Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 42-46205410.jpg (117KB, 800x600px) Image search:
[Google]
117KB, 800x600px
If the multiverse exists, couldn't that mean there's a universe which was created with concrete laws of nature and mathematical constants, but would be destined to break any one of them in time?
Out of sheer possibility there could be a universe just like ours with the same strength of gravity and mathematical constants, but was designed from its inception to eventually throw all these rules out the window in a certain specific time. Could that universe be ours? Maybe in the entire time our universe has existed, it has waited for a single moment to have gravity become twice as strong and make electrons disappear, throwing out every single scientific discovery humans had ever made.
This could happen right now.
>>
>>8999168
>Could that universe be ours?
I guess. If it's true that we're in a meta-stable state, if the false vacuum collapses then literally anything could happen.
>>
>>8999168
Yes, you're basically describing the problem of induction. Basically we can only assume that the laws that have held so far will continue to hold in the future. Quite simply, for all we know, the next time you step on the gas you might end up exceeding the speed of light. Any sort of consistence in the universe is only something we assume, we have no way of knowing it. If we see an obvious inconsistency in the laws of physics, then we know then and there that our universe has inconsistencies. On the other hand, we can't at any point know 100% for sure that our universe is consistent - it could merely be seeming to be consistent up until now, only for that to suddenly change. The idea is that a consistent universe must be consistently consistent, but an inconsistent universe need not be consistently inconsistent. It could, most of the time, behave in a consistent manner, but that only has to change once for it to be an inconsistent universe.
Anyways though, this is really more of a philosophy question than a science one, since the assumption of consistency is the basis of scientific reasoning. If we had to accept that there was no absolute guarantee of consistency, we could not trust our scientific knowledge to be valid.
>>
It's kind of already happened, from the human POV. We thought the expansion of the universe might slow to a stop or even reverse, now we think it might keep accelerating to the point it'll rip atoms apart.
>>
>>9000887
That's different. Before humans even existed the universe was already expanding faster, and we were just ignorant in our history to believe it wasn't. Discovering it was actually led to scientists making more logical connections between different theories and overall was a huge boost for science.
If one day electrons became positive, the electromagnetic force became 10 times as strong, and logic itself changed with 1 + 1 equaling 97 and the degrees of a circle becoming 956, that doesn't help us at all. Every single equation and discovery we have has become useless because the laws of the universe change for no apparent reason.
>>
>>9000887
Why is it expanding? (What caused it)
How is it expanding? (What makes it continue)
How can we prove it's expanding? (Is it theory?)
>>
>>8999168
Depends on what you mean by "multiverse", really. It is true if you believe in the Ultimate Ensemble.
>>
if time and space are dependent on one another, and if space is infinite, that makes time infinite, ergo, i just proved the multiverse (and even the multiverse's multiverse)
>>
>>9001359
You sure space is infinite?
>>
Guess I should drop everything and kill myself now.
>>
>>9004092
This is /sci/ not /r9k/.
>>
I think it's kind of comforting in a way. Anything is possible.
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2