New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

As light or matter approaches a Black Hole's event horizon, to the outside observer it takes an infinite amount of time to actually enter the black hole, but aside from being ripped apart on the way in, it seems we don't know what happens after that.

Within this event horizon, this time we can call "now" exists forever to the outside observer, as we add matter to the black hole we continue to add it to "now". So in essence the size of the inside of black hole grows inside as we add matter from the outside, but the inside has "always" had this amount of matter, yes?

The big bang is often thought to be an explosion, but as you read about it, there really was no center, rather there was a rapid expansion of space, not matter. It is the space between the matter that "exploded".

It seems to me there may be the potential for our known universe to be the result of a massive blackhole that took "forever" to create, so lots of time to create what we, being inside, see as a massive universe.

Because there may be material still be added from outside the blackhole, our space-time may be distorted with expansion and dark matter, but that part is hard to grasp. I suppose there could be blackholes inside of blackholes. If new material was added inside a blackhole, would we be able to observe that? Probably not now.

Our observations do indicate some uniformity to the known universe, the way galaxies are spread out relatively evenly, indicating some sort of law or tendency.

Continuing to keep in mind there is no center to the big bang, and matter may be continuing to be added, this may be a possibility of why our universe is is in a sort of continuous expansion, and in it exists dark matter.

Interesting stuff, but of course no way to know right now, unless of course now is forever, in which case I either forever don't know, or at some point will have always known.

I’m very tired of seeing pop science articles describe this so incorrectly. It’s a similar mistake as describing quantum computing as simultaneously trying a bunch of solution states “in parallel.”

The multiverse theory doesn’t imply any “splitting” action and certainly no such thing as special measurement or collapse.

If you make a measurement that distinguishes one universe from another, then “you” just discover which Everett branch you happened to have belonged to all along. It’s no different from observing outcomes of a random variable. Your mind is ignorant of a certain state of affairs, you measure something, now you’re slightly less ignorant of the state of affairs.

I am so sick of these articles. Multiverse QM is a settled debate. Move on.

"Rather than a neat tree of discrete universes that don't interact after they branch, the universe could be much fuzzier mess of conflicting realities that can intercommunicate".

Very well said and, in my opinion, this agrees most with my sense of how the world works.

In a way, reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake's work a bit, atleast in the sense that his biological work, despite mostly lacking known mechanisms, does seem to belong more to a universe that's a "fuzzier mess of conflicting realities that can intercommunicate".