[guest48167]

In simple words ' what is the multiverse theory'??

[yor_on]

It's a way out of contradictions. It allows you for example time traveling, taking care of the 'grandmother paradox' in which you kill your ancestors but still can go on. The idea is that the universe branches, where and how is an open interpretation but to me it should mean that in every outcome from a so called indeterminate 'superposition' all possibilities of it falls out into different outcomes. One of its liabilities is that every outcome by necessity will need a 'own universe' to exist in, and if we imagine those to also 'branch out' the amount of universes created from one single outcome leads to infinity. I don't like it, it's too intricate and complicated.

[Bill S]

One of its liabilities is that every outcome by necessity will need a 'own universe' to exist in, and if we imagine those to also 'branch out' the amount of universes created from one single outcome leads to infinity. I don't like it, it's too intricate and complicated.

 

I think that (at least) one of the multiverse theories holds that an infinite number of universes already exists, so there is no progression "towards" infinity.  That may look as though it solves the problem, but it doesn't.

[Halc]

In simple words ' what is the multiverse theory'??

There are a lot of theories which claim the term.  In short, a definition of 'universe' is given, and then for that universe to be consistent with some theory or interpretation, it turns out that other such universes need to exist.

So for instance, the universe can be defined as all that we can see and that can ever effect us or be affected by us.  That defines a spherical region that is a bit larger than the Hubble sphere.  There are principles that say the universe is pretty much the same everywhere, so if the edge of our universe is just like here, there must be stuff beyond, that they can see but we can't.  That implies that there are other spheres of space just like ours, totally causally disconnected from us.  They don't exist to us, but they exist nonetheless.
That's multiverse theory.

The next guy can believe exactly the same things, but defines the universe as all of space, not just the portions that can affect us.  To that guy, the universe is much larger, and all those other spheres are part of it.  Same view, but different definition of 'universe', so this would not be multiverse theory.

I can think of at least 5 different ways that you can consider other existing things to not exist to us (the one above being 'too far away'), and thus are part of the larger universe, or part of the multiverse.  The only distinction is how 'universe' is defined.  If universe is defined as 'all there is', then I suppose there is no multiverse theory.

[evan_au]

You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[yor_on]

Don't agree to that wiki Evan, the way it is presented there isn't what I saw originally, it's the 'polished version' of it, and even more mystic as it both will presume what I wrote about as well as then defining those to a 'same universe' in where everything 'must happen'. You can't have it any other way presuming 'splits/bifurcations'. It's so f*ng simpler to accept what we already see, 'Probability', and then define what doesn't fall out to us as 'being there' but not being 'fulfilled'. That way 'reality' becomes somewhat of a labyrinth in where HUP and 'free will' is what makes our paths through it. The rest is a mathematical space of probability.
=

I have an alternative though, but then you need to get the key concepts first. Those are a 'static space' of 'timelessness' scaling up to a dynamic space steered by a arrow of time. If one feel for it one then can account for those 'alternative universes' but not as spatially coexistent into some 'boundary' of a 'infinite SpaceTime'. To me they would be as 'logic overlays' instead, not 'dimensionally separated', then again, I'm quite dissatisfied with the idea of 'dimensions' as something primeval. We're so predictable in our thinking that it makes me tired sometimes. Using this concept takes care of the question from where the 'energy' needed to create all those 'new universes' would come from too. Because the 'energy' is already there, it's inside this 'mathematical space' and has been, and will be, and was there forever. You just need to accept that actions has consequences for it.

If you now think of that local arrow of yours, and look at how it is defined in our SpaceTime, then what it states is that 'what you see is what you get', aka your 'reality' is frame dependent, That one holds in both cases, the way relativity and physics treat it and the way I treat it here.

And it's about relations locking into relations creating your reality, it builds on concepts as Noether symmetries, structures from emergence's, Decoherence, Constants and 'laws'. It further more allow for thoughts being as real as those concepts are. All of it which fits, and that's what I go out from. It needs to fit or I'll have to find some other way :) As that little girl said "I contain multitudes', and so do we Evan.