A completed theory of everything!

Say what? There is nothing is the quantum multiverse case that exclude disjoint multiverses. This comes from your own misunderstanding. The quantum mechanics universes are all part of difference branches of the wave function for the evolution of the universe or multiverse. If you have two disjointed universes, then they must at least not be described by the same physics equation.

Disjointed Universes would be redundant to each other...a waste...

if there is a thing that common sense can teach us everyday is that things are bound to maximize potential...

.I guess that the misunderstanding that you are referring to, has to do with, wisdom, creative thinking, self reasoning and to not follow the book and buy everything they try to sell you...I?m grateful !

People like you reach for comfort and reassurance, always keeping your feet right in the middle of the flock common ground when it comes to ideas...Fringe concepts frighten you and truly challenge your capabilities...an inconvenience to avoid at all costs..

.Science is the background of authority and seriousness that you use to make believe that there is some wisdom going on...a true illusion !

...In a disjointed panorama how could you tell that a Universe would not ever be repeating another at any point of its process ?

Would n?t that imply a link ? where is the maximization of potential now ?

...what I do is hardly what anyone can do...I don?t peak an easy position to acert some common thinking on Science...

Plus, what you call personnel attack comes exactly in the proportion of your arrogance around the Thread against several participants...

i never give the first step on that concern...still as I said before I think you have some valid observations on the matter...

If a universe identical to ours repeat itself, this is not due to some link. It is the fact that there is a non-zero probability that it does repeat itself, which in an infinite universe would have a probability 1 chance of repeating itself.

Only if your ontology is discrete. If your ontology is in line with the best physical theories, then it's continuous, and the probability would be zero.

A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.
Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from Earth's Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical configurations. Tegmark estimates that such an identical volume should be about 1010115 meters away, (a number larger than a googolplex).[4][5]

I am not trying to be rude

this is a systemic problem.

You manage effortlessly.I know, on the other board too, you consistently presented half baked ideas and refused any criticism. It's boring, unproductive and a waste of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
the Cosmic Plasma theory was around even in Einsteins day , it was just too complicated

basically the Cosmic Plasma theory states that galaxies produce proto galaxies







have I not already done this ? I have

If a universe identical to ours repeat itself, this is not due to some link. It is the fact that there is a non-zero probability that it does repeat itself, which in an infinite universe would have a probability 1 chance of repeating itself.

Well, thank you :a-ok:

Wait, are you making a "personal attack" because i hurt your feelings?

On a factual level, what you just said about "zero-probability" is wrong, and i state the reason why you are wrong with reference.

I know i hurt your feelings, but you feel the need to fight back by calling me:

1. half baked ideas.

2.refuse any criticism.

3. boring,

4. unproductive

5. waste of time.

reply to 1: I have a well form idea. Perhaps it is too confusing for you?

reply to 2: Your criticism is noted, and it is wrong. In support, i gave you a reference.


reply to 3: No, you are boring! I am fun.

reply to 4: How productive are you posting in a philosophy forum?


reply to 5: Now, you are just repeating yourself.

Let?s see if I can clarify, once I state my thoughts wrongly do to the advanced hour here in Portugal yesterday...what I meant was how could you tell that a set of Universes would not be repeating one another in a disjointed panorama ? This would be ultimately unproductive...and yes it does matter, it matters a world !

You should think less, or to not rely only, on your supposed Mathematical and Physical knowledge when it comes to producing good and innovative ideas, tools are not paths...wisdom can flow from many different fountains, and usually it does not came from pre-setted academical formation...you should know better...

as for what I defend, its hardly vulgar approach, to be a non linear Hard-Determinist, to support Holistic and Meta dialectical conceptualizations of the world, specially nowadays...it takes guts and some strong ideas, above all, to convince myself, against the majority of the Scientific belief on that concern...you take to much for granted in Science and more then half of it, if not it all, is yet under debate...don?t take me wrong, you do well in learning with detail what you can from theoretical academical speculation, but don?t feel constrained by it when it comes to bring up creative speculation...don?t be so quickly dismissive on some fringe concepts that go against pre-established knowledge, only because their are in development and are not yet properly formulated...some of this ideas, one might say, have strong intuitive support and are well worth to be looked twice...

from what I have seen, this is probably your worse mistake so far...maybe you are young and impulsive, or just to hard setted towards a specific way of learning and thinking...in any case its not good in the long run...

I think you both need get back to the topic. TuringEquivalent, you have to forgive us but your ideas are less than clear. I understand a lot of esoteric ideas but you're not even giving me a hint of making sense. I fully admit this may be my own fault but be charitable and just try to think over your ideas better and give them to us in a more manageable form. Until you can do that, you will just have to forgive our skepticism. It's not personal. It's actually a good thing that we are critical of your ideas.

I am certain worlds repeat. In fact, whatever worlds you care to imagine repeats infinitely many times. Why? Because our universe might be infinite, and the distribution of matter evenly distributed. This means by some calculation, there is an identical you, and me at some 10^10^115 meters distance away. You don` t need a multiverse to repeat things!

only in a disjointed Universe you would hypothetically have the opportunity of truly repeating everything simultaneously...

I?m not talking on someone that appears to be me... I?m talking of a copy of me, living in a city like my own, with parents like me, in a country called Portugal, with a world called Earth and so on...and that?s the only chance of me, being indeed repeated...

but what I can see is that you not even clearly understood to what I was pointing at...you need a reset in the system or a disjointed reality for repeatability...

