Talk:Multiverse/Archive 4

A review of The Cosmic Landscape states that "the particular multiverse version proposed by Susskind, however, has the great virtue of being testable in one respect. It is supposed to have started out by quantum tunnelling, resulting in a spatially homogenous and isotropic universe with negative spatial curvature."^{Google it}, meaning that if our universe is not open this particular multiverse theory would be falsified. Will many multiverse theories result in open universes, or is this a particular case? If there is a tendency for multiverse theories to make stipulations on curvature, it seems like an interesting point to mention. Can someone please expand on this?--Wp500 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

if level one multiverse exsisted then somewhere everything must happen, happened and will happen and so, then this means somewhere out there a civilisation has took over the multiverse and made everything happen but its impossible to say, a person dies but also doesn't, so that means that this theory is impossible as two possibilites meet making impossibility, and then so how can two things happen in every universe as it must of happened because somewhere everything must happen and if everything must happen somewhere then somewhere a civilisation has blown up the multiverse and killed us all and countless other things and so infinite possible outcomes cant happen in every universe and so the level one multiverse theory is impossible unless, infinite impossibilities are possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanolympics (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But since it's also possible that such a civilization never existed, there is a whole other set of universes never touched by them, and of course, lots of different sets that have been took over by other civilizations. Absolutes don't work the same at this level, somthing can be two or more different things at once; everything was destroyed and still exists, neither is a lie. --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The proof is incomplete, because it is unproven that it is possible to blow up the multiverse. --MrBurns (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

the infinite universe theory, is wrong, they are just probability, they are not actualized, infact einstein and others point to some unknown mechanism(God) underneath the quantum mechanics, in which case makes this universe determinate. There are 7 universes, this is the "lowest universe". This Universe is steadily expanding, and the big bang was not how they describe it, but similar, the mainstream bigbang says that it was infinitely small and infinitely hot, and that it has been expanding and cooling ever since, however this makes no sense, as there is no observable evidence that the centre of the universe is hotter, the truth is God did the big bang, and did it according to his will. this universe also has other planes, or atleast one other plane, which is a plasma realm, the physics in the electric-plasma plane alongside our universe is capable of sustaining(and maybe evolving) sentient life forms. So there is 7 universes, ours being the lowest, plasma is the main form of matter, we have a parallel plane/dimension to ours, the big bang is real, but is performed by God(beyond our comprehension), and the universe is steadily expanding. It could also crunch in on itself, and be reborn. I hope this information makes sense to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.221 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation. I don't believe any magical god did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.63.21 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that God is magic, they are just suggesting that the Universe came from a Singularity (Created by God). This is not such a giant leap when you think about it, without a force that is and always has been, we would become trapped in 'What caused the Big Bang? Well what caused the cause of the Big Bang?' We would be faced with a neverending series of questions and answers. Also, the idea of a multiverse is speculation at this point. There is no hard evidence for a multiverse, (and most likely never will be) because we can only measure what is in our universe. It seems to be much more philosophical than scientific. One last thing I'd like to add: Saying that there is an infinite number of universes is in no way, shape, or form scientific, because to measure an infinite, it would take infinitely long. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the notion of a multiverse? If the Universe is all there is, how can there be multiple Universes? Either it is everything - or it isn't. If there is another Universe, than isn't it really a part of the Universe that we don't know or can't detect? Shouldn't the Multiverse be called the Universe and each Universe in the Multiverse be called something else - some part of the Universe? I know they are just words, but words are important.206.109.195.126 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that isn't how the words have come to be used. BTW, shouldn't this be at the bottom of the talk page? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When they were first discovered, Galaxies were called "island universes", but now that we know there is more than one of these, we don't call the Milkyway the universe anymore. Originally, Andromeda was thought to be a nebula within the Milky Way, but it turned out to be a galaxy instead. In all likelihood, the word universe in religious texts probably referred not to the galaxy or universe as we know it but only an aggregation of stars (heavens) visible by the unaided eye. This highlights a trend, which if continued, would imply that the current universe would lose its "universe" label if another one was discovered several trillion light years away by using a more advanced telescope.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, the fundamentals of the multiverses go as follows. The all began through the same EXACT process, presumablely the Big Bang Theory. From then, the exact same groups of mass are moving in exactly the same direction at the exact same time as the mass groups of the other 'Universes'. From then, the same mass groups move to through the same points, the 'gas and dust' moving along the same paths, attracting into the same interstellar clouds, or nebulas, as are in our universe. From there the same galaxies formed, creating the same nebula that formed our sun, form the same sun in another universe. And the gravity the sun possess caused the forming planetesimals to orbit, and form in the exact same sequence as the ones in our universe, causing what they theorized as a "Parallel Universe". Please correct me if I'm wrong. -PoofyGoofyMike 7:06 PM central time 15th, April of 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoofPoofyMike (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this question is more philosophical than anything. The idea that there are multipule universes is fine, but the idea of the word "uni" only means that we can observe what we can see or detect. Somebody said this (not really sure who) "To existist is to be precieved." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.173.157 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in the idea of "multiverse". The problem is contradicting plural/singular and definitions of words. If you use the following words/definitions, there is no contradiction:

UniVerse = everything that exists. If anything was "outside the universe", then the definition of "universe" would expand to include that too. There is exactly 1 UniVerse and it may be a MultiVerse. Verse = any Cross_section_(geometry) of the UniVerse. There are less cross-sections of the universe than there are Subsets of the universe. The UniVerse and every MultiVerse is a Verse. MultiVerse = any Set_(mathematics) of Verses.

BenRayfield (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the talk of multiverse or multiverses useful mostly for providing good examples of incoherent use of language. It may be useful to talk of there being various domains in the universe (depending upon what one wants to single out), but usually if someone says "everything plus everything else", we recognize it as a bit of humor.

