

In a Multiverse, What Are the Odds? - digital55
http://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/

======
kazinator
Maybe we simply don't get to test this one.

Even if untestable, the Multiverse Hypothesis is immensely valuable in that it
serves as a rational replacement for religion. It gives people who have a
certain mindset something to believe in. And not just any something, but
something exciting that inspires the imagination.

Testable or not, here is the thing. The hypothesis being not testable means
that it cannot be shown _true_ , and that it cannot be shown _false_ , either!
Moreover, hypothesis is quite persuasive: more so than its negation, to many
people.

All arguments against the hypothesis based on testability ("you don't have
proof") are also weapons against the negation of the hypothesis. They do not
attack the source of its plausibility; they only attack something which it has
in common with it negation.

Both the hypothesis _and_ its negation postulate the existence of something:
one postulates the existence of an infinite plurality of universes, whereas
the other postulates the existence of hidden variables and inexplicable
coincidences.

So, even though belief in MH seems to have some of the trappings of faith, it
is at the same time rationally convincing to those who find hidden variables
and coincidences less plausible than a plurality of universes.

~~~
apta
> And not just any something, but something exciting that inspires the
> imagination.

Are you implying that believing in religion does not inspire imagination?

~~~
kazinator
I'm not merely implying it, but saying it outright: but with the qualification
that it is true in _" people who have a certain mindset"_.

People who have a different mindset from that one find religion inspiring.

It's nice for others to have something that is more in line with how they
think.

~~~
s_baby
The idea of a multiverse is a derivative idea from Western
religion/philosophy. It's a modern variation of the principle of plenitude.
"The principle of plenitude asserts that the universe contains all possible
forms of existence."[1] It's not a peripheral idea either but a cornerstone of
pre-modern western ontologies.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude)

------
jonsen
What if _mathematics_ is different in other universes?

~~~
kazinator
That is by definition what other universes are. Different rules and axioms
generating different worlds.

However, is there a universe in which, say, an object that is isomorphic to
number theory in _this_ universe has completely different theorems? Like,
suppose that the natural numbers are defined in that universe exactly as we
define them in this one, as is addition and multiplication and primeness, but
the number 25 is found to be prime rather than composite? I would have to say
"no" on that one.

------
martindale
1.

~~~
FlailFast
"Never tell me the odds." -Han Solo, who statistically must exist in the
multiverse.

~~~
Zikes
Also, asteroid belts are so sparse a toddler in a Power Wheels jeep could
navigate them with minimal effort.

------
notastartup
I think this is where science and religion converges.

Religion describes God as all seeing all being, the catch phrase is
everything, everywhere, etc.

Multi-verse is also something like an omnipresence, an infinite permutation of
realities or simple rules that give rise to every possible scenarios.

My one suspicion with multi-verse is that if every possible scenario is
possible, isn't there a universe where nothing is possible? Isn't it possible
that there's an anti-multiverse universe that cannabalizes other instances of
a universe?

Isn't it also possible that there's an equally pro-multiverse universe that
creates faster than the anti-multiverse can destroy?

So perhaps like cells, universes are being created and destroyed at an equal
rate so that there is only one instance of it (ours).

My brain hurts.

~~~
kazinator
> _So perhaps like cells, universes are being created and destroyed at an
> equal rate so that there is only one instance of it (ours)._

The idea here is that universes are not being created or destroyed any more
than, say, the integers are being created or destroyed. They just _are_.

The universes in which nothing is possible are probably the universes of the
empty set, the zero-dimensional space, an N-dimensional point and such. Not
_much_ is possible in some universes which are somewhat more complicated than
theses.

