an equal rate so that there is only one instance of it (ours). My brain hurts.

kazinator 12y ago
> So perhaps like cells, universes are being created and destroyed at an equal rate so that there is only one instance of it (ours). The idea here is that universes are not being created or destroyed any more than, say, the integers are being created or destroyed. They just are. The universes in which nothing is possible are probably the universes of the empty set, the zero-dimensional space, an N-dimensional point and such. Not much is possible in some universes which are somewhat more complicated than theses.