You are certain of to many things but as I said you don?t know much...

Nowhere, no way, in this Universe, things truly and completely, are repeatable in detail...at best what it may be/exist, are approximations...did n?t your math brought that up ? poor calculation, that much is noticed...

I sustain and posit, once more that, if there are multiple Universes, and I?m not saying that there are, they are linked for a maximization of potential in their purpose, whatever that might be or mean...

Your thought is flawed and you are far from bright if you miss the obvious...

Syndrome of God?s complex is something very commonly found in this forum... a laugh, I tell you !

...oh, and about space infinity, that nonsense, remains to be seen...

Two disjointed worlds would not really need be simultaneous. It is not clear "simultaneous" makes any sense if the two worlds are two disjointed space-time.




If the level 1 multiverse(Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is fully actualized, then there would be many different hubble volume such that for all practical purpose would like a universe to us. If this is true, then in a infinite universe, every configuration of matter, and energy is fully realized so that at some 10^10^115 meters away, a carbon copy of you, me, earth, solar system, and our observable universe is reproduced. If space is infinite, this means our observable universe is repeat infinitely many times.




Level 1 multiverse is not disjointed. Our observable universe would have causal contact in principle with other observable universes, but they are all part of one universe.

I fully believe in level 4 multiverse. That is, universes described by all halting computer programs, or all mathematical structures. In philosophy, it is called modal realism.




what don` t i understand?



I think you are in the dark. It is something most philosophers, and physicists realized for a very very long time if we really live in an infinite universe where matter is evenly distributed. I can even point you to a paper that does the calculation. Do you want it?




You can posit a link all you want, but i am telling that there is nothing logically necessary about it. Universes need not have a "link"( whatever that means).



You don ` t seem to get the point that in a level 1 multiverse, observable universes repeat infinitely many time in an spatially-infinite universe. It is true that have causal relations in principle, but there is nothing here to exclude an level 4 multiverse.



I think you shouldn ` t think too much about other people. You should worry more about yourself. You throw around "common sense" a lot, and this is one area where common sense don` t really help you.



Most likely, space is spatially infinite.

I did understand what you said clearly enough, but what I don?t buy is infinities...neither should you...there?s nothing elegant about it...you might get it by an Omega !

Just think at it, disjointed repeat is something so not necessary, and so not elegant, that every atom on your mind should tell you its plain wrong...there?s nothing like it around us in a disjointed panorama...even numbers that ultimately fall down to sequences of one?s, have to be linked to bring up complexity...

actually the problem is not with repeat alone, but with the idea of disjointed purposeless, waste of energy,

repeated Reality?s...anyway believe what you want if it makes you happy...our disagreement in the largest scope is not even that big...

Can you explain why you don` t like infinities? Infinite is a very counterintuitive notion. I personally like it, but i had many years to think about it.

Let ` s be clear, when we talk about disjointed universe. The formal names is "modal realism", and "level 4 multiverse". I think it is best to be specific. I use "level 4 multiverse" in a different, but equivalent sense than Tagmark. It is:

* All logical possible halting computer programs describes a universe/multiverse

Most people that go for level 4 multiverse believe that nature ought to be as diverse as possible. This means, if there is a logically possible world that don` t exist, then it must exist.

Another reason is that if there is only one world that exist, then there need to be a principle that tells us that no other worlds exist, which to most people seems to be very complicated indeed.

I think your mind is way too limited. why suppose energy has some type of trans world identity? Energy conservation comes out of time-symmetry, but time-symmetry is a contingent feature of our world. There are possible worlds with different symmetry principles, and laws.

I find level 4 multiverse to be beautiful, but i think you disagree. I think you have shallow reasons ( eg: it does not seem right) that you disagree.

Infinities amount to an undefined Reality in a permanent becoming towards nowhere, an never ending expansion, or a never ending notion of Space and Time Matter and Energy, which simply does n?t make any sense...Space is probably discrete and not continuum, and the amounts of energy it supports are also limited which actually makes all the sense in the world...but obviously with your magical thinking you are to limited to realise the obvious...

I am not interested in what you are talking or believe about, I am speaking in a disjointed set of Realities and as a model open for consideration it perfectly suffices...don?t ad complexity were for the purpose none is needed.

This already implies that the set of worlds cannot repeat one another...

...formally agreed, but that is not the issue...the issue is only if you do have any good reason to believe in a perfectly disjointed set of Realities beyond the mere speculative possibility...I don?t see none.

Dynamic so far established the causal links between the entire reality around us maximizing the potential of its operators gathered in the process..there is no sufficient good reason to think in sets of worlds untied of each other and with no purpose of maximization...if there is potential what there is tends to be agglomerated in different levels of sets related in different levels of complexity as in systems and sub-systems and their relations...of course, in ..

your bright endeavourer you fly above all this...you are such a wise guy.

Well that?s your linear and non-integrated perspective on me...enjoy it my friend, I personally could n?t care less with what you believe or don?t believe...

More, is there anything is this Theory that you are committed, that you can disagree with ? because if not, as a student, you are immediately classified as a mediocre non risk taking person...and that seems to be the case so far !...also that makes the difference between having opinion and not having, none...

I am not losing my time with you no more..

you simply don?t know the full consequences of what you defend

plus you didn?t gave a straight answer to none of my observations