Why the theory of 'Infinite universes' is false.

[wokking56]

3 hours ago, Reginald_001 said:

You completely missed the point of determinism. I tried using the word as often as I could.

But the theory clearly states 'What can happen, WILL happen in any universe.'

 

Simply logic makes the statistical likelihood completely impossible,

No I understand you just fine, but since "whatever can happen will happen" statistically speaking "nothing at all" is just as likely to happen. Forgive me for possibly being naive but I am unaware of anything that is powerful enough to destroy an entire universe. Destroy a planet (for sure), a solar system (I guess), a galaxy (I suppose it is possible); but an entire universe (no freaking way).

[Jazzman]

44 minutes ago, wokking56 said:

No I understand you just fine, but since "whatever can happen will happen" statistically speaking "nothing at all" is just as likely to happen. Forgive me for possibly being naive but I am unaware of anything that is powerful enough to destroy an entire universe. Destroy a planet (for sure), a solar system (I guess), a galaxy (I suppose it is possible); but an entire universe (no freaking way).

What's the problem? We're dealing with two opposing forces responsible for both expansion and collapse of matter, thus the universe - dark matter and gravitation. Since the amount of dark matter seems to slowly decline acc. to newest analysis, this would lead to a slowing down of the expansion up to a point where the reversal process sets in and gravity takes it all. But keep cool, humans wouldn't see the end of things in the universe coming - either we would have blown us up in this or the next century or our galaxy, the Milky Way, has collided with the neighboring Andromeda galaxy in a few billion years. That's the scheduled end of all life in both galaxies. And inevitable. So what.

[27X]

reality splits into two different realities

 

This is not a thing.

 

States of existence are analog, not binary. Ranges of causality are determined many many MANY inputs and results. The reason the range isn't infinite is because there are defined ranges, rules, and constants that need to exist for the phenomenon to both happen and to be observed, such as said universe being populated with beings capable of realizing the causality and actors to make the events happen at all in the range that occurs.

[Sceadugengan]

2 hours ago, Jazzman said:

What's the problem? We're dealing with two opposing forces responsible for both expansion and collapse of matter, thus the universe - dark matter and gravitation. Since the amount of dark matter seems to slowly decline acc. to newest analysis, this would lead to a slowing down of the expansion up to a point where the reversal process sets in and gravity takes it all. But keep cool, humans wouldn't see the end of things in the universe coming - either we would have blown us up in this or the next century or our galaxy, the Milky Way, has collided with the neighboring Andromeda galaxy in a few billion years. That's the scheduled end of all life in both galaxies. And inevitable. So what.

Rather than colliding both galaxies will be merging.

And it won't be sudden either.

Humans at that time - assuming they're still around - will have enough time to analyze the situation and evacuate to non-hazardous places within the merging galaxies.

Rejoice, life won't end that easily.

It will re-emerge again and again if you give it the tiniest chance, just like mold.

[Salty Penguin]

8 hours ago, Reginald_001 said:

You completely missed the point of determinism. I tried using the word as often as I could.

But the theory clearly states 'What can happen, WILL happen in any universe.'

 

Therefore the statistical probability of the universe NOT being destroyed by a cataclysmic event is completely unlikely.. in fact... not one... but uncountable cataclysmic events in uncountable other universes should then be happening, right now... as for each quantum decision the catastrophic will be caused by a slightly different cause and all it's flavors.. (e.g. 1 millisecond earlier, one millisecond earlier..etc..etc..).

 

Simply logic makes the statistical likelihood completely impossible, because in an infinite universes, infinite diversity would exist, making ours a deterministic universe.. which it isn't... Our universe is governed by the uncertainty principles, not certainty principles.

Unless its impossible to destroy a universe.

[Regallag]

6 hours ago, Jazzman said:

What's the problem? We're dealing with two opposing forces responsible for both expansion and collapse of matter, thus the universe - dark matter and gravitation. Since the amount of dark matter seems to slowly decline acc. to newest analysis, this would lead to a slowing down of the expansion up to a point where the reversal process sets in and gravity takes it all.

The expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, and the consensus among scientists is that expansion will keep going forever.

 

 

Reginald_001, there may be some fundamental physical law that makes it impossible for universes to interact with one another.