Why do you need all this stuff about the universes being in different dimensions or having different physics? Wouldn't it be much simpler to say that out beyond the border of our universe there is some empty space and eventually another universe trillions of light years away? --67.193.45.183 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One would think....Jjdon (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not really what the idea of a multiverse is. If you could travel there by going however many trillion miles from earth it would still be part of our universe, just far away from Earth. There isn't anything 'outside' space in our universe - the space IS the universe, and there is literally nothing outside it, because it doesn't exist, which is what makes the concept of multiverse so radical and why other dimensions, etc. needed to account for the concept. Cvislay (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this unreferenced and trivial section serve any real purpose? Are there any fictional multiverses of any genuine historic importance (e.g. ones that led to new cosmological hypotheses)? As the section stands, wouldn't it be better just to have a link to Parallel universe (fiction) in the see-also section? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument, I think perhaps what we should do would be to replace the content in the Fictional Multiverses section with a few notable fictional multiverses, and anyone who wants to learn more should go to the page you mentioned or to the page on the specific multiverse mentioned. What I mean would be to replace the content in this section with a list of links to other pages. Such as a bullet for TV, with an example of two; a bullet for literature, with an example or two; a bullet for film, with an example or two; and so on and so on, with each example being a link to a page where more specified information can be found.--BigBang616 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that none of the fictional universes inserted to date have been demonstrated to be "notable" under wikipedia criteria: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is where the unsourced element becomes so pernicious. Simply turning this non-notable trivia from prose into an embedded list doesn't make this any better. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." So, just because they don't have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not mean they are not notable. And you're right, changing this from prose to an embedded list doesn't make it any better. I was just trying to find a compromise between deleting the section entirely and the section in which these multiverses are mentioned in prose. And please don't delete the section again, according to Wikipedia guidelines: presenting information poorly is better than not presenting it at all.--BigBang616 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim, within the article, that the information was notable, I told you, in this discussion, that I considered fictional multiverses notable. Do you want me to put a reference at the end of the section header to a place an article that discusses fictional multiverses? And all notability is subjective, what I think is notable, is obviously not to you, regardless of what I think. I just think this section should (a) remain here, and if you don't like that then change the section to the way you do like it, and (b) DISCUSS it rationally with me (QUOTING DOESN'T COUNT AS DISCUSSING, I could quote whatever I want all day and it won't have any impact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBang616 (talk --BigBang616 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what you "claim" -- I, and wikipedia policy, care about EVIDENCE, hence my quoting to you "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." If you can find a scholarly WP:RS discussing fictional multiverses generally, then that is a reasonable basis for including a brief general discussion, sourcable to this reference, on fictional multiverses. If you want to provide specific examples you need to provide "verifiable objective evidence" that they are sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion (and no, Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Alternate Universes 2005 does not count as "objective"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't know if you get it, but AS I KEEP MENTIONING, I would like to discuss this before you do anything drastic YET AGAIN. And yes, the Official Handbook does indeed count as a source, apparently you didn't check, or care to check, out the source. Also, it is a work in progress, I will eventually fill out the sources more thoroughly, and will continue to restore the section no matter how many times you delete it. So, until you're willing to discuss this before deleting it again, I will see you then.--BigBang616 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTE, Marvel publications are not "independent of the subject" nor are they "objective". Per WP:RS they are not "scholarly". They may be sufficient of a source for a fancruft article on the Marvel-related subjects, but not for a serious science article on cosmology. If you insist on reinserting this irrelevant fancruft, I will continue deleting it.

You don't get it at all, do you? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you, trying to discuss the potential of making changes, trying to come up with a compromise before any changes are made, but what do you keep doing? You read what I'm saying, take a few words out of it, use them in an "argument" against what I said, then do whatever you want. Please, just consider the idea of a compromise between what you want, entire deletion, and what I want mention of the content (all the content) that's already there. I know you'll completely disregard this, do whatever you want (delete change, whatever) without even considering what I'm saying, but I still feel compelled to bring up the idea of a rational discussion. --BigBang616 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your recent reverts:

• What excuse have you got for your repeated restoring of the wholly unsourced first and third paragraphs of this section, in violation of WP:PROVEIT?
• What evidence do you have that the Marvel & DC multiverses are of "historic importance", or in the slightest bit noteworthy outside comics-fandom?

As to the general progress of the article, as I have stated before:

• Generally discussion of fictional multiverses requires a scholarly WP:RS discussing them.
• Specific examples requires verifiable objective evidence that they are noteworthy.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, you win. I'm tired of this whole thing. You're right. This is a science/fact-based article and the information I'm trying to save belongs somewhere else, in another article about fiction, just as you suggested. I won't interfere or undo your removal of the section again. You have won. --BigBang616 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on Level IV says: "Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics. This level considers "real" any hypothetical universe based on one of these structures. Since this subsumes all other possible ensembles, it brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses: there cannot be a Level V. The question is open whether or not scientists will subdivide Level IV in the future."

But Level IV either does not make sense or is already subdivided. Jürgen Schmidhuber says the "set of mathematical structures" is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program (Kurt Gödel's limitation). Sources: J. Schmidhuber: A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 201-208, Springer, 1997: http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/ 2. Algorithmic Theories of Everything" http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/ or http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0011122 (2000) 3. Hierarchies of generalized Kolmogorov complexities and nonenumerable universal measures computable in the limit. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 13(4):587-612, 2002 http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/kolmogorov.html . He also explicitly discusses another subdivision, namely, quickly computable universes: The Speed Prior: A New Simplicity Measure Yielding Near-Optimal Computable Predictions. Proc. 15th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT 2002), Sydney, Australia, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 216-228. Springer, 2002. http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/speedprior.html . See his web site for more: http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html . The text should be edited accordingly. Discrepancy (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, what is the position you think I'm trying to advance to? doesn't Islam believe that there are seven heavens? isn't this what the article is talking about? Imad marie (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'anic verse that you cited made no mention of "Dunyah", let alone that "Dunyah encompasses the entire universe as we know it, including the Earth". It is unclear whether this is WP:SYNTH of this verse, your ownWP:OR or simply an independent unverified claim, but either way it is impermissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I copied from Seventh Heaven. I will refine. Imad marie (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what the Islamic view of multiple heavens (which you have reverted to reinclude) has to do with a "hypothetical set of multiple possible universes"?

There are some Islamic scholars who interpret "heavens" as "universes", with their own physical laws. Imad marie (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this is (1) you have yet to cite a source for this 'interpretation' and (2) even if this interpretation were verified, a 'multiverse of heavens' has very little in common with the multiverses discussed in this article.

