• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

About The Many Worlds Theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually came above the many worlds theory, and some may think that this theory warrants 2-B should it come into existence, but there is something regarding this theory. Depending on how the verse treats it, and the nature of said theory in said verse.

For instance, there is the more common interpretation where universes progressively branch off of a main timeline based on unrealized possibilities within it. In this case, the tier would depend on the size of the universe, as that would probably affect the number of possible variables it can accomodate.

Then there is the crazier, more "meta" version of it, where all possible universes already exist as fluctuations embedded in an abstract space, where change and time are technically illusions and which we only see a tiny fraction of (Said fraction being our universe, in this case).

To simplify it even more, let's take a look at this theory even more deeper.

The universe we live in may not be the only one out there. In fact, our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse."

Though the concept may stretch credulity, there's good physics behind it. And there's not just one way to get to a multiverse — numerous physics theories independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.

Here are the five most plausible scientific theories suggesting we live in a multiverse:

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.

Because the observable universe extends only as far as light has had a chance to get in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (that would be 13.7 billion light-years), the space-time beyond that distance can be considered to be its own separate universe. In this way, a multitude of universes exists next to each other in a giant patchwork quilt of universes.

2. Bubble Universes:

In addition to the multiple universes created by infinitely extending space-time, other universes could arise from a theory called "eternal inflation." Inflation is the notion that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, in effect inflating like a balloon. Eternal inflation, first proposed by Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, suggests that some pockets of space stop inflating, while other regions continue to inflate, thus giving rise to many isolated "bubble universes."

Thus, our own universe, where inflation has ended, allowing stars and galaxies to form, is but a small bubble in a vast sea of space, some of which is still inflating, that contains many other bubbles like ours. And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed.

3. Parallel Universes:

Another idea that arises from string theory is the notion of "braneworlds" — parallel universes that hover just out of reach of our own, proposed by Princeton University's Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada. The idea comes from the possibility of many more dimensions to our world than the three of space and one of time that we know. In addition to our own three-dimensional "brane" of space, other three-dimensional branes may float in a higher-dimensional space.

Columbia University physicist Brian Greene describes the idea as the notion that "our universe is one of potentially numerous 'slabs' floating in a higher-dimensional space, much like a slice of bread within a grander cosmic loaf," in his book "The Hidden Reality" (Vintage Books, 2011).

Going back to the idea that space-time is flat, the number of possible particle configurations in multiple universes would be limited to 10^10^122 distinct possibilities, to be exact. So, with an infinite number of cosmic patches, the particle arrangements within them must repeat — infinitely many times over. This means there are infinitely many parallel universes, or rather infinite parallel universes: cosmic patches exactly the same as ours (containing someone exactly like you), as well as patches that differ by just one particle's position, patches that differ by two particles' positions, and so on down to patches that are totally different from ours.

4. Daughter Universes:

The theory of quantum mechanics, which reigns over the tiny world of subatomic particles, suggests another way multiple universes might arise. Quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. And the mathematics of this theory might suggest that all possible outcomes of a situation do occur — in their own separate universes. For example, if you reach a crossroads where you can go right or left, the present universe gives rise to two daughter universes: one in which you go right, and one in which you go left.

"And in each universe, there's a copy of you witnessing one or the other outcome, thinking — incorrectly — that your reality is the only reality," Greene wrote in "The Hidden Reality."

5. Mathematical Universes:

Scientists have debated whether mathematics is simply a useful tool for describing the universe, or whether math itself is the fundamental reality, and our observations of the universe are just imperfect perceptions of its true mathematical nature. If the latter is the case, then perhaps the particular mathematical structure that makes up our universe isn't the only option, and in fact all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes.

"A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said Max Tegmark of MIT, who proposed this brain-twistin gidea. "I really believe that there is this universe out there that can exist independently of me that would continue to exist even if there were no humans."

All of this seems complicated, right?

But the 1 thing to simplify it is to see whether or not these parts of theories coexist inside the verse.

As i said from above, The Theory Of Many Worlds' potency solely depends on how the verse views it.