Mod+ The multiverse

#1
There are some who are framing the multiverse as being a conception of materialists. Little is further from the truth.

In fact, almost all indigenous spirituality includes some version of a multiverse. They vary in conception from two universes to those with infinite universes. Some use the term "dimensions" but it means the same thing - other physical realities. Everett - like many other QM physicists - was not unaware of such spiritual perspectives.

Added to that, a litle in-depth assessment will make it clear that accepting the actuality of a multiverse sets one against materialism/physicalism in many ways.

So, whether one accepts a multiverse or not, I'd really like that all who value facts move beyond the ignorance of framing it as something devised by materialists.

----
Beyond those clear facts, it is puzzling that anyone who is aware that primary consciousness "precedes" physical would think that such consciousness would express only as a singular physical universe.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#2
I gotta admit I'm just lazy and don't feel like making the distinction too often when I post, but I'd agree that the word Multiverse need not refer to the MWI of QM.
 
#3
Multiverse need not refer to the MWI of QM.
and it need not refer to spiritual concepts either. one should read mersini's work. it is a rigorous scientific concept with predictions that can be verified observationally, and consistent experimental evidence has been observed. whereas MWI branches do not interact, other universes spawned from the landscape multiverse will interact gravitationally with this this one and leave detectable artifacts.

Added to that, a litle in-depth assessment will make it clear that accepting the actuality of a multiverse sets one against materialism/physicalism in many ways.
in what ways? i don't think it's true, let alone clear.
 
#4
There are some who are framing the multiverse as being a conception of materialists. Little is further from the truth.

In fact, almost all indigenous spirituality includes some version of a multiverse. They vary in conception from two universes to those with infinite universes. Some use the term "dimensions" but it means the same thing - other physical realities. Everett - like many other QM physicists - was not unaware of such spiritual perspectives.

Added to that, a litle in-depth assessment will make it clear that accepting the actuality of a multiverse sets one against materialism/physicalism in many ways.

So, whether one accepts a multiverse or not, I'd really like that all who value facts move beyond the ignorance of framing it as something devised by materialists.

----
Beyond those clear facts, it is puzzling that anyone who is aware that primary consciousness "precedes" physical would think that such consciousness would express only as a singular physical universe.
I think of the multiverse differently than other spiritual dimensions which I consider related to and a part of the universe we presently experience.
 
#5
I think of the multiverse differently than other spiritual dimensions which I consider related to and a part of the universe we presently experience.
That thinking would put spiritual dimensions as being "emergent properties" of matter. Beyond that - in many spiritual traditions - some of the other dimensions are just as physical as what you think of as the one you experience.

That said, as I stated the point of the OP was not to convince or sway by argument that there are many universes but simply to point out that the knowledge (concept if you like) has been around way before the advent of materialism. Or Western science as we know it.

There is one thing I ignored and that's the usual bugaboo of definitions. If by "universe" one means "all existence physical and non-physical" then the idea of a "multiverse" becomes moot. With that definition - any and all realities different to the one you know would still be part of the universe.
 
#6
See if this clarifies the situation.

Universe: self-contained space-time.

Multiverse in horizontal sense: multiple universes equally material spaced apart. (The inflation hypothesis, the interpretation of quantum mechanics of Hugh Everett).

Multiverse in vertical sense: multiple layered universes, each made of a different material from others, universe is synonymous of plane. (The mystical and spiritualist traditions).
 
#7
See if this clarifies the situation.
Everett's perspective has nothing to do with spaced apart and is in physical ways no different than that of some mystical/spiritual traditions. As for your definition of universe . . .hmmmm. I'd say it depends what you mean. Other universes are generated within space-time. So . . .??

But I'd say that as far as this thread goes you're complicating needlessly. The fact is that knowledge of other universes is not about ,materialism. Quite the opposite. It weakens the very notion of materialism. Which is why so many materialists work hard to concoct models that try to disallow it.
 
#8
Very few physicists accept the idea of Multiverses.

The basic idea of the Copenhagen Interpretation is what is generally and widely accepted.
This is in spite of a number of physicists who have no ideas about quantum physics or do not care about this basic concept of duality.

A number of physicists believe weird and different ideas, mostly hypothesis they themselves have suggested, each idea with a very small number of adherents.
A very small number of parallel or multiverse physicists exist right now:

 
#9
belief in MWI of QM is not a requirement for other important (e.g., landscape or inflationary) multiverse concepts. the reason few liked MWI (which was proposed a very long time ago) is because it comes with heavy conceptual baggage for little gain -- it makes no calculational difference what interpretation one subscribes to. modern multiverse ideas have a lot more to offer. anyway i am quite confident a lot more physicists are open to those ideas than how many take MWI seriously. in short, i see no relevance of that bar graph to any multiverse idea other than MWI. which pretty much nobody cares about because it has little potential to tell us anything new -- whatever can be said about it mostly has been said decades ago.
 
