Talk:Multiverse

Prove of multi-verse Or is that the edge of the universe isn’t the end?
if you stir a cup of water, do you get a vortex? No if you put that same cup of water on a plate and spin it do you get a centrifuge with all of the heavy elements, expanding to the side with the big bang and eternal inflation it is safe to say the universe is spinning inside of a larger entity Tony Alan Ratliff 2600:1014:B1E9:6AB7:BD29:2E58:D33C:B971 (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a page for discussion of the article, not its subject. If you have a modification you’d like to make, you may. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The obvious solution
it's not that hard to understand. The nature of the multiverse or whatever you want to label it is obvious. Initially there are a nearly infinite number of potential universes, a timeline for every configuration of quantum events. We can refer to these as "potentials" as time progresses and quantum states are determined they become fixed. Or "realized". At that instant any potential that is not consistent with the quantum states that have been realized become "unfulfilled" and are effectively erased because they are not consistent with really happened. Which we can call " reality" so initially there was a potential for anything that was within the confines of the natural laws ( which we don't have a complete understanding of yet. Nor have we even discovered all of its mechanisms of influence) so as time goes by and quantum states are realized massive amounts of potentials are changed to unfulfilleds, like the opposite of a ripple. Eventually there will come a time when the last free willed entity/observer will exert its last influence upon the universe and at that point all that follows will be strictly cause and effect. Retroactively validating itself as the predetermined destiny of the universe and everything in it. Since it was the only potential that perfectly and exactly was composed of the configuration of quantum states that have been realized..

Heres an example. As of today all the stuff that happened in the past really happened. There were other things that could have happened but they didn't, so they arent reality. When i make my choice of what to eat for breakfast there are trillions of alternative dimensions desperately depending on what choice i make. As i exercise my free will and choose cornflakes every universe in which i didn't is instantly erased. The me that picked eggs and the me that picked waffles is snuffed out of existence. They aren't chilling somewhere else living out their alternative configuration somewhere, their entire reality is retroactively erased,they never happened. Likewise every universe in which i picked cornflakes BUT you did too is deletes, as well as any other that isn't consistent with the choices i made AS WELL AS those that everyone Else made. We all have an equal share in authoring what will ultimately be the final story when all is said and done. Because even the things that an aborted child would have maybe done are as impactful as the 100 year life of a great leader. It's like an exponentially reducing pool of possibilities that Eventually reach the very last one. And that one "wins" or whatever. Anyway if you don't understand how it works after reading this then all the potentials in which you were smart Have become unfulfilleds. 2601:201:8B00:4F00:44D3:A986:76BD:FE9E (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "nearly infinite"? 2001:9E8:460F:6200:34BF:6372:F526:466C (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a page for discussing the article, not its contents. If you have a change you’d like to make to the article, you may suggest it here. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * you have inspired me to exercise my free will and eat a chicken for dinner. thank you! 🍗 38.15.195.81 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not hypothetical
The framing of the opening sentence does not match my understanding of the use of the word "multiverse". It is a metaphysical claim that there really is a multiplicity of universes. --Russell E (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Popular but erroneous definition in the page
The correct description according to ontoaxiomatics = physical axiomatics:


 * multiverse: mathematically related universes = family of universes

Infinitely many multiverses exist.


 * omniverse: the impossible set of all multiverses: many are mutually exclusive = the omniverse has no common axiomatic engagement

The axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems doesn't exist.

The set (non-engaged collection) of all sets doesn't exist.

The omniverse cannot be described neither by a human = non-fundamental mathematical, because it includes nontrivially (without easy informational patterns) infinite parts and mathematical descriptions.

Also the Everything and the unitary (single) logical foundations don't exist as unitary logical wholes for the same reasons.

The core/main definition is wrong. It's simply popular and biasedly soothing = in medieval times the Earth and nowadays the multiverse is the center of the supposedly functionally unitary Everything = which is wrong.

___________

Encyclopedias must inform and not merely promote popular biases.