Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:55:23 PM No.16702368
Wouldn’t a multiverse still be a universe? It’s just a multi faceted one?
Replies:
Thread 16702368 - /sci/ [Archived: 900 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 7:01:00 PM No.16702372
People like Eric Weinstein say that there isn’t a multiverse but there is an infinite number of ways to view our one universe. What do you think of that idea? It may be indistinguishable, but there’s vital nuance to it nonetheless.
A hair of time is just one strand on the big universal Godhead.
A hair of time is just one strand on the big universal Godhead.
Replies:
bodhi
6/19/2025, 11:21:22 PM No.16702723
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 12:38:16 AM No.16702803
I would bet on humanity misunderstanding something and/or a natural explanation for whatever """"evidence"""" of a multiverse there is (none by the way, just wordthinking over quantum mechanics)
Retarded idea on all levels. It's an idea for children.
Retarded idea on all levels. It's an idea for children.
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:10:05 AM No.16702843
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 6:07:05 AM No.16703029
>>16702368 (OP)
Multiverse is just pop-sci crap
>b-b-but muh many worlds interpretation
Nobody seriously doing QM gives a fuck about interpretations. There's postulates and you work with them. End of story.
>b-b-but I heard Susskind/Kaku say something about multiverses
They're string theorists and it's their ultimate cope. They promised us that they'll be able to uniquely derive the Standard Model of particle physics from their string nonsense because "it just works bro". Past forward a couple decades and by the 00s it was clear that their bullshit not only had non-unique predictions, but there's a gazillion of them and they had no idea how to pick one and work out the Standard Model from it. To this day they still don't.
Long story short, the well has dried for string niggers, they need to cope somehow to get grants, so they go muh multiverse muh anthropic principle. Both unverifiable philosophical sugar to justify the failure of string theory to predict anything useful.
P.S. when a string nigger says they can derive Hawking radiation from their nonsense, just know that they're lying. They can derive it in an 11-whatever dimensional spacetime with the negative (wrong-sign) cosmological constant. They can't do it for our real world.
Multiverse is just pop-sci crap
>b-b-but muh many worlds interpretation
Nobody seriously doing QM gives a fuck about interpretations. There's postulates and you work with them. End of story.
>b-b-but I heard Susskind/Kaku say something about multiverses
They're string theorists and it's their ultimate cope. They promised us that they'll be able to uniquely derive the Standard Model of particle physics from their string nonsense because "it just works bro". Past forward a couple decades and by the 00s it was clear that their bullshit not only had non-unique predictions, but there's a gazillion of them and they had no idea how to pick one and work out the Standard Model from it. To this day they still don't.
Long story short, the well has dried for string niggers, they need to cope somehow to get grants, so they go muh multiverse muh anthropic principle. Both unverifiable philosophical sugar to justify the failure of string theory to predict anything useful.
P.S. when a string nigger says they can derive Hawking radiation from their nonsense, just know that they're lying. They can derive it in an 11-whatever dimensional spacetime with the negative (wrong-sign) cosmological constant. They can't do it for our real world.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 7:09:16 AM No.16704024
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 7:12:00 AM No.16704025
If the universe is infinite it may as well be a multiverse unto itself, with the only exception being you are (probably) not going to see variations in physical laws and constants that you may with a multiverse.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 7:45:40 AM No.16704046
>>16703029
Is it a better science to level up mathematical abstraction in the first place?
Is it a better science to level up mathematical abstraction in the first place?
Cult of Passion
6/21/2025, 12:25:55 PM No.16704107
>Multi
Many.
>Omni
All. They used the wrong word and now we forever have error.
>>16702372
>Eric Weinstein say that there isn’t a multiverse but there is an infinite number of ways to view our one universe
Eric's "Obseverse" vs "Omniverse"?
Many.
>Omni
All. They used the wrong word and now we forever have error.
>>16702372
>Eric Weinstein say that there isn’t a multiverse but there is an infinite number of ways to view our one universe
Eric's "Obseverse" vs "Omniverse"?
