User talk:201.53.10.205

why was the following pulled from the multiverse page? - these paragraphs are based on a peer-reviewed paper in an international cosmology journal (as cited).

Everything from nothing
Michael Forrest has postulated an infinite multiverse, arisen from nothing. He suggests that “nothing” - the absence of anything - is unstable and untenable. Nothing, with its absence of rules, laws, constraints, limitations, prohibitions, preclusions or cost, inherently renders everything possible. Out of nothing, inextricably, emerges infinite possibility and complexity. So, on this basis, we are in just one of an infinite number of rule sets/universes. Thus, Forrest considers the age old question, why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is unsustainable as it inherently delivers everything. Thence, we don’t have something, but “everything rather than nothing”. He argues that this scenario is the most parsimonious, and thence the most probable (Occam's razor), because its information burden is zero, indeed: nothing.

He suggests that when everything happens, anything is possible, and some universes will be created by a God and some of these will facilitate an eternal after-life. Not all. An infinite number of Gods, with their own fiefdoms, and an infinity of universes existing of their own intrinsic accord. So, the existence of Gods is an inherent feature to the most parsimonious, and thence most likely, scenario. To preclude this possibility would render something rather than everything, which would make the information burden non-zero. Something requires rules/information precluding other possibilities and specifying that specific something. Everything, by contrast, is the product of no rules and has no information burden.

Forrest’s theory claims to resolve how we came from nothing, and why our physics appears optimised (fine-tuned universe), without requiring any inputs, start state or preconditions. Indeed, the theory claims to be maximally parsimonious. Its information input is zero, nothing. By contrast, a single universe or a sub-infinite number of universes demands a significant information input. All the physical rules need to be specified, to exclude all other possible rules. Where does this information come from? Furthermore, why is all or some of this information - the rules of our universe - so matched to our being? Forrest argues that a sub-infinite multiverse doesn’t deliver answers. It compounds the problem; more information, less parsimony, less probable. To elaborate, if the multiverse is sub-infinite, then its information burden is greater, and its parsimony is less, than a single universe. Thus it is less likely (Occam's razor). This then re-raises the issue of why a single universe (ours) has settings so conducive to life. If the multiverse is truly infinite, as Forrest suggests, then he further suggests that this inherently predicts God (infinitely plural), but not necessarily for us.

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Baking Soda (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, 201.53.10.205. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Multiverse, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Baking Soda (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2016
Your recent editing history at Multiverse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.In case you plan to re add content against consensus.... Baking Soda (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

3O Decline
I've rejected your case at WP:3O as there are currently more than two editors involved in the dispute. 3O is for providing a third opinion. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Regards. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)