If there is a MULTIVERSE...

...then why is YOU you in THIS UNIVERSE here and not that other YOU in that other universe there?

This question is of technical nature, not philosophical.

If a CAUSALITY is meant to be everywhere (not only in THIS UNIVERSE here), then there must be an exact, technically understandable and causal reason, for ME being me here and not one of that other endless clones out there.

That leads me to another question: Whats with that (eternal) space (the model of the "bubble multiverse" speaking) in which the endless, multiple universes exist? Is there even something like causality in that endless space there?

From what i understand, physical laws as "causality" can only exist inside a system and such a system usually must have barriers (thatīs why every universe inside a multiverse can have different laws of physics), so i am not sure, if the "eternal space" could really have something like "causality".

Now i am no way religious, in fact i donīt believe in something like a god or a "higher" being above all beings and no, i do not think there is something like "intelligent design" because that what people think is "intelligent design" is just the outcome of endless possibilities, which are all happening inside a multiverse and so this would also explain us without any need for a god or some mystical "higher being".

If i could believe something, then it is this thing we call "consciousness" actually being something similar to a "soul" and that leads me to another question:

When "my" soul is here in this physical body, what soul "inherits" my 100% identical clone in another universe? Is it another soul? Does it even has to have a soul to begin with???

Talking Quantum Mechanics and thinking of Schrödingers Cat, i could claim:

I am actually all of my endless doppelganger while i only just experience one of them at a time through my "consciousness".

But that again would cause the same question! Why do i experience THIS body and not that other one?

Well, i probably even have an answer to that, but chances are extremely high, it will not be accepted (or tolerated!) by too much people (especially people, that arenīt happy with their lifes).

Now, i consider myself as that, what a "happy" person is supposed to be like (based on my POV of course) and i am sure, that there are many other of my doppelganger-clones, who did not have the exact same amount of luck in their lives.

In some universes, i wasnīt even born. In some I get killed in a tragic accident and in others i suffer something like cancer, much pain and worse.

So what i am basically saying now is that my "consciousness" actually decides what life/body/doppelganger I am experiencing, rather than things having to do with a "god", "karma" or any other spiritual aspect.

At least this makes more sense to me than all that other spooky/spiritual/religious babbling.

And BTW yes! This theory would also mean, that i am afraid we are living in a fully determined universe and we do not have any free will at all.

I canīt say i like that last thought, in fact i hate it!

The only fact speaking against a fully determined world, would be Quantum Physics, but we still havenīt FULLY understood it yet and i think chances could be high that certain things are still not exactly as we are "seeing" them. Example:

The position of an electron canīt be predicted due to our technical as well as intellectual limitation, so the position of an Electron can still already be set with/since the "Big Bang".

Woo, this took some turns! You ended up basically floating half a dozen major concepts, each of which by themselves would be impossible to really unpack even if they had the thread to themselves.

I don't believe in the multiverse, personally, but I think to answer just the first question: if it is real, then there is no transcendent "you" than spans more than a single one of them (I'd argue under the worldview proposed the idea of identity is pretty much a total invention, anyway, for some reasons you allude to, and others). There are just superficially similar entities in superficially similar universes.

This also ainīt no daily, easy chit-chat topic people use discuss during lunch-time!

Thatīs what i said. I also just wrote down my thoughts about those topics and everyone who made up his own thoughts about it, is welcome.

Many scientists do, so why donīt you believe in it? If you donīt, then you must have made up your thoughts about it and then came up to this conclusion, did you?

There really are? You think there are or you wish there are?

People tend to fall more into "wish thinking" (i am not even sure how much of my own theories are that, but i try not to fall into it for good!), as soon they start to think about those things, which arenīt scientifically proven yet.

My only problem with multiverses or string theory is there is really no type of evidence for it.
There are quantum mechanical theories designed to support the idea, but no empirical evidence that the idea exists in any way.
Theories say it could exist, but absolutely no evidence says it does exist.

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=53654

I'd relate the multiverse idea to religion. That is neither can be proved or disproved so it's down to faith. I kinda like the multiverse idea at least it makes for good sci fi in Star Trek.

I'm so sick of multiverses (and the like) in fiction.
(Read my rant on the Flash movie thread).

I'm at the point where I write off most (but not all) multiverse or time travel stories as lazy writing, running out of creativity & originality, or lacking ideas!

It's just become a cop out (I'm talking to you, J.J. Abrams!)

Doesn’t matter what universe you’re in there is no self. So it’s like worrying over burnt bacon. It’s still bacon

When I used to make "art", I would always lose my pencil, pen, brush or whatever just after having set it down.
This happened so frequently that I started to theorize that my tools were slipping into another universe!
I'd spend 10 minutes tearing the room apart looking for what I lost... then I'd find it... usually under the same piece of paper on the art table or behind the same erasure that I'd looked under five times (thus continuing support for the theory that my objects were slipping out of this universe and then slipping back in)!

