Talk:Multiverse

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multiverse article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 6 months

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Cosmology Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

Philosophy: Metaphysics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Wahrmund, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 31, 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

The obvious solution

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

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

What do you mean by "nearly infinite"? 2001:9E8:460F:6200:34BF:6372:F526:466C (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a page for discussing the article, not its contents. If you have a change you’d like to make to the article, you may suggest it here. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have inspired me to exercise my free will and eat a chicken for dinner. thank you! 🍗 38.15.195.81 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popular but erroneous definition in the page

The correct description according to ontoaxiomatics = physical axiomatics:

multiverse: mathematically related universes = family of universes

Infinitely many multiverses exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________

Encyclopedias must inform and not merely promote popular biases.

Nowadays is a cosmological foundational monism

infinite different universes of monistic common foundations (foundational pluralism is not mentioned as an alternative yet)

The cosmological foundational universality is an open question not yet examined by multiverse monists [the cosmological severed pluralism isn't yet examined nor rejected].

The multiverse is a cosmological pluralism from a common foundations.

Logical pluralists disagree with the mono-multiverse, because they support that multiverses = families of universes DO exist being logically possible; but infinite separate families of universes exist, and the nowadays popular monomultiverse is logically impossible due to mutual exclusivities and fundamentally logically destructive infinities (not all infinite logical relationships are mutually exclusive, but some are in logical pluralism when separate logical systems are compared; see: experimental logical foundations and experimental axiomatic systems). 2A02:587:4F08:6000:B1CC:38A5:BAAF:1138 (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create the pages: cosmological monism, cosmological pluralism

We cannot understand the alternative definitions of the multiverse without having the pages cosmological monism and cosmological pluralism.

Nowadays the multiverse is a foundational monism, and a false pluralism/ pseudopluralism, because true logical pluralism recognizes the infinite separate logical foundations. In cosmology this leads to infinite separate families of universes = infinite separate multiverses = the rejection of the unitary multiverse. 2A02:587:4F08:6000:B1CC:38A5:BAAF:1138 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's about: non-parallelizable universes not non-parallel because the term is used in mathematics, and converging universes are necessarily mathematically compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4F08:6000:B1CC:38A5:BAAF:1138 (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]