You don't find the religious view of this article related to Seventh Heaven? Imad marie (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've likewise templated the Islam section of Seventh Heaven, because it is equally WP:SYNTH that provides no secondary sources for its interpretation of the Qur'an. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I can find references for my claim, however this is controversial because no one knows for sure that the heavens mentioned in the Qur'an (or any other religious book) really refers to the Multiverse (as a physical universe). It's all theories and no one can be sure about it, this applies for Islam and any other religion. If you are against the religious interpretation of Multiverse then you should delete the section (hypotheses in religions around the globe). Imad marie (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The Hindu version is very explicitly talking about a 'multiverse' in the same sense as the rest of the article -- multiple universes each with planets and inhabitants. Contrast this with the Islamic view, which is talking about multiple "heavens". Heavens are usually considered to be in some (generally very vaguely specified) way very different, and greatly better, than earthly existence. If they are 'universes' then they are very different universes from our own. Therefore the Hindu view has a reasonable claim to a place in this article, whereas the Islamic one belongs solely in an article on supernatural planes of existence (heaven(s), hell(s), limbo, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert in Multiverse, so I'll just drop it off here. But I have to ask: does anyone really know the nature of those alleged (alternative universes)? No, no one knows, it's all just theories and this Multiverse is in the divine knowledge. Muslims think that there are other "heavens" with diffirent physical laws, and that God inhabits the seventh heaven. Aren't those universes? Imad marie (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Heaven, it is a 'Plane of existence', rather than a 'universe'. While these concepts might, in some conceptions of them, overlap does not mean that they aren't generally considered distinguishable. The multiverse hypothesis is not talking about heavens, hells, or other such planes of existence. That some philosophers might conceive of such planes of existence as alternate universes is something that can (if WP:RSs can be found) be worked into Plane of existence, I do not think it belongs in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that passage justifies it's self, or have you my friend and I believe that it should be deleted. However I do understand that the when you translate from Arabic to English you loose information, could this possible be the case? I do not speak Arabic. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi makes no mention of cosmos or universes in the passage in 'islam and the cosmos'. Until there is a passage relating to this I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshsiret (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiverse can be recognized as an infinite amount of universes, broken down as the following: for every particle in the universe there must be an infinite number of actualalitys of that particles existance. This can further be theorized as to state: each particle has an antiparticle, thus rendering an additional infinite count actualitys, which then might constitute multiverse as Infinity plus or minus --MrH3MinuteMile (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to discussion of improvements to the article, rather than discussion of the article topic more generally (per WP:TALK). Also, please cite reliable sources for claims you make. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted here for review first while I work out the wording (and while I work out how to cite references :o) I'm going to add a reference to David Deutsch's paper about the structure of the multiverse: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104033 <quote> since quantum interactions are local, it must in the first instance be local physical systems, such as qubits, measuring instruments and observers, that are split into multiple copies, and this multiplicity must propagate across the multiverse at subluminal speeds. </quote> <quote> the Hilbert space structure of quantum states provides an infinity of ways of slicing up the multiverse into ‘universes’, each way corresponding to a choice of basis </quote> These quotes indicate that the multiverse is not a place where every single configuration of each entire universe exists. Instead, localised regions of the multiverse differ from each other and the effects of those differences are allowed to affect the rest of the universe at the speed of light (i.e., the speed of information). The concept of an almost infinite set of universes where everything that could possibly happen does happen causes many to reject the idea of the multiverse because it doesn't match with what we observe. We can instead think of a reality where, at a small scale, systems are exploring an enormous range of possibilities by spreading across the multiverse and in most cases interfering with each other to provide a single outcome across all universes (see inferometer). The vast majority of these extremely localised trips into the multiverse do not have any significant effect on the wider universe. However, in certain circumstances (when we specifically setup an experiment for schrodinger's cat or setup a roulette wheel) the random variations are amplified to create significant differences between macroscopic objects based on a small initial difference. Most physical processes in nature work to dampen down these differences rather than amplify them. When the differences get amplified, the multiverse does contain a (still localised, but with wider spread differences) set of different outcomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBoden (talk • contribs) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Critics claim that these theories lack empirical correlation and testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove."

Isn't this a moot point? The idea of a multiverse is strictly hypothetical, or even conjectural at most. No scientist is claiming these ideas to be actual scientific theories backed with empirical evidence, so the criticism is arguing a strawman. ScienceApe (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific theory? Perhaps not, but many scientists do believe and claim that the multiverse constitutes the reality of our universe (whatever that means). From that perspective, criticisms that the multiverse is untestable and unobservable are entirely justified. Remember, critics aren't necessarily opponents; some scientists just believe that actual scientific principles should be adhered to before making any grand pronouncements for the sake of human advancement/book sales.172.190.63.123 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why complete reference to the Hindu Multiverse (for it is that without debate) has been replaced by the spurious Islamic one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.36.35 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Amulpra: The answer could be that the Hindu Multiverse is not about universes, but about the stratified intellects like those of Plato who must have copied from Hinduism. It is a religious belief just like the Druze philosophy of Lebanon and Syria. It is a world of thinking (soul) that goes from the earthly matter which is the lowest state of existence to the upper intellects seven times closer to the Grand Intellect. Be careful when you say spurious, you could be wrongly judged because the Islamic philosophy elaborated subjects never discussed before, like existentialism and the nature of the human thought in relation to the definition of God. Although based on the Greek Philosophy, the Islamic philosophy developed it and sometimes proved it wrong and challenged Aristotle in many issues. What the Islamic philosophers brought to humanity was sometimes inspired by the Hindu philosophy and at some instances was drifting away from the common religious faith rules. please read, perhaps by reading you will get closer to a better reality. Very respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The term 'multiverse' is just hype and means either "richly varied universe" (or something close to that), or it means nothing at all, since it is semantically silly to speak of "plural universes" (unless it is in low popular lingo, such as "the universe of poodle fanciers and the universe of surfboarders", etc.). In science, language should be carefully used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwikiroa (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems as though the article discusses Level II, Universes with different physical constants, but jumps directly to Level IV, Ultimate ensemble. The history has become too deep to sift through, but what has happened to Level III? Would any one care to reiterate the forgotten classification? Or is it possible that the listed fourth classification has been incorrectly labeled?

cbirchle --168.215.198.8 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention the dualism of John Carew Eccles?

• Sir John Eccles is a dualist who won a Nobel Prize in 1963 for his work on the synapse. He believes mind or spirit is sepeate and distinct from the physical machine called the brain.