[Reginald_001]

3 hours ago, Salty Penguin said:

Unless its impossible to destroy a universe.

 

1 hour ago, Regallag said:

The expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, and the consensus among scientists is that expansion will keep going forever.

 

 

Reginald_001, there may be some fundamental physical law that makes it impossible for universes to interact with one another.

So that basically means that the theory of infinite universes really does hinge on exactly this point. So yet another logical and philosophical approach...

 

"The universe was created, so it can end."

or

"Anything that has a beginning as an ending."

 

Statistically (and examples from nature teach us every time) that anything can be destroyed into it's base parts, then redistributed in another configuration.

This means that theoretically, yes enough force can be massed to destroy a universe.

 

Or better yet, there is much more scientific evidence and examples in nature to be found that the universe CAN be destroyed than that it can't..

 

Also.. I have not found any compelling argument to refute the initial hypothesis.

[herpman]

Interaction isn't necessarily observed evidence that can lead to a positive extrapolation.

 

Don't get me wrong, my position is that I should neither assume infinite alternate realities exist or not.

 

But there's the other caveat. "Infinite" means there are an infinite number of universes that never make contact with another if there are an infinite number of universes that do.

 

It is not an eventuality in that case, it's a boolean value across all of time and all of space in any one given universe. Probability doesn't apply to infinite because you can't subdivide infinity, you can only define tighter and tighter constraints from within the range of possible options, and since we, as humans, can't account for every possible variable, being incredibly narrowly focused at even our broadest understanding of "The Universe", attempting to do so would be moot.

 

The only rational position about an as of yet improvable/unfalsifiable claim is to be agnostic of it, but that still leaves room for one to have an opinion on whether it's true or false.

[Jazzman]

2 hours ago, Regallag said:

The expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, and the consensus among scientists is that expansion will keep going forever.

 

 

Reginald_001, there may be some fundamental physical law that makes it impossible for universes to interact with one another.

Disagree with your assumed scientific 'consensus', simply b/c it was the understanding of the outgoing second millennium CE. We're living in the third...

[herpman]

6 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Disagree with your assumed scientific 'consensus', simply b/c it was the understanding of the outgoing second millennium CE. We're living in the third...

And my understanding is that the jury is still out as to whether we're destined for a big crunch or total heat death. Well, I say "we" but the odds of a human living to see it are... well, depressing to say the least.

[Di3sIrae]

I find it really cool to talk about these things, just because no one will hold the truth. Every alive person can say a different theory about it and no one will be right or wrong.

When one says that it is false, all arguments can't really be denied, because no one knows hoe it works, or if it exists.

As OP said, if this can happen, it will happen and reality splits into two, and then that it is false because nothing occured in our world. Then i just say that we are living the reality where none of these things happened. And with this i validate the theory again. Are we living ONLY in the 'reality' where nothing happens? No, you already 'splitted' yourself many times, it is the YOU in the reality where NOTHING happened that is questioning about nothing happening. The YOU in the reality where things did happen, have a different take on it, and maybe made a topic saying that it is false BECAUSE things happened.

It is true, and it is false at the same time, and i won't delve into it because it doesn't have a real answer. At the same time that it will always have the same answers.

I am a person that believes in the Paradox.
I believe in a place somewhere where time is not a factor. So this place was, is and will be at the same time (for our understanding). Some people call this God. Or Creator.
From this palce without time, thus where matter and all things related are one thing, became the separation that made possible for time to exist, then things that are related to material things and universes and these things. I also believe in a spiritual plane that settles together with the material plane.
So, the matter is what it is. When you die, you die. Universe expands, then retracts. Suns are born and dies. In the spiritual plane, everything can happen, because it was the separation of the spirit and matter that made possible for all of this to exist. So, if you imagine that something is possible, somwhere a new Universe can be created to hold what you imaginated. Because, in the end, the power to imagine is what gives life, so in theory we are gods. In a mortal plane, with the most important power that we could have. Imagination.

The ability to dream of things that doesn't exist yet.

So, for me, "everything is possible" is right, but not exactly to happen in OUR world. In Terra (earth). But also our world could have infinite layers where all of these things could be happening at the same time. When someone dies, and you dream with this person, maybe you are seeing the person in the plane where he/she did NOT die. And it is confusing to our limited brain.
Who knows?

