You’re getting into omniverse territory here, I think. But if accurate, then the dimensions without multiverses just lack the ability to perceive, observe, understand, measure, prove, or travel outside of their own universes. There’s a whole multiverse of such isolated bubbles that will “know” that there’s no multiverse, and we have a 50/50 chance of being in one.
If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.
In the “multiverse of all possibilities” there will be 50% without a multiverse
Omniverse is what you get when you sort multiple multiverses, that’s all. It’s a way of categorizing multiverses sharing some common element. Because infinity is so vast that it’s basically meaningless to us humans, so organizing it at least makes it vaguely easier to understand.
The dumbest and easiest way to understand it is with media franchises as an and analogy. All of Marvel is one multiverse, all of DC is one multiverse, all of Terminator are another, all of Star Trek another, etc. it’s sloppy but here’s my point across.
In reality it’s more like; this multiverse has universes with identical physical parameters, that multiverse has a slightly higher amount of gravity, that multiverse has a slightly different amount of weak magnetic force, that multiverse has a different speed of light, etc.
We’re getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can’t map to every possibility of a higher infinity
I know. But I case of the multiverse that many people think about, the one where there is a universe for EVERYTHING, there will be exactly as many universes where triangles exist as there are universes where triangles dont exist. And the same is true for everything else.
And it is exactly the same number, not just the same type of infinity. Because for every universe with triangles there must also exist the exact same universe without triangles (and vice versa), otherwise the multiverse wouldn’t contain all possible universes.
What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.
I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).
And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.
There is no probability. No rolling dice. It is every combination of everything. I know Hilberts infinite hotel, I know (enough about) probability and statistics.
I am talking about the multiverse that many people imagine. The one where you can say “there is a universe in which I am president. And one where Lincoln is a velociraptor, and a universe where chairs sit on people instead of the other way round”. In that multiverse, I can construct a universe without triangles that is identical to another universe with triangles in every regard except for the existence of triangles. And I can do that for every universe with triangles. Its a bijection.
We dont permute a (in)finite set of initial parameters and then evolve the universe from there, we have a universe for every CURRENT state.
In the hypothetical reality where such a multiverse exists (it would be a case of Russells paradox as OP has discovered), there is a 50% chance to be in a universe where it doesn’t.
Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.
In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.
It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.
Under quantum mechanics this can’t explain non-even distributions. With no effects making high probability events more prevalent than others you can not (reliably) observe differentiated probabilities.
And once again, cardinalites appears. A thing whose possible variations correspond to infinite integers can’t match that with have variations matching the real numbers. An infinite line won’t correspond to an infinite hypercube in infinite dimensions. Gotta consider combinatorics from statistics too, as well as entropy. The number of permutations mapping to normal states simply has to far exceed the strange states for us to observe a normal universe.
You’re getting into omniverse territory here, I think. But if accurate, then the dimensions without multiverses just lack the ability to perceive, observe, understand, measure, prove, or travel outside of their own universes. There’s a whole multiverse of such isolated bubbles that will “know” that there’s no multiverse, and we have a 50/50 chance of being in one.
That’s not how statistics works lol
If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.
In the “multiverse of all possibilities” there will be 50% without a multiverse
Omniverse is what you get when you sort multiple multiverses, that’s all. It’s a way of categorizing multiverses sharing some common element. Because infinity is so vast that it’s basically meaningless to us humans, so organizing it at least makes it vaguely easier to understand.
The dumbest and easiest way to understand it is with media franchises as an and analogy. All of Marvel is one multiverse, all of DC is one multiverse, all of Terminator are another, all of Star Trek another, etc. it’s sloppy but here’s my point across.
In reality it’s more like; this multiverse has universes with identical physical parameters, that multiverse has a slightly higher amount of gravity, that multiverse has a slightly different amount of weak magnetic force, that multiverse has a different speed of light, etc.
We’re getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can’t map to every possibility of a higher infinity
I know. But I case of the multiverse that many people think about, the one where there is a universe for EVERYTHING, there will be exactly as many universes where triangles exist as there are universes where triangles dont exist. And the same is true for everything else.
And it is exactly the same number, not just the same type of infinity. Because for every universe with triangles there must also exist the exact same universe without triangles (and vice versa), otherwise the multiverse wouldn’t contain all possible universes.
What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.
I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).
And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.
There is no probability. No rolling dice. It is every combination of everything. I know Hilberts infinite hotel, I know (enough about) probability and statistics.
I am talking about the multiverse that many people imagine. The one where you can say “there is a universe in which I am president. And one where Lincoln is a velociraptor, and a universe where chairs sit on people instead of the other way round”. In that multiverse, I can construct a universe without triangles that is identical to another universe with triangles in every regard except for the existence of triangles. And I can do that for every universe with triangles. Its a bijection.
We dont permute a (in)finite set of initial parameters and then evolve the universe from there, we have a universe for every CURRENT state.
In the hypothetical reality where such a multiverse exists (it would be a case of Russells paradox as OP has discovered), there is a 50% chance to be in a universe where it doesn’t.
Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.
In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.
It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.
Is there some use I am missing?
Under quantum mechanics this can’t explain non-even distributions. With no effects making high probability events more prevalent than others you can not (reliably) observe differentiated probabilities.
And once again, cardinalites appears. A thing whose possible variations correspond to infinite integers can’t match that with have variations matching the real numbers. An infinite line won’t correspond to an infinite hypercube in infinite dimensions. Gotta consider combinatorics from statistics too, as well as entropy. The number of permutations mapping to normal states simply has to far exceed the strange states for us to observe a normal universe.