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:41:36 PM No.16704182
>>16702368 (OP)
It all depends on what you mean with words, but I think a multiverse mostly refers not to one big space where universes are like galaxies, but rather to separate spaces, not existing anywhere in this universe no matter how far you were to travel.
It all depends on what you mean with words, but I think a multiverse mostly refers not to one big space where universes are like galaxies, but rather to separate spaces, not existing anywhere in this universe no matter how far you were to travel.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:52:27 PM No.16704192
>>16702372
those in the know will recognize that as hugh everett's universal wave function. few physicists have ever read his thesis. he argued that quantum mechanics both as a formalism and as an interpretation must be compatible with psycho-physical parallelism. if multiple observers can collapse the wave function of a particular event in two different ways, yielding two different outcomes, this must be tractable. he eventually concluded there should exist a universal wave function. noticeably absent in this interpretation is the concept of "many worlds", and that's not an accident.
it was bryce dewitt who reinterpreted everett's idea as the "many worlds interpretation". if we're attached to the verbiage of many worlds, then in everett's view each "world" is a human consciousness, and from one reality there exists multiple unique consciousnesses (worlds). thus, the "many worlds interpretation", according to everett, would be something like "different conscious observers can interpret (measure) the collapse of the universal wave function in different ways". or, a more plucky and poetic version: e uno plures (inverted e pluribus unum).
those in the know will recognize that as hugh everett's universal wave function. few physicists have ever read his thesis. he argued that quantum mechanics both as a formalism and as an interpretation must be compatible with psycho-physical parallelism. if multiple observers can collapse the wave function of a particular event in two different ways, yielding two different outcomes, this must be tractable. he eventually concluded there should exist a universal wave function. noticeably absent in this interpretation is the concept of "many worlds", and that's not an accident.
it was bryce dewitt who reinterpreted everett's idea as the "many worlds interpretation". if we're attached to the verbiage of many worlds, then in everett's view each "world" is a human consciousness, and from one reality there exists multiple unique consciousnesses (worlds). thus, the "many worlds interpretation", according to everett, would be something like "different conscious observers can interpret (measure) the collapse of the universal wave function in different ways". or, a more plucky and poetic version: e uno plures (inverted e pluribus unum).
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:54:10 PM No.16704193
Daily reminder that there is ZERO evidence for a multiverse.
The only reason academia is even proposing it is that the fine-tuning of the universe's constants is so improbably perfect that the only other valid explanation is God, and that conclusion is forbidden because atheist butthurt.
The only reason academia is even proposing it is that the fine-tuning of the universe's constants is so improbably perfect that the only other valid explanation is God, and that conclusion is forbidden because atheist butthurt.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:55:53 PM No.16704195
>>16704193
>The only reason academia is even proposing it is that the fine-tuning of the universe's constants is so improbably perfect
I feel like this was debunked. What is exceptionally fine-tuned is Earth itself and our solar system.
>The only reason academia is even proposing it is that the fine-tuning of the universe's constants is so improbably perfect
I feel like this was debunked. What is exceptionally fine-tuned is Earth itself and our solar system.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:07:29 PM No.16704211
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:38:08 PM No.16704289
>>16704193
You are confused. "God did it" isn't an explanation. It's the same as saying "magic did it."
You don't need to remind anyone that the multiverse isn't proven, but us being here is some "evidence" for it. It's simply an idea. There are also not just 2 explanations.
>>16704195
The laws of the universe are fine-tuned. Everything is. But in the way evolution is fine-tuned perhaps. Like the laryngeal nerve.
You are confused. "God did it" isn't an explanation. It's the same as saying "magic did it."
You don't need to remind anyone that the multiverse isn't proven, but us being here is some "evidence" for it. It's simply an idea. There are also not just 2 explanations.
>>16704195
The laws of the universe are fine-tuned. Everything is. But in the way evolution is fine-tuned perhaps. Like the laryngeal nerve.