Is multiverse actually a thing? Any proofs at all? I'm asking

basically theoretician fap stains

Its theory blown way out of proportion. Like all science.

it's theoretical physics that's become so commonplace that many people think of it as actual physics

>>9091928
there's precedent for it in the sense that we thought a lot of things were unique (our planet, then the sun, then the galaxy) so who knows

that and the simulation argument. But there's no empirical proof for the multiverse theory no.

File: kosmos-09.jpg (81KB, 700x518px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 700x518px

>>9091928

I think a multiverse is just logical.
Space doesn't make anything in singles. There's not just one planet, there's not just one solar system, there's not just one galaxy and there's not just one cluster of galaxies out there.

There's probably not just one universe out there either.
I imagine a black ocean where big bangs are happening all over the place, like rings on the water if you're throwing sand or gravel in a lake.

And maybe if you "zoom out" from that level there are more of those "black oceans" out there,
like galaxy clusters.

>>9091988
OP asked for proof, anyone can imagine anything, the question is whether its true

the multiverse right now seems like a completely ad-hoc hypothesis

File: 1500586366195.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>9091998

I guess but, again I just think it's logical.

>>9091987

I like the simulation idea but can you imagine the complexity of the project and the energy and technology required to actually make a
simulation of this universe. Actually programming time, matter and laws of physics, the detail of it all down to every unique little particle and atom in our entire universe.

But then again, the universe is old. Who knows what type of super advanced civilizations have come and gone. Maybe we are living in
a simulation of some godlike ancient civilization. Wonder if they've
wondered if they are living in one themselves.

>>9091988
it seems more logical by that line of thought to assume that there is a larger galaxy composed of galaxies, and another after that and so on

>>9092019
Thats the interesting part of the simulation arguement. If you were to create an ancestor simulation it really wouldnt matter unless that simulation was currently being observed by consious entities. So as long as nobody is watching the universe simulation can run very rough calculations for things like orbiting bodies, galaxy motion, etc. Only when things are being observed by beings who would otherwise notice, does the simulation actually need to process things down to an atomic level. Then you have strange things like particle wave duality, and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, and we actually start to see the lack of precision universe "rendering". Whether the universe is a simulation or not it does seem like when you get to the subatomic level, things like position and momentum aren't really real until it has some impact on an external system. If you want to make that simulation even easier to run, you dont even have to simulate the entire universe. You only have to simulate the brains of consious entities in said universe and the stimuli they encounter. This is a feat we are not far from being able to accomplish with current levels of technology, and it fixes the whole "you can only simulate a universe thats smaller than the one you inhabit" problem.

>>9091988
your reasoning has nothing to do with why people originally posited this idea.

>>9091998
>ad-hoc hypothesis

Would you consider yourself an expert on those?

>>9091988
This is a reasonable inference. We are in a universe in which nothing seems to occur in isolation. Why would we presume that the big bang was an isolated event?

Also, it would explain the increasing rate of expansion of this universe (being attracted by the vast surrounding mass).

>>9091928
Maybe in the vastness of space there exists another pocket universe. That's the only theory that makes sense. MWI is a shitty, wrong interpretation of quantum mechanics and string universes are equally as dumb

>>9091928
i have no fucking clue
thats the only reasonable answer

WTF is space?

An empty, infinite void of infinite dimensions?

Is our universe just a infinitely small 4D stain in space?

is a jew invention (scientist are jews) to avoid the implications that the fined tuned universe is simpler and make more sense than what atheists want you to believe.

is not even real science, and more like an ideology, like marxism.

>>9091928
If it is real we'll probably never find out. It's just more fun to think it is a thing

>>9091928
>>9091928
The fact that the higgs field is manipulatable may imply the universe is malleable...like a soft veil of silk. If you can cause destructive interference in the higgs field...you may even be able to "rip" it by making too much destructive interference in the right place. A tear in space-time if you will.

No telling what is on the other side though...could be multiverse or parallel universe, empty space, an untapped energy field, a true vacuum... (which would destroy this entire universe by the way.) or hell even God could be on the other side and he will be all like "So...you finally figured out multiverse huh?". However the machine would have to be one of incredible accuracy and care to do even a fraction of this and the energy so vast that you would need close to the energy of a star concentrated through a portal the size of a garage door.

>>9093885
>t. brainlet
>>9093918
If multiverse is true by anthropic principle we should be Boltzmann brains though.

>>9094291
H-hail Eris I guess...

>We are the universe experiencing itself

What does this mean?

>t.brainlet

>>9094196
sooooo black holes, then.

>>9094196
>even God could be on the other side
Which god could be on the other side?

>>9094373
The one true god obviously.

>>9094474
Which one is that?

>>9094196
Don't confuse the multiverse with hyperspace, in which you can open a portal or rip

>>9094555
The true one. It's not that complicated.

>>9094611
Who was the prophet of this god?

>>9094619
Peter Higgs.