Ha, yeah the JJ Abrams thing sucked!

I take the route of the no-verse.


I'm not here. Neither are you. And there are no alternates to our profound nothingness.


Now, please continue doing whatever fun thing you were planning for the day.

We're all just figments of your imagination, crumb. Just words that appear on a screen. None of us can even prove we're real outside of your mind. Unless we show up. Where do you live?

Leaving aside for now how many constitutes "many" (and how that's being measured)...I care about what scientists in the aggregate believe on scientific questions, which is to say, empirical ones. Belief in the multiverse is not really based on empirical evidence in the way physics or chemistry are.

I care about the opinions of experts within their sphere of expertise, but it means very little to me on other topics, particularly topics that I don't think anyone can be an expert on. I think this is still closer to a philosophical question. For now.

Yes, I've thought about this before and that's the conclusion I've come to. But as I mentioned, it's still mostly a philosophical question, so I think each individual's conclusion on it (those who don't outsource the judgement to non-specific scientists in the aggregate) ends up being mostly based on a broader mental model of the world. What kinds of things usually end up being true, and what kinds of intellectual pitfalls people fall into.

For example, it's my experience that, as far as the physical world goes, our first guesses as to weird observable phenomena end up being pretty wide of the mark. And it's my experience that, as far as humans go, we tend to posit wildly imaginative and convoluted explanations to avoid questioning our base assumptions. So it would be unsurprising if, for example, people found it somehow easier to posit the existence of infinite realities (!) than to simply imagine that maybe our basic understanding of reality was still deeply flawed.

The fact that one of these ideas involves a lot more humility than the other factors into it a lot, as well.

Neither. I'm saying if the multiverse as commonly presented is real, then logically there are many superficially similar universes. Under that worldview, identity is basically an illusion and there is no continuous you or me that transcends universes. No one of us is more "us" than another.

"[Philosophy class] involves sitting in a room and deciding there is no such thing as reality and then going to lunch." -- Dave Barry

Ha! I haven't seen a Dave Barry reference in a long time!
(I read one of his books once!)

In many ways true.


I also have never read much (any) philosophy. Or took a philosophy class.



Just had a break with reality when my grandmother was washing my hair as a child and never was able to come back.


But not so bad. At least you don't have to worry so much about a bad hair day or two if you don't actually exist.

I live in the fictional town of Hamilton, Ontario.


Which isn't nearly as much fun as the not terribly real city of Toronto, where I grew up.


People here just want to run you over with their cars.

Their imaginary cars.

Not in this universe, you don't...

As a former philosophy student I can confirm this is the case. Then you spend the whole lunch arguing with your friend only to realize you both agree at the end. The chicken was indeed fantastic.

I rehearsed wearing a mule tie,


thats all I've invested into the concept. It frees your mind when you takey my approach to important questions like this

You do remember, when the same people of "experts" claimed our world is flat?


I agree, But on the same hand, arenīt there already way too many things in this world, people do believe in, without having any evidence for it? Or what about those things where "evidence" is there, but this "evidence" being a lie?


Now this is exactly not the case since multiverse theories state the exact opposite, having absolutely nothing to do with religion. I am afraid you are seeing the multiverse in a complete wrong light and this may be because...


...youīve seen too many bad movies.


But thatīs not the fault of any multiverse or scientists, itīs first of all MARVELīs fault.

...and now weīre getting another DC-Universe too!!!




The major problem with those are, most of the audience donīt understand how time/quantum-physics work or have serious troubles following it. The movie "ARQ" for example

was widely misunderstood by most people because they werenīt able to follow it.

Now i was unable to follow "PRIMER" completely, thanks to the fact that movie also had to do with mathematics. I suck at math.

If time travel is possible, then it will not happen because it already happened! Also, jumping into an alternate time-line (or universe) is still no "time-traveling" cause "real" time-traveling happens in one and the same timeline and if someone is causing another, alternate time-line, then he wasnīt using a "time-machine" and rather a "multiple timeline generator".

Also, i remember this wannabe pseudo-physicist in another forum who said:

"The evidence that speaks against time travel, is the existence of Adolf Hitler!"

It is beyond to me how this guy was not taking into account that killing Hitler could probably cause things even worse than him. I even go as far to claim, that time travelers probably were the ones helping Hitler to gain power, in order to save this world from a terrible war, happening decades later and destroying mankind alltogether, if the "Hitler-Incident" wouldnīt have happened.


Evidence?

Thank god! For one moment i was scared you might have studied physics.

Now dig this:
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?


Why does it matter to you, how another user is planning the rest of his day?


Evidence?


This seems to be an important message, being worth to invest time and energy into.