Let's get the facts straight. Believing in a multiverse is no different than believing in heaven/hell.
Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
21–30 of 57 posts
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#22Let's get the facts straight. Believing in a multiverse is no different than believing in heaven/hell.
* for a similar enough definition of heaven, hell and multiverse.
Have you read the article?
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
This plot doesn't make any sense.
Time is the ultimate currency. Gold is only backed by the agreement of its scarcity; otherwise, it has no value (outside its physical usefulness as a material). Fiat currency is only backed by the confidence of a nation; otherwise, it has no value. Time is a currency that's backed by your life. It is as real as it gets.
Why would time be of any value if nobody is ageing after 25?
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#24If you're interested in MWI you should read David Deutsch's books: http://beginningofinfinity.com/
I agree -- if you're interested in MWI then you should read Deutsch (in fact, you should read Deutsch anyway) -- but the OP isn't about MWI, it's about a different sort of multiverse, with lots of "pocket universes" even on a single Everett branch because of inflation. Many of the implications are pretty similar, though.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time is the ultimate currency. Gold is only backed by the agreement of its scarcity; otherwise, it has no value (outside its physical usefulness as a material). Fiat currency is only backed by the confidence of a nation; otherwise, it has no value. Time is a currency that's backed by your life. It is as real as it gets.
Why would time be of any value if nobody is ageing after 25?
I'm trying to fill in the gaps in the author's thinking, but I imagine it something along the lines that keeping you "aged" 25 requires resources. So time is sort of a proxy currency for the resources required to keep you alive. If you run out of time you don't have anything to purchase the resources to keep you living.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bayesianism is in the empiricist tradition where it's focussed on how to update ideas in response to evidence, but it doesn't actually provide guidance for how to deal with non-empirical ideas that can't be judged by evidence. This (empiricism) has driven philosophers to things like positivism (where they declare everything non-empirical to be worthless or even meaningless). It's a problematic tradition. The problems…
Your response is really exciting! I'm grateful--it's pointing at exactly what I was hoping to find. Deutsch seems to be talking about how to evaluate challenging arguments that come before evidence. To contribute something, other than my thanks, here's a link to Deutsch talking about knowledge, evidence, and incredible cosmic relationships: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_c...
If you'd like to contribute more, you could contribute any thoughts you have while looking into it at the discussion group:
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/
Thanks for the positive response! Good luck.
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#27If you're interested in MWI you should read David Deutsch's books: http://beginningofinfinity.com/
I agree -- if you're interested in MWI then you should read Deutsch (in fact, you should read Deutsch anyway) -- but the OP isn't about MWI, it's about a different sort of multiverse, with lots of "pocket universes" even on a single Everett branch because of inflation. Many of the implications are pretty similar, though.
I did read the original link but honestly don't really understand. Seemed to be some kind of argument there has to be a multiverse to account for the expansion of the universe. That seems like a weak argument to me because in my understanding we're not that sure about what's happening to the universe and cosmologists keep changing their minds. Regardless, I didn't quite follow what sort of multiverse they said it implied and how it differs from MWI.
Going by your comment, I'm not sure there's as much difference as you may be suggesting. Deutsch's MWI is full of what we might (or might not) call "pocket universes", it's not focussed on just big universe sized branches.
I saw the article talking about the wave function spreading out which I think is the same concept Deutsch talks about in BoI with fungible instances of particles spreading out (a multiversal object is a collection of instances).
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#28Potentially a stupid question -
How can the universe get "colder"? Does it just mean that the average energy-per-square-meter (or whatever unit) is less? If so, wouldn't that mean that saying "less dense" and "colder" mean basically the same thing at that scale?
Maybe I'm asking something stupid and obvious, but I keep thinking that energy can't be destroyed, ergo, there's exactly as much energy (and thus heat?) as before. Or is heat energy density? But doesn't that make "less dense and colder" a redundant statement, since they'd be the same thing?
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I envision a world where, due to technology and science, everyone stops aging after 25. A clock will be constantly visible on your forearm and time will be the only commodity in the world, in which you'll get paid and make payments in. After the age of 25, you'll get 1 to 75 years of "time" deposited in your account. The clock on your arm will decrement by default as time passes, and increase/decrease as you earn/spe…
This plot doesn't make any sense.
That didn't stop them making a movie about it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/
Re: Why we think there's a Multiverse, not just our Universe
#30Potentially a stupid question - How can the universe get "colder"? Does it just mean that the average energy-per-square-meter (or whatever unit) is less? If so, wouldn't that mean that saying "less dense" and "colder" mean basically the same thing at that scale? Maybe I'm asking something stupid and obvious, but I keep thinking that energy can't be destroyed, ergo, there's exactly as much energy (and thus heat?) as b…
Less dense implies colder, as the volume is not constant, but expanding. Temperature and density are different things though - one is how much energy something has, the other is how far away from other things it is. Related, but different.
With respect to destroying energy - energy converted into matter is 'colder'. There's not the exact same amount of energy - it's not that it can't be destroyed, it must be conserved with matter (E=MC^2). Great example - kinetic energy is used in a particle accelerator to create new particles, and it takes a ton of energy to make even a tiny bit of mass, so the average temperature would go down as more mass is created (heat being the transfer of energy - once it's trapped in a particle, it's not transferred as freely).
(Caveat - I'm not a cosmologist...)