Or how about Karl Popper's philosophical theory of reality that includes three interacting worlds? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In this article, I was thrown by the term'WMAP Cold Spot which appears in the first sentence of the main body text (below the introduction). What this is should be defined and/or clarified in the body of the text, as I doubt that a typical reader with a general interest in science would be familar with this. Such a reader shouldn't have to read a referenced article to obtain context, but should expect it to be explained at the high level within the article. As such, I request that this term either be explained or removed from the article. --Savlonn (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed a reference to George Ryazanov for want of a reliable source. His own work The divine state of consciousness seems insufficiently notable. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any place for unqualified opinion in a physics article? I propose that religious and philosophical material on this page be removed, or moved to a "See Also" section, as they are known to be promotional, rely heavily on personal opinion, are not peer-reviewed within the community of experts in the relevant field of research, and are self-published, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taigei (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a pure physics article. For example philosophy is a legitimate academic discipline and David Kellogg Lewis, advocate of modal realism, was a respected academic.Ht686rg90 (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and are religious and philosophical arguments excluded from the qualified sources rules here? For example, when I first read this article looking for some substantial information and criticism, I read the specified complexity reference, and found one page in 27 to mention anything about multiverse, and it was an opinion that David Deutsch's double-split experiment, revealing shadow photons, could be interpreted differently, without saying how. The reference itself is about the "chance of gaps" and argues for a creator. If Deutch's shadow photons are so important, why isn't Deutsch mentioned in the article? And why is this document arguing that there is a God, with no substantial, qualified or useful information about multiverse theory deserving presence? Taigei (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find more at for example p. 9 and the "4. Four Widely-Discussed Inflatons" section. I am no friend of the specified complexity argument but it and William A. Dembski have some notability as part of the intelligent design movement so a brief mention of it and a link to the main article about specified complexity where it is discussed and criticized in more detail is not undue. Remember, Wikipedia does not decide which views are correct, it only presents and discuss the notable ones, even dubious ones if they are notable and popular. But maybe this section should be expanded to explain how Demski claims that specified complexity applies to multiverse theory.Ht686rg90 (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate neutrality, but this is an issue of quality of source material. I will remove the entry in the near future for the following reasons in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources):

1. Cited source has a reputation for poor "fact-checking and accuracy."
2. Cited material is self-published, does not appear in "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers," or similarly qualified media.
3. Cited source and material expresses "views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
4. Cited material is self-published by an author who is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
5. Cited material substantially and clearly promotes a religious view which is not directly related to the article, given that less than ten percent of the source material gives any consideration for the topic of the article.

Taigei (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In this article, it says that 10^118 meters away, there is a universe identical to ours. But the problem is, how is it physically possible to talk about distance between two independent universes? Each universe has its own space and time, and there is nothing between them - no time or space, hence there is no "between". When there is no spacetime, we cant talk about time or distance - the two are fundamentally linked. Majopius (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a theory, that our 4-dimensional universe is just a D-brane in a multi-dimensional space and that every universe is a D-brane. --MrBurns (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That distance of 10^118 meters refers only to Level 1 universes, which, if the "theory" is correct, are in the same (infinite) 3-dimensional space we are in and are very far away. (Level 2 and higher are in different 3-d spaces.) If I understand it, the existence of infinite Level 1 "universes" depends on a model of cosmological inflation in which space inflated to infinity very soon after the big bang, and mass & energy either inflated to infinite amounts too or were already infinite at the time of the big bang. Otherwise there would be a finite number of them, greatly reducing the probability that one or more of them resemble the one we're in. The size of each Level 1 universe is somewhat arbitrary, based on the finite distance that light can travel in 13.7 billion years (or, more precisely the time since the big bang). In my opinion, the Level 1 terminology is somewhat misleading… one might as well use the word universe to refer to the entirety of our 3-dimensional space (which might or might not be infinite) and use another word (such as "semiverse" or "horizon") to refer to the local portion of it that's within the horizon determined by speed of light and age of universe. SEppley (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The terms are used in the article (and by Tegmark) in the way you'd prefer: although it's "Level 1 multiverse" for the whole, and "Hubble volume" for the part.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

From the citation given, it doesn't seem as if William James was speaking about the same thing that we're talking about here. It seems awkward to elaborate that he was using it in a different context but also misleading to leave it in. BobKawanaka (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should say that he wasn't using it in the modern sense. AFAIK, Deutsch was the first to use it in the QM sense. He certainly popularised the term. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a neologism that comes out of left field, uni -> multi ... it's very possible that later use of the term had no direct relation to the prior use (although such a claim would require a citation). Personally, I see no need to even mention William James because the use is different but I imagine that's a controversial edit. Maybe something like "While William James first used the word in a different sense, its use in a quantum mechanical context stems from ..." BobKawanaka (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If we don't mention you can be sure someone will reinsert it later. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And also, most importantly, this is not actually a quote from the text The Will to Believe but from Is Life Worth Living? also by William James. And this reference omits the use of the word "moral". So the actual quote is :"Visible nature is all plasticity and indifference,--a moral multiverse, as one might call it, and not a moral universe." I don't know if this mistake is from the 2003 OED or deliberate. So, no, James doesn't use it in the way that is meant in the article. But if he's the first to coin it, it is still worth mentioning. Benitoconcarne 00:54, May 3^rd 2013 (EST)

Some parts of Max Tegmark's theory "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically" CAN BE TESTED by carefully designed internet routing software and patterns of information flowing through it. Some people say "universe" only includes the present, but if the universe equals the total of math, there would be no limits on what can be experienced. You could change the laws of physics because all possible laws of physics are a subset of math. Consciousness and time would also be a subset of math. The "Global Consciousness Project" has already demonstrated unexpected results from their quantum-hardware-generated random numbers.

If the universe equals all math, then we should be able to write a reasonably short Lisp program to run on the Lisputer software and verify the Lisputer is executing in the same way the "laws of physics" are executing, by verifying that the Global Consciousness Project's "random" numbers become less random at that time. The Global Consciousness Project has years of data (about patterns some times and lack of patterns other times, in their generated "random" numbers) to compare it to. We must be careful to cover all possibilities, but if the Lisputer demonstrates an ability to change those random numbers, then we should take that as evidence that Max Tegmark is right, unless later a flaw is found in the test setup or assumptions made in designing/interpreting the test.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu QUOTE: The Global Consciousness Project, also called the EGG Project, is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others. We collect data continuously from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites around the world. The archive contains more than 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second." Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We predict structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events. When millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network data show meaningful departures from expectation. This is a powerful finding based in solid science. END QUOTE.

