The Multiverse
 

Assuming the hypothesis is correct, what kick-started the Multiverse?

The Wiki' page isn't bad. :)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Must be a slow night in the weekly "why are we here" self help workshop

That was actually quite a good explanation, although I'll have to watch it again when I'm more awake to make sure I followed it properly. :thumb:

In a multiverse, everything that can happen does happen. In an infinite multiverse, everything happens an infinite amount of times. Therefore it cannot possibly have been "kick started". To say so would mean there would have been a beginning and therefore there would be an end and would no longer be infinite.......I think....:D

If something has a beginning, why does it have to have an end?

The multiverse may be infinite but with limitations.

1. Infinite Universes
Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time.
So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you — in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you're doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices.

Does infinity have an end?

Of course not, that'd make it finite.

I thought it was more a case of every possible permutation of our universe (and indeed other universes) all exist and as such at some point any one of those universes will start/finish in anyone of the possible permutations... If that makes sense.

In other words there is an inifinite number of possible beiginnings and an infinite number of possible ends to the univers.

and therefore, infinity won't have a beginning?

Yes, hence the multi in multiverse, an infinite number of a single universe. My understanding of infinity is that there could never be a beginning otherwise there would be point where infinity never existed...if that makes sense.

Infinity can have a beginning, but not an end. It's also possible to have a beginning, but not be able to reach it - Zeno's dichotomy paradox.

OK, God is infinite right, has always been around and will be around forever or are you saying God was "born"? :D

No, God (the Father) is supernatural and eternal; the unmoved mover. ;)

OK, let's just take God out of the equation as this multiverse, it's hard enough to get my head round this without any devine influence! :lol1: There is a flaw to Zeno's paradox though, whilst the race is predefined distance and intervals being divided an infinite number of times, the distance between the start and finish is still finite. ie., if the race was for 1 mile all the intervals in between, 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile, 1/8 mile, 1/16 mile, and so on to infinity, by adding up all the intervals, it will still equal 1 mile.

No, it will get very, very close to one mile, but never quite make it!

Lol of course its no, but are you sure infinity has a beginning, if time flows backwards you then have an end.

Anyway back to multiverse theory, I can't get my head around how many possible outcomes there would be for one person, let alone the whole planet. I think the matrix (simulation) theory is more likely

If we're talking about time then yes, it has a beginning. It's eternity that has no beginning.

Can time flow backwards? My understanding is that it can't, but I'm happy to be proved wrong if you have some maths to the contrary.

Elucidate on the matrix theory a little, it sounds interesting.

Sure, that is the theory, and in that race with the infinite number of increments, but it is still defined within a predefined parameter, ie. within the length of that race of 1 mile.

Ok, but I'm not sure of your point.

Just trying to explain a possible flaw in Zeno's paradox of infinity, it's just a mathematical anomaly for infinity; an infinite series that will still converge to a finite number. In the observed universe, Achilles will catch the tortoise. If in an infinite multiverse where everything that can happen does happen, it can't be "kicked off" because then there would be a point where "everything" does not happen, ie, before "kick off". The number of "universes" within a multiverse therefore cannot be constrained by a finite number.

That's my crack at explaining a multiverse. :thumb:

You're confusing the Dichotomy Paradox with Achilles and the Tortoise. Anyway, it's not that important. So your position is that existence had no beginning, yes?

No, I'm not, they are one and the same; that in given a distance between point A and point B, that distance can be divided into infinity is a mathematical flaw as it is still within the confines of point A and B. My position is that infinity, not existence, has no beginning and no end.

Ok, I can live with that.

Again, I won't get bogged down in this as it's mathematically possible for infinity to have no beginning, although it'd be more accurately described as eternity or sempiternity. What about existence then, does it have a beginning or do you simply accept infinite regress?

I am open to different views, nothing is set in my mind with regards to how it all began if there was a beginning at all. The currently accepted big bang theory suggests that there was in deed a beginning. But something for something to exist, there must have been a cause. What caused the big bang? You might argue divine intervention. Well, if something is to exist it must have a beginning and I can't see why the possibility of divine intervention should be exempt from this.

Being agnostic with regards to the origin of the universe(s) is a position I held for a long time. I get it.

Agreed.

Agreed, with one exception.

This is a matter of faith: Multiverse or God, and if the former what caused the multiverse?

I will if you'll let me. ;)

Because the alternative is infinite regress. I believe God is eternal and the first cause.

I'll try lol
First off though time flows both ways mathematically, it is our perception that it flows one way, the way neutrons fire etc etc, something that did interest me was some scientist said the present is an illusion, if you think about it as scary as it is, it makes sense. How short a time is the present, is it the amount of time it takes for a neutron to fire. Its perception again, how humans cope with reality.

The matrix thing I was on about was basically a theory that some super powerful being was running a simulations of the universe on a " super computer". Sounds far fetched but imagine the computing power we would have in a thousand years let alone a million years. The laws of physics are basically the computer code. I think that is the reason why quantum theory and the classic model of physics don't tie up, quantum theory is the true understanding of what exists, the classic model is a coded set of laws for the simulation to run on.

Do you not mean neurons? As i don't think neutrons fire. That and the fact you're talking about the time difference between an event occuring and the time required for the light emitted/reflected to reach the eye and ultimately be processed by the brain.

So just because it'll upset/confuse people, this post was on the screen a fraction of a second before you actually perceived it's existance. :thumb:

Autospell on my phone lol yes of course neuron.