#10
Everett's perspective has nothing to do with spaced apart and is in physical ways no different than that of some mystical/spiritual traditions. As for your definition of universe . . .hmmmm. I'd say it depends what you mean. Other universes are generated within space-time. So . . .??

But I'd say that as far as this thread goes you're complicating needlessly. The fact is that knowledge of other universes is not about ,materialism. Quite the opposite. It weakens the very notion of materialism. Which is why so many materialists work hard to concoct models that try to disallow it.
I wanted to express the difference between the physical theories that posit multiple universes and the theosophy which states that there are various planes of existence because each plane is in a sense a universe.
 
#11
I wanted to express the difference between the physical theories that posit multiple universes and the theosophy which states that there are various planes of existence because each plane is in a sense a universe.
You continue to misunderstand and attempt to muddy the point - there are many spiritual traditions that know (conceptualize if you prefer) of the existence of multiple physical universes. Period.

The "planes of existence" knowledge is something completely different and is not at all what this thread is about. There are many planes of existence" in most maybe all universes
 
#12
I wanted to express the difference between the physical theories that posit multiple universes and the theosophy which states that there are various planes of existence because each plane is in a sense a universe.
Yes, that is part of the criticism against a science which accepts Multiverse ideas, that the idea itself is philosophical.
 
#13
belief in MWI of QM is not a requirement for other important (e.g., landscape or inflationary) multiverse concepts.

the reason few liked MWI (which was proposed a very long time ago) is because it comes with heavy conceptual baggage for little gain -- it makes no calculational difference what interpretation one subscribes to.

modern multiverse ideas have a lot more to offer. anyway i am quite confident a lot more physicists are open to those ideas than how many take MWI seriously. in short, i see no relevance of that bar graph to any multiverse idea other than MWI. which pretty much nobody cares about because it has little potential to tell us anything new -- whatever can be said about it mostly has been said decades ago.
The MWI of QM includes the ideas of Multiverses:

"Multiverse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes."
 
#14
The MWI of QM includes the ideas of Multiverses:

"Multiverse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...
what is supposed to be your point? i did not say MWI does not include multiverse ideas, obviously it does. it is a tautology. i said not all multiverse ideas are the same. landscape multiverse is not the same as continuously spawned parallel trajectories of MWI. those trajectories do not interact. that's why (almost) nobody cares about MWI. it does not distinguish itself other than conceptually, all the QM calculations remain exactly the same.

i don't need wikipedia for definition of multiverse, i know what multiverse means, and nothing about this definition invalidates my commentary. i think you may want to develop a slightly more stratified picture of "multiverse". mersini's ideas, for example, are not as easily dismissed as MWI (for being little more than a useless mathematical construct), because the existence of proximal universes implies actual artifacts that can be observed, here, in this universe. it is a much more profound idea than MWI, and has little common with the "multiverse" of MWI except the word sounds the same.
 
#15
belief in MWI of QM is not a requirement for other important (e.g., landscape or inflationary) multiverse concepts. the reason few liked MWI (which was proposed a very long time ago) is because it comes with heavy conceptual baggage for little gain -- it makes no calculational difference what interpretation one subscribes to. modern multiverse ideas have a lot more to offer. anyway i am quite confident a lot more physicists are open to those ideas than how many take MWI seriously. in short, i see no relevance of that bar graph to any multiverse idea other than MWI. which pretty much nobody cares about because it has little potential to tell us anything new -- whatever can be said about it mostly has been said decades ago.
Let me repeat my criticism again, as I explain that ALL multiverse ides are hardly accepted at all by physicists as the graph indicates.

Multi-world ideas are now more numerous today, but they all are collected together in the Graph and indicate only 18% ratings.
 
#16
Let me repeat my criticism again, as I explain that ALL multiverse ides are hardly accepted at all by physicists as the graph indicates.
this graph is a common appeal to authority fallacy -- truth in science is not a popularity contest. plus, i wonder who conducted the poll, how, when, and of whom. the bars do not add up to 100%. are these just QM specialists, or a representative cross-section of all physicists? would you ask all doctors' opinion on robotic surgery or only ask surgeons, who have worked with it? how old is this poll?

Multi-world ideas are now more numerous today, but they all are collected together in the Graph...
says who? if this graph had any relevance at all, i would pursue those points above. but i didn't even get into that discussion, as i simply pointed out why graph is on its face irrelevant to discussion of multiverse -- because it is strictly about QM. what someone thinks of MWI in QM has nothing whatsoever to do with what they think of other multiverse ideas. for example MWI is not my favorite interpretation, but i find mersini's multiuniverse papers compelling.

twice now i pointed out that MWI has nothing to do with some other cosmological multiuniverse ideas. if you still assert that this popularity chart chart about favorite interpretations of QM to be some kind of referendum on all cosmological multiuniverse ideas, then you are impenetrable to rational discussion.
 
Top