The following 2 softwares are still being planned and do not exist yet, but what they will do is very simple. The few lines below should be enough for you to understand why those softwares will be able to test Max Tegmarks theory, when I finish building those 2 softwares. I must make an exception on Wikipedia's "unbiased" rule, because claims have been made against Max Tegmark's theory being untestable, and I am the only one who has any idea how to test it. There is a policy against "orginal research", but this is directly based on Tegmark's theory for the purpose of testing it. If what I write here is to be removed, the claim that the theory is untestable should also be removed. Both should stay because testability (falsifiable) is an important part of every science theory.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/lisputer QUOTE: Lisputer "Don't panic". Based on Max Tegmark's theories, a high-level quantum prog-lang for solomonoff, bayesian, determinism, nondeterminism, Global Consciousness Project. Plugin for Schrodingers Network Router. Recursion controls blur/sharpen of multiverse END QUOTE.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/schrouter QUOTE: Schrodingers Network Router Research framework for interactions between UDP packets as exponential amounts of uncertainty build up in divergently branching recursions (EQ, XOR) through many computers on the Internet. Set AI goals more/less uncertainty for multiverse blur/sharpen. END QUOTE.

BenRayfield (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, then test it!! After you have tested it, produce a peer reviewed academical report, and send it to Science, Nature or some such, whatever is best suitable for the purpose, and then we can write about it in this encyclopedia. We wikipedians ourself are boring, desert dry librarians collecting sources and citeable facts, we don't do research here. And most specifically: we don't use article space to refer to a section of the talk page. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 14:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed this text in the section Non-scientific claims because the article text cannot refer to the talk page. The talk page is only for discussing the contents of the article, and referring from the article provides a reference circularity. Presenting research in the talk page is acceptable, but only as a means to improve the content of the article, and only if that research is a discourse about either finding relevant sources, or whether the article is readable, nice, nifty and generally delectable. Otherwise do the academic procedure! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

--Ganeshsashank (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Also, recently, I've studied the book [3] as a part of my reading. This text book was prescribed to us in our university. As I mentioned, I'm a B.E first year student pursuing mechanical engineering. In that book, when I was reading Thermodynamics, I saw the lines defining an isolated system--No perfect isolated system exists in practice. However, our universe can be taken as a perfectly isolated system because it has no surroundings to exchange energy with. But in my intemediate text book, I saw a point in the same chapter that-entropy of the universe is increasing constantly. My point is- If the universe is isolated system and cannot exchange energy since it hasn't got any surroundings, then its energy-either in the form of entropy or enthalpy or any form should remain constant! But why should entropy of the universe increase??!!. In my view, this may be the scientific explanation for the existence of multiple universes!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshsashank (talk • contribs)

You can check this link if any one wants...

-- the idea that energy increases/decreases is different from the idea of entropy. Entropy entails that energy moves from a state of high usability to low usability (I forget the exact terms). In fact, only isolated systems have the quality of attaining entropy, and entropy is attained *because* the system doesn't use the energy.

Although it might be possible for there to be an infinite # of universes, I doubt the universes would have infinite different sets of random physical laws, because that would mean one universe with another random set of laws would automaticly generate evil robots that travels to all other universes and destroys them. Even if the laws were different there would have to be well thought out limitations to what these laws could be and therefore someone to set them. 154.20.194.233 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous

If the multiverse extends beyond or above physical law, then I doubt that that anything could travel from one universe to another - that would require physical law to operate at a higher level than we've just posited. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Like i replied above, more than one truth can be valid at once, even when they contradict, so if there is the possibility one universe produced a bomb that wiped all of the multiverse, that is true, but if there is the possibility such a bomb never existed, that is also true, both things are true; kinda Schroedinger's (sp?) multiverse if you will. --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Logical contradiction is, at last, the definition of wrong in any sense of the imagination. Based on a contradiction, anything is both impossible and possible, so I believe what you perhaps mean to say in a logical sense, isn't really so different from what MCP suggested in a physical sense, that a higher level is required to resolve a given contradiction (an ad hoc orthogonal in phase space). Modal realism takes every logical possibility as true for some world. Physics works out which mathematically rigorous logical possibilities best model empirically rigorous observations, but it's hard to find a theory that, for the most part, only gives what's observable. Tegmark's Level IV would categorize a plurality of sufficient theories of all, as it seems unlikely sheer logical necessity would only lead to what's observable (assuming the cosmological principle that observations are not somehow privileged or freakish, as in skeptical hypotheses that are nonetheless possible). If Level I/III exists and supervenes on Level II/IV, evidently a platonic-bomb is impossible (perhaps due to self-contradiction) or it's the big bang. However, if they don't exist, or supervene on Level I/III, at best a detonation obtains in only half a multiverse, and a multi-bomber will always think it's a dud. The notion pre-dates Tegmark's quantum suicide, and they're both derivative of Schrödinger's cat. But the modal realist would say there exists at least one world in which the cat is alive, and at least one world in which the cat is dead, but in no possible world (in the exact same verse) is the cat simultaneously alive and dead. That's because whatever a physicist might mean by “superposition”, she must intend to paradoxically mitigate the implied contradiction between “alive” and “dead”, which are mutually exclusive in an unqualified sense. Conversely, whatever modal realism means by “world” makes no difference in physics because nature doesn't stand on formalities. So, while there's no superposition of “true” and “false”, there is a dubious law of excluded middle, still no less questionable than it was in antiquity.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A so-called "platonic bomb" is an impossible proposition. It would either violate the first or second laws of thermodynamics, which are necessary for life to exist, and even if they were not and it wasn't impossible, it would not affect universes in which those laws are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynicalProdigy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett theorizes that under the MWI as follows:

"THE CONCEPT YOU PUT BEFORE ME PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF TWO HITHERTO MYTHICAL PLACES. SOMEWHERE, THERE IS A WORLD WHERE EVERYONE MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE, THE MORAL CHOICE, THE CHOICE THAT MAXIMISED THE HAPPINESS OF THEIR FELLOW CREATURES, OF COURSE, THAT ALSO MEANS THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE IS THE SMOKING REMNANT OF THE WORLD WHERE THEY DID NOT..."

