Multiverse Universe, What Do I Mean By It

[Atlan0001]

Stephen Hawking described a single particle that has six different faces, six different sides, and is six different particles.

I describe a Universe (U) having differing faces, differing sides, and is a Multiverse Universe. A Multiverse Universe with few rules governing the overall Cosmopolis, but what awesome rules they are: What an awesome self-control factor and mechanism is a Multiverse Universe.

Just in case, I repeat: Stephen Hawking described a single particle that has six different faces, six different sides, and is six different particles.

 

[Catastrophe]

Avi Loeb has a relevant comment, in favour of extraterrestrial life investigation:
From "Extraterrestrial" John Murray (Publishers) 2021:

"I have long been aware that within the discipline of astronomy, SETI faces hostility. And I have long found that hostility bizarre. Mainstream theoretical physicists now widely accept the study of extra-spatial dimensions . . . . . . . . . despite the fact that there is no evidence for any such extra dimensions. Similarly, a hypothetical multiverse - an infinite number of universes all existing simultaneously in which everything which could conceivably happen is happening - occupies many of our planet's most admired minds, again despite the fact that there is no evidence that such a thing is possible."


Cat











;

 

[Atlan0001]

Us.... molecules.... atoms.... protons, etc.,..... quarks.... layers by layers, depths by depths.... spaces, within spaces.... times, within times.... distances within distances, within distances, within distances, from relativity.... to and into the Planck Big Bang Horizon. Yep, evidence certainly exists and mounts -- even within us -- for extra dimensions.

 

[KC Strom]

I've become binary when it comes to this hypothesis. Either the universe is a multiverse or it was designed. The universe we recognize works a bit too well to be a random one-off.

 

[Catastrophe]

If it didn't work well enough, we wouldn't be here to judge it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and BTW, do you really consider yourself, as a citizen of one planet in billions in one galaxy of trillions, to be able to judge even only the observable universe?

In my honest opinion, that sounds a tad presumptuous.

Cat

 

[KC Strom]

So, I think that is the point of my judgement. For me to be here at all, let alone being able to pass judgement from a keyboard, a lot of things had to fall into place in an exact way. The multiverse concept is one way that could happen. Process design might also accomplish "me" without setting out to do so...

Presumptuous? Definitely.

The infinite number of monkeys (trial and error) approach in a single universe might also work given enough time. Is 15 billion years enough? I'll never know.

 

[Catastrophe]

The multiverse(s), imho, defies logic. Are there sufficient variations, each presumably existing complete with quarks, galaxies, humans, extraterrestrials, ants, individual atoms - the change caused on each human breath, for example, in each multiverse component?

If this is not so, then please tell me where you draw the line.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

It seems to me that we have only one Universe which is awesome, grubby, violent , cold, dangerous, etc, etc, but in reality conceptually and inspiringly beautiful. The ideas of a multiverse, a re-cyclable, a static, or a future vacant Universe are to me, an at best novice star gazer, simply mathematical "maybes" without objective/testable proof and which give headaches to graduate students, and articles to sundry news stories by vapid reporters. E.G.: The fact that what exists/existed re-cycles in some form or another could/might apply to our Universe, but proof is lacking.

 

[KC Strom]

Agreed. The concept of a multiverse defies logic and proof is lacking. I was raised under the concept of a universe like that described by sam85geo. Then I started reading space.com & phys.org.

I now have a sense of the elegance of the processes that are playing out in real time everywhere you look, on earth and in space. The examples seem endless.

I'm not advocating for any particular solution.

The near perfection of every process I study, leads me further away from the concept that we live in a one-off, everything just happens to work, universe.

 

[Atlan0001]

A single particle that is six different particles defies logic. A particle that takes all possible paths, in all possible universes, at the same time, defies logic. The field of Quantum Mechanics at large (the micro-verse of quanta), as Lewis Carroll wrote in the 19th century in his analogical fantasy stories, is almost nothing but defiance of logic. The Universe itself, of relativity, of relativities, of the breakdown and breakdowns of relativity, of quantum and quanta mechanics, of a minimum of two universes that we know of -- and probably countless more (inclusive of observables (time, times, histories) and unobservables (space and spaces)) -- that go hand in hand, qualifies as illogical.

To some, "open system" (the "open systemic"; aka "infinity"; aka "many"; aka "Multiverse") cannot and does not exist. To a closed systemic mind, to the one-dimensional stick being, only the "closed system" universe, completely in-line 1-dimensional and/or 1-dimensionally cyclic, can exist and is logical. To again quote Albert Einstein, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." Not that there any around here of course.

But evolution is a tree of complex and varying root and limb growths all through its verticality; lower down and higher up, in no way some Utopian in-line 1-dimensional spike. The 1-dimensional life is in fact the lowest rung of the ladder / aka the apex of the pyramid, upside down -- and not a single one of the higher rungs of the ladder can actually exist without those rungs, and that particular rung, down in dimension. Survival needs variety, the more variety the better, inclusive of the rock steady stilted 1-dimensional stick. Without the complexity of life, including the complexity of human life, where would life be?

Ye doth protest too much! So what if I'm making excuses for the 1-dimensional human stick, a rock (bedrock steady), completely unimaginative with no third and inner eye to see with (to perceive with). Perception, always extending beyond the superficially obvious, the box, is always extra-sensory extra-dimensional. The best of life and humanity, overall, stands at fifty-fifty, the tortoise and the hare.

Oops! There I go again delving far into the many and varied dimensions of the Multiverse Universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Are we all discussing the same basic definition of multiverse(s)?

I really would like an answer to this please, if I am to understand what is going on here:

"The multiverse(s), imho, defies logic. Are there sufficient variations, each presumably existing complete with quarks, galaxies, humans, extraterrestrials, ants, individual atoms - the change caused on each human breath, for example, in each multiverse component?

If this is not so, then please tell me where you draw the line. "

Cat