Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

February 23, 2018

ARTICLE: Philosophy of the Multiverse [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Gevin Giorbran wrote on Feb. 4, 2008 @ 09:01 GMT
The problem with a multiverse of universes having different settings (particular laws and constants) is that there must also be a mechanism of maintaining those particular settings. In one world reality is set up this way, but in this other world right over here this dial is turned up and this one is turned down, and two completely different forces govern subatomic particles. If there can be constant settings then why not variables, and why not constants that become variables, and why not every conceivable reality, and suddenly you have an absolute chaos. In chaos, the probability of existing in a universe without stable settings is far greater than existing in one with stable settings, since variability is just another word for potentiality. Unless you assume some limiting mechanism that only creates universes where settings remain constant, the stability of any given universe is destroyed by the far greater probability of 'settings' decay, in which case we shouldn't expect to see the sun rise tomorrow. The mystery is the same, whether we are talking about a multiverse or our own universe. Why settings and not chaos? So the multiverse idea doesn't really accomplish anything. It just relocates the mystery.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Christopher Gronbeck wrote on May. 3, 2008 @ 14:45 GMT
It was very anthropocentric for earlier humans to believe that they were the center of everything, but it seems to me equally narrow-minded to suggest that we have the one (and only) winning lottery ticket, which is a fundamental basis for the multiverse theory.

Sure...the evolution of our *exact* manifestation of life may be very specific (= improbable), but the evolution of some sort of life may not be so rare in very-large-scale dynamic systems. And I certainly don't believe that we understand the basis of consciousness well enough to say what kind of organization / order might give rise to it, so who's to say that only one of the lottery tickets is a winner? Maybe they all are!

We're finding evidence for potentially life-sustaining environments elsewhere in our galaxy (i.e., practically next door), so maybe self-aware life is a lot more common than we think, and if we're open-minded about what life is (and acknowledge that our limited senses might not even be able to perceive it all), maybe there's a heck of a lot more of it around than we think.

And if so, then what's the justification / need for the multiverse?

(If what I wrote doesn't make convince you, don't of the other infinite me's in the multiverse wrote a lucid and compelling version of this post, so just pretend that you read that one.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

john wrote on May. 18, 2008 @ 21:54 GMT
Life is uniquely defined as physical matter capable of replication and adaption, properties that are fundamentally related to randomness in structural geometry on multiple scales.

A possible path to multiverse research may lie with such randomness but at much larger scale. At the scale we observe, why should the laws of physics be so elegantly precise - yet result in so much variation in life? Perhaps one layperson's randomness is another's intersection of universes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Abraham Joseph wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 07:57 GMT
Every cosmologist must understand Emmanuel Kant's well reasoned verdict on human mind.It is an organ like nose or ear,capable of giving man a reality within its permitted range.Reality 'in itself' is always elusive.But if Reason is set apart from mind as a distinct entity,it gives one a different picture of reality.I would request my friends to speed through the attached article of mine on 'Reality' especially the portion on REASON.I was meditating on these subjects for over two decades.

Emotion as an ingredient in the scheme of existence also may be taken note of!

attachments: Anatomy_of_realities.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 25, 2009 @ 22:14 GMT
The comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern are central to our life, extensiveness of experience, growth, and consciousness. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand -- as in the dream and waking experiences. Emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness; moreover, desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well -- and that is important. Our range and extensiveness of feeling also has to do with the extensiveness and desirability of our habitat/experience (and thought). This is readily apparent when considering dream experience in relation to that of waking.

I hope that this is helpful. Questions/comments welcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jan. 31, 2010 @ 07:06 GMT
The multi-verse idea is philosophy. As are ideas of existential temporal realms, past present and future. IMO They are ideas formed from misinterpretation of observations. These models are transformed into unshakeable beliefs for some people.

IMO The dimensions of space can be observed in the matter of the universe and its structure and deduced from the behaviour observed, including gravity. Assuming that matter is distributed across 4 spatial dimensions and that Subatomic particles can travel along the 4th spatial (scalar) dimension in either direction, (which also alters 3d spatial position and may also alter chirality detected within 3D space ), whilst still remaining within a certain boundary of detectability within 3D space. Then the particle that is detected and its position within 3D space will depend upon at what position it is located when then observation is made. At that particular conjunction of spatial configurations. Which is a frozen snap shot of a continuously changing phenomenon. There does not have to exist a whole collection of other alternative universes ie multi-verses nor does there have be existential past and future realms. There just has to be more space distributed along the scalar dimension, afore and aft of the 3D spatial plane.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 23:27 GMT

I was wondering if you could be clearer with your description of the 4th spatial dimension in your model. The reason I asked is because I deal with a similar 4th spatial concept in my theory but my theory keeps time (i.e. past and future realms) as well as includes the many-worlds interpretation. I know Lisa Randall got tired of compactification of extra dimensions and came up with a 4th spatial dimension in which our 3D universe exists, so I was just wondering how yours is set-up.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.