-Death

In the short story Death and What Comes Next, http://www.au.lspace.org/books/dawcn/dawcn-english.html

Agent1022 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need to have a section dedicated to alternatve universes being referenced on television? I mean, who cares if Family Guy had a plot or whatever centering on alternate universes? Family Guy is a load of bollocks, why talk about it on the Multiverse page? Isn't this just adding length where we don't need it? Family Guy is fictional. Why not devote it to made-for-TV-documentaries about the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk • contribs) 06:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter of "consensus." In Max Tegmark's commentary in, "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?" he says, "... the prevailing view on the interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be gradually changing. A [emphasis added] (highly unscientific) poll ... gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes. The Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the Consistent Histories and Bohm interpretations."

Mathematics is a tool, not a belief system subject to "unscientific" consensus! But, here we are in a section where the Public's faith/belief is given some putative credence via Television, while the above Comic Book universes are dismissed to some Multiversal Limbo due for being "unscientific." Meanwhile, in reality, the tool (Math) has seemingly fooled all of the Scientific Consensus all of the Time (which bansished to abstraction "word" doesn't exist for the Quantum Cosmologicalal accolates.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.169.212 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for merging the section §In popular culture (and its subsections: §Literature, §Film, §Television and §Other fictional uses) from the Multiverse article to the Parallel universe (fiction) article.

The scope of the Multiverse article is: the Multiverse hypotheses in physics; in philosophy and logic; and in religion and spirituality. Whereas, the "Multiverse#In popular culture" section should explain the subject's impact on popular culture, a topic which seems to be treated in depth by the Parallel universe (fiction) article, the section has been tagged since May 2010 as having accumulated a list of appearances and trivia. Arguably, the section has become unmanageable within the scope of the Multiverse article and it should summarize Parallel universe (fiction) with a {main} link and with any non–duplicated, notable content having been integrate there.

The two articles are both in Category:Science fiction themes. Other current inclusions:

• The Multiverse article is in Portal:Physics, Category:Physical cosmology, Category:Quantum mechanics and Category:Universe; Template:Physical cosmology assists navigation.
• The Parallel universe (fiction) article is in Category:Parallel universes (fiction), Category:Fiction and Category:Setting; Template:Science fiction assists navigation.

CC: "Talk:Multiverse#Merge Pop Culture section to "Parallel universe (fiction)" article" and "Talk:Parallel universe (fiction)#Merge from Multiverse "In Popular culture" section".—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section is unwieldy and ought to be reduced, with as much of the content as possible transfered to Parallel universe (fiction). Condensing the existing information to a summary subsection by subsection will be a relatively simple matter. I wonder only how the transfer is best performed. Would it be reasonable to first summarise a section and then use the record in the edit history as the source for material worthy of transfer, with the proviso that the transfer takes place soon after, or would it be preferable to transfer first and then summarise? Another disinterested reader (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this somehow. I just now took the tag off the other article (it seemed intrusive; being more of a problem with this article but placed at the top of that one). Last I checked, the recommendations on performing merges make them sound atomic (no sub–parts). I guess the only concern is to provide some sort of cut-off date regarding the source of the contributions (for licencing purposes). The latter method might be preferable; the other editors wouldn't be ambivalent about receiving new content (no proviso).

Personally I would find it difficult to summarize because I know "See Parallel universe (fiction)" probably doesn't sum it all up quite nicely, but that's about as far as I'm likely to get. Anyway, perhaps a "merge" is just too formal.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, Determinism, Fatalism, and Predestination (listed in the "see also") are not contradictory to the multiverse theory. This would be inconsistent with the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics page in which it is explicitly listed that the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" is Deterministic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics), yet the Many-Worlds Interpretation is also clearly multiversal. At any rate, I fail to see how the idea of multiple universes could be inconsistent with the idea that things act in a specific way which can be determined by all the variables, especially since such a view is specific to our universe and doesn't require that all universes act this way. Unless someone has information which would explain better this apparent inconsistency, it might be better to change the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.253.156 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In the beginning; “God" is just an unbelievably huge sphere of positive and negative energy living together simultaneously. Pressure from all sides converged in the center of the sphere causing it to implode into itself causing a new sphere to be made that expands inside until it reached its equilibrium. Next it reverberated off the membrane causing an adverse reaction that made an opposite sphere growing at a slower but parallel rate by proxy as the first one. The convergence of the 2nd sphere causes a mix of the two energies I.E. positive and negative thus creating another sphere filled with equal amounts of energy, and newly formed “fusion” gasses, which comprise our known universe. There may have been more and more spheres made after. I don’t see why it wouldn’t continue making alternate universes. Since the first sphere that "God" created had the most energy it would be safe to assume it is positive energy. The second one was like rebound energy, and though it expands like the first sphere it is inside the first positive sphere and grows parallel but will never catch up and will always be smaller thus being forever negative. The point where “sphere 1” meets “sphere 2” on the return must have created not one new sphere but more like concentrated ripple type spheres as in our gassy universe, and if it keeps rippling then it would theoretically create "time" or many universes getting weaker I surmise as they are created. So basically, sphere 1 would be "Heaven" or a bubble of massive amounts of positive energy, and sphere 2 would be "Hell" being infinitely weaker where massive amounts of negative energy collects. The 2 spheres point of collision is how our universe, and possibly more were created. Here is some food for thought; the bible says man was created in gods image, well maybe our sphere or "universe" is an exact yet smaller copy of "God" containing a natural balance of positive and negative energy like "God".I was also pondering whether or not "Purgatory" is where "God" or our energy source exists and that it is a super massive realm of possibly neutral energy, and possibly there are other maga spheres the size of our "God" that have their own creations. Remember I am using the term "God" only as a name of refererence and I am speaking solely from a scientific perspective, as a way to explain what I believe are plausable realms. I would bet that if this theory were to be factual, then perhaps an equation could eventually be developed to calculate the age of not only our universe, but of time itself, "God", and beyond. By Jamie Hicks 3/25/2011 You can read my other thoughts of this on this link... http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=17043&post=93820&uid=100864590107#!/topic.php?uid=100864590107&topic=17043&post=93813&notif_t=board_post_reply#post93813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.129.79 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Answers criticisms without really stating what they are.1Z (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not a criticism of the Multiverse theory, rather, it is a rebuttal aimed at the section before it. If I'm misunderstanding its meaning someone please explain, thanks. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, will somebody who is very truly conversant with multiverse just inform the reading public what role does the multiverse play in regard to the actual factual universe we are living in and are part and parcel of, role that does have an impact in how the nose stay put in our face and is not subject to any absolutely purely random falling off without any cause whatsoever.