Maybe, when we die and go to the spiritual world, we will be a individual being, and be conscious of it, or maybe we will return to ONE and ALL.

I will stop here, but i have this as some kind of "religion" for me. The base of my belief, even being born a Christian ?
We can theorize about it and we will never reach anywhere xD

[Player80]

I think the take on "There's one universe where you decided to do that and one where you didn't" is incorrect. That's basically a "what if?" scenario, and I have another approach.

From my point of view, anything can happen. I believe that if there's an extremely low probability for something to occur, then it has to happen at some point.

Because something can happen doesn't mean that it will happen in the near future, or that is has already happened and will never arise again.

For instance, regardless of how high was the probability of life on Earth, there has to be life elsewhere inside our universe. Maybe there has been, but I am sure there will be other life forms at some point.

 

That's the way I see parallel universes, there isn't an infinite amount of universes based on what happened and what didn't ("what if?" scenario), rather there are other universes (at least one) which have followed the same rule as our universe. Perhaps there's no Milky way in another universe because the probability for existing was too low, and it had already happened at least once in our universe.

It's not really a "what if?" situtation as I described at the beginning, it is more of a statistically generated multiverse.

The way I picture the multiverse is like an upside down tree, the roots being the essence of the multiverse and every branches are universes. The branches all sprout from one place and are essentially created the same, but they can take different paths.

 

The issue with thinking "it has to happen despite a very low probability", basically taking a 1% chance for certainty, is that thinking "there's an extremely low chance that none of this happens" is also certain.

What this means is there's not an infinite amount of universes because there's a probability for them to not exist (as I said earlier, because there's a low probability then it has to happen). There's a probability that no life forms in any of these universes will ever find a way to travel or communicate with other universes.

And that is essentially the definition of chaos, which isn't "what if?" but more like "anything CAN happen, doesn't mean that it will".

Our universe is just chaos, given form but that is still chaos, and if there's a multiverse then I have to believe every other universes have followed the same chaotic rules.

 

TL;DR: Thinking there's an infinite amount of universes based on what we did and didn't isn't my way of thinking, because this way of thinking can easily demonstrate why there isn't a multiverse. There is however a low chance for anything to occur, and at some point it will, including not occuring. That's how I think chaos works and if there are other universes then they have been following the same chaotic rules as ours, meaning there is a possibility that there is a finite amount of universes. Because of this chaotic behavior, we can't demonstrate that there aren't other universes, but we can admit that it is uncertain (doesn't mean that there are other universes, but doesn't exclude the possibility that they exist).

[wokking56]

2 hours ago, Player80 said:

It's not really a "what if?" situtation as I described at the beginning, it is more of a statistically generated multiverse.

The way I picture the multiverse is like an upside down tree, the roots being the essence of the multiverse and every branches are universes. The branches all sprout from one place and are essentially created the same, but they can take different paths.

 

There's a probability that no life forms in any of these universes will ever find a way to travel or communicate with other universes.

And that is essentially the definition of chaos, which isn't "what if?" but more like "anything CAN happen, doesn't mean that it will".

Our universe is just chaos, given form but that is still chaos, and if there's a multiverse then I have to believe every other universes have followed the same chaotic rules.

If the theory of the multiverse holds true then I sort of agree with you and can totally understand your "picture" of the multiverse. Also while chaos may have a fair bit to do with it, I lean more toward statistical probability. Many people feel (and I did argue for it earlier) that it is decisions we make that split off alternate universes, yet innumerable decisions would have had to be made long before humans ever existed.

 

Since all the universes would have needed to start somewhere let's use your analogy. I suppose we can all agree that the trunk of your multiverse tree would be the "Big Bang" (crazy shit happened). Which would bring us to the first major branch either matter and many of the elements were created or it just fizzed back into nothingness. Either scenario is just as likely to have happened, but since we exist we would need to follow the first branch. If we followed this path we would come across countless dead twigs in which nothing happened thereby ending our thought experiment (well at least for the development of humans anyway).

 

Even just assigning a simple yes or no response to our queries would be exhausting. Did the elements congeal into stars? Did those stars cluster into galaxies? Did any of those stars form a planetary system? The list is nearly endless and the few I mentioned aren't necessarily the first or even important questions to ask.