Many physicists think we live in a multiverse. But they're getting a simple math rule wrong.

Oct 8, 2023
2
1
10
But isn't the point of the multiverse theory that there are infinite universes, and so if we make the assumption the range of possible fine-tuning includes the numbers that we see in our universe then probability says there has to be a universe with our numbers (because the number are infinite and so every probability within the limits will be satisfied).

So if that's the case, then we might as well assume we are in the 'lucky' universe.

I don't see any evidence for a multiverse, but equally I don't see how you can apply the gamblers fallacy to negate it as a possibility if the theory proposes an infinite number of universes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
Nov 13, 2023
1
1
10
<what if> each universe is a life form and it's physical laws and growth patterns are encoded (like DNA)? this would negate many "luck" factors/variables.

or worse (because it makes me feel small), a single cell in a complex life form?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
Nov 14, 2023
2
1
0
Our universe seems to be perfectly suited for life. But anyone who claims that's evidence of a multiverse is falling prey to a logical fallacy.

Many physicists think we live in a multiverse. But they're getting a simple math rule wrong: Read
https://www.livescience.com/physics...e-but-theyre-getting-a-simple-math-rule-wrong
Universe & consciousness are retroferential artifacts of neural circuitry. Some parts of Ontos [Being, Reality] become self-aware, but that means nothing ontologically, nicht wahr? Messor Gravis venibit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
Nov 15, 2023
1
1
10
We all have to live our lives (in all variants), not in parallel universes (Multiverse), but sequentially (Multichronos).
🤔
The googol of every life.
* * *
Googol is a number represented in the decimal number system by one followed by 100 zeros.

Why is mathematics, as E. Wigner noted, so effective in solving physical problems? And why is the world known at all? The answer lies in the complementarity of the observer to the world. We live in a subject-object "correlation matrix", where I - the subject is a correlate. In modern science, there is no understanding of this correlativity, and therefore the fact that the laws of nature work extremely smoothly, to the details of "thought out" mechanisms, is perceived as a miracle.
* * *
Multichronos
Our approach to justifying QM allows us to take a fresh look at Everett's interpretation. Recall that Everett's interpretation suggests that the world exists in the form of a superposition of classical realities. In this case, the observer always finds himself in one of them. But in what? After all, the alternatives are equal. The answer to this "unsolvable" question turns out to be quite simple, if we take into account the "anatomy" of quantum superposition. As discussed above, each pure quantum state is formed by a set of intentional states, the transitions between which are carried out in latent time. For example, superposition | ψ 〉 =| ψ 1 〉 +| ψ2 〉_means that the trajectory of the system in the intentional space "sweeps" the states | ψ 1 〉 and | ψ 2 〉 in latent time so that the probability of detecting the system in one state or another during the measurement is proportional to the time spent by the system in these states. Let the system visit the state | ψ 1 〉 , and ξ visited state | ψ 2 〉 . Then the probabilities will be equal to P 1 = ξ 1and P 2 = ξ 2 . They can be found as: P 1 =| ψ 1 | 2 and P 2 =| ψ 2 | 2 . It is important to understand that from the point of view of a possibly non-existent external observer, the components of the superposition are visited sequentially, while from the point of view of an internal observer, they are visited simultaneously.

Internal observer's physics
A. Kaminsky

What physical laws can the subject of the finite world discover by observing it from within? It is shown that the world for such a subject will necessarily be quantum, it will necessarily be relativistic, and it will necessarily be irreversible.
Google translated to English:
https://digitalphysics-ru.translate..._sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
Nov 16, 2023
1
1
10
If Betty's Bingo numbers were not called in the first minute, she would still be there to observe it. So it is extraordinary if Betty observes all the right numbers in the first minute.

If our corner of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to observe it. The anthropic effect is not the inverse gambler's fallacy. This article uses a bad analogy to accuse others of fallacious reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
May 20, 2023
22
2
35
If any other universe exists "outside" of our own, we first have to define where the boundaries of our own are.
I have a very different "multiverse" concept that is not spatially distinct but temporally distinct from us. Every point in the (our spatial) universe exists on its own time "stalk" at the tip of its own time cone with a slope that is defined by what we generally refer to as the "speed of light", but it is actually the speed of passage of time*. Everything inside that cone exists (inasmuch as "existence" has any meaning at all); everything outside it simply doesn't – in the universe of that one point.
*We know that time "stops" at the speed of light. This means that the light from a distant nebula 10bn "light years" away both left that nebula and arrived at our eyes at the same instant within the realm of our universe. Whether or not, or by how much, time has advanced in that nebula is irrelevant to the degree that it is simply non-existent in our universe.
Points that are close enough together have relatively broad, intersecting time cones, allowing them to share their universes within that shared space/time, making it seem to us that there is only one "Time" scale. But in reality, even your thumb and your eye exist in different, but overlapping, universes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1