Otherwise multiverse is just pure fiction for selling comic magazines and other entertainment media for profit, preying on the gullibility of unthinking folks.

Okay, tell me if the multiverse does not exist at all even in the fiction mind of fiction-bound people, will our actual factual universe be the poorer in any manner whatsoever at all?

Yes, of course, the fiction writers and fiction publishers will lose a good source of their financial income in the actual factual universe where they are living in and are part and parcel of.

And the fiction crazed pseudo scientists will lose their pseudo reason for feeling so self-smart.

112.198.79.222 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Pachomius

This documentary, starting at around minute 21:00, claims that there is evidence of a huge gravitational cluster, so massive, that it may be another universe which has expanded near our own in the direction of Centaurus. Does anybody know the name of this theoretical evidence/phenomenon, does it have an article? Nagelfar (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish we could put Ouspensky, if we have to put him in at all, in another category - New Age just doesn't fit him.

From wiki article on 'New Age'...

"The term New Age was used as early as 1809 by William Blake who described a coming era of spiritual and artistic advancement in his preface to Milton a Poem by stating: "... when the New Age is at leisure to pronounce, all will be set right ..."[10]"

Ouspensky would have baulked at that - he would have said that we were in/entering an abortive downward spiralling octave, that there is no progress or advancement whatsoever, etc. Victormanikian (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victormanikian (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to 173.238.69.86 for accidentally hitting enter, I wanted to add that Lee Smolin might be a good WP:RS. Also it's not clear how the existence of black holes or infinite density would seem to negate the existence of a "multiverse", so if that could be expanded, it would be great. Thanks—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The section about objections to the word 'multiverse' contains a factual and a logical error.

The author says:

1. "[universe] means 'entirety'". 2. "it is impossible to have more than one entirety".

1. 1 is not true. Even if it were true, #2 would only be relevant to the word 'multiuniverse', not to the word 'multiverse' under discussion. 'Universe' means 'turned into one', so multiverse could be reasonably taken to mean 'turned into many'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.1.135 (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the word 'claims' should be changed to objections, which is more strenuous and actually accurate. Wikipedia generally maintains a standard for claims that require rigorous evidence, or at least the possibility of evidence. The notion of a multiverse is not falsifiable, and insofar as this is true it has nothing in common with modern science. I do not say this to start a talk-page discussion about tangential matters, but to speak to the truth of the matter. As long as the multiverse remains unfalsifiable it has nothing to do with modern science as it is understood by physicists, philosophers and laypersons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.191.206 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's policies, please see verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research.

It's self-evident your notion of multiverse begs the question… Some theories are falsifiable, some may or may not be, and yes, in principle, some cannot be falsified. However, as perhaps you're aware, it's naïve to suggest an unfalsifiable theory “has nothing in common with modern science [x2]”, (or nothing apart from the scientists, presumably), “but to speak to the truth of the matter”… please see soapbox.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I came to this article expecting it to be about the theory in physics and was surprised to see all of the content from various religions, in some cases citing sources that don't use the term "multiverse." It feels like this article should be split, such that the theory from physics has a separate article. Otherwise it seems to be a coatrack, with a lot of WP:OR. I've posted a note on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard soliciting feedback on this. TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The strange thing is that it already has been split but someone has made the section bigger than its respective article. I'll boldly remove the original research elements. I think the Fakhr al-Din al-Razi mention is undue, I may remove it soon. I dumped the content I removed on the religion sub-article and tagged it as OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The article's stating that the term "multiverse" was coined by William James in the late 19th century is misleading because altough this may be the earliest known use of the word "multiverse", James was not using it in the sense it is currently understood. The multiverse of phyics is not what James was referring to. If a medieval fisherman were to have described two tangled fishing nets as an "internet", we would be foolish, in an artilcle about "the Internet" to say "the term was coined by a medieval fisherman" and leave it at that. That's essentially what's going on here. The fact that James used the word is really more of an interestng coincidence than anything else and the article should make that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason why omniverse should be an alternate name for multiverse? I only see comics referring to omniverse when I search. It definitely doesn't seem a scientific name. Strangely we only just got rid of an editor self-linking to a fringe website about his 'omniverse theory' and 2 days later it reappears as an alternate nameBhny (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody check whether she even claimed in 2007 to have predicted the CMB Cold spot in 2006, let alone whether the 2006 paper contains such a prediction? I can't access the 2007 reference at all, and can only access the summary of the referenced 2006 paper which does indeed predicted possible voids, but it's unclear how well the detailed predictions match what was detected. In any case, due to my limited knowledge of Physics, I probably wouldn't be sure what detailed predictions had been made, even if I could access the full paper. But at least one anonymous contributor to the Mersini Talk page claims he sees no clear predictions in 'the referenced paper', though I don't even know if it's the same paper as the one currently referenced. There's also the problem that I seem to recall a 'great void' having being discovered long before 2006, admittedly by direct observation rather than via CMB data, but it would suggest that a vague prediction of possible voids might not be particularly impressive. This is similar to the problem with 'predictions' about Dark Flow, where a flow towards the so-called Great Attractor had been known about since the 1970s, as pointed out in the Dark Flow article. And I'm unable to even find where to link her third alleged prediction, nor to find any discussion of its significance. But I remember looking at the WMAP article yesterday, and if I understand right, the Mersini article has her 'predicting' in 2006 a fluctuation value below 1, when it was already 0.9 +/- 0.1 before 2006 on the WMAP data. I think it's important (due WP:NPOV) to balance claims that Multiverse theories are untestable, and so on. But I am a bit worried that I may be unwittingly spreading some questionable fantasies of some Mersini fan club (one of whom already implies on her Talk page that she's the next Einstein).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now had another look at the WMAP article. The fluctuation (sigma_8) picture seems just as unsatisfactory:

The Laura Mersini article says:
In the same year (2006) WMAP reached agreement with SDSS experiment, that the overall amplitude of fluctuation is less than 1. If these observational findings, predicted in the 2006 papers by Mersini-Houghton et al.[citation needed] are confirmed over the next few years, then they may offer the first evidence of a universe beyond our own.

The summary of her referenced December 2006 paper says:
We show that the effect of the string corrections is to suppress $\sigma_8$ and the CMB $TT$ spectrum at large angles, thereby bringing WMAP and SDSS data for $\sigma_8$ into agreement.

But the WMAP article gives the following sigma_8 data:

1year data (released Feb 2003) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only 0.9±0.1 — data from all sources 0.84±0.04

3 year data (released Mar 2006) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only 0.761+0.049 −0.048 — data from all sources not given

5 year data (released Feb 2008) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only 0.796±0.036 — data from all sources 0.812±0.026

7 year data (released Feb 2010) Fluctuation amplitude at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only 0.801±0.030 — data from all sources 0.809±0.024

9 year data (released Dec 2012) Density fluctuations at 8h−1 Mpc (sigma_8) WMAP data only 0.821±0.023 — data from all sources 0.820+0.013 −0.014

Far from the Mersini article's assertion that WMAP reached agreement with SDSS in 2006 that fluctuation was less than 1, the fluctuation was seemingly always less than 1 (or just possibly equal to 1 at the upper end of the 2003 range of possible WMAP-data-only values), so this was hardly something 'predicted' by Mersini et al.in 2006 as claimed in the article. But the WMAP value dropped dramatically in March 2006, suggesting that WMAP and SDSS no longer agreed (though this is not actually stated), and that in December 2006 Mersini et al are offering an explanation for why they are different and how they can be brought back into agreement. But any such disagreement doesn't persist, as the 2008 to 2012 data shows. So quite likely the data shows that Mersini et al are wrong. Quite likely this means that their theory was a testable and falsifiable theory which has been tested and falsified - which, if correct, would actually be a rather important answer to the criticism that Multiverse theories are unscientific because they make no falsifiable predictions. And a similar conclusion may also be available from some of her other predictions. But I don't know enough to say whether any such conclusion is actually warranted. Does anybody else know enough to say so? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with my suspicion that too much space and weight is being given here to the criticism that the multiverse isn't scientific? I began by putting in Laura Mersini's claims rather hesitantly (arguably too hesitantly) because of the excessive enthusiasm of some of her fans - but the fact is she and her colleagues did make predictions. They don't seem to have worked out too well so far (though even there the jury is possibly still out), but that's science, not non-science. Then within a few weeks, I come across Prof Aguirre's predictions, which have been known to perhaps millions of Horizon viewers for nearly 6 months while any reader of Wikipedia was still being told 'the multiverse just ain't testable'. I now suspect there are dozens or even hundreds of proposals or ideas for testing the various models, or at least for testing predictions derived from the various models, or for looking for phenomena that are possible consequences of the models, and that consequently a now demonstrably outdated (always assuming it was ever valid in the first place) and thus now false claim is being given a prominence which it doesn't deserve, and which is simply misleading to readers. But I could be wrong. Does anybody else have any relevant information or views on the matter? Tlhslobus (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a multiverse is utterly amazing to me. However, I have some problems with the concept. First of all, there's really no such thing as a "multiverse," is there? I mean, it's all one universe regardless of how many dimensions and such, correct? Secondly, there's THIS: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130222230324AAqwWxR

"The multiverse theory is the theory that there's an infinite number of universes parrallell to ours with infinite outcomes for anything. But, if that were true then wouldn't there be a universe where we mastered multiverse travel? And wouldn't there have to be a universe where they traveled to this very universe that we are in? There would have to be, since there's supposedly infinite outcomes. So like what i'm saying is if the multiverse theory was true, then there would have to be a universe that traveled to this universe and everyone knew. But no one has. So doesn't that prove it wrong? And also, wouldn't there have to be a universe where there are no alternate universes?"

And I know that Yahoo Answers is not a reliable resource for much of anything on Wikipedia, though this individual has a valid point that is worth considering. I would be grateful if someone could answer this who has some modicum of knowledge pertaining to physics and cosmology. I just want to know the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel it is necessary to address the matter as a mistaken use of vocabulary.

The word universe, as in UNI-verse highlights the nature of everything and all included. That means that if there are many such things then we have a contradiction in terms, there are many but there can be only one.

Therefore I believe we should speak of many cosmoses rather than many universes. THE UNIVERSE can comprise many (eventually parallel) cosmoses but all parallel ‘whatever’ (be them dimensions or even multiverses or …) is always comprised in one single universe. So even the multiverse would be an underlying level to the universe!

As a scientist I follow the rules given by scientific publications but following my gut feeling there is a vocabulary error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.212.162 (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes multiverse is a pretty stupid word but our opinions don't matter. We have to go by the common name- WP:COMMONNAME Bhny (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the theory of consistent histories by James Hartle and Murray Gell-Mann somewhat related to the idea of Hugh Everett? The article does not mention it.--Carnby (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement that Everett's Many-worlds states that there is only one universe that branches into multiple universes is not only incorrect, the paper by Tegmark that is cited to support the statement specifically states that this idea of splitting is a misrepresentation of MWI. Also, the a citation (footnote 7, at the time of this writing) references two different articles, one by Tegmark, and one by David Deutsch. I'm not sure which article is cited for what in the paragraph, so I'm flagging it as failed verification. I'll try to unravel it later this weekend, unless someone can find a reliable source. Undisputedloser (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a small addition, for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with physics, to Wikipedia's article entitled Multiverse. Add a one-sentence summary and reference to an article by Stephen Weinberg, "Physics: What We Do and Don't Know," The New York Review of Books, vol. 60 (Nov. 7, 2013), which is posted online. A Wikipedia contributor familiar with the subject of the article would be better able than I am to make this addition. A short time ago I added a similar comment to the Comments section of the Wikipedia article on Anthropic Principle. NedF (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty good recent article. I'll read it and see if I want to put a reference in. Or maybe it can go in External links. Or maybe not at all, I need to read it. Thank you for the suggestion. And feel free to take some responsibility yourself to include a reference or make some other edit you think improves the article. Worst that can happen is that it's reverted. 70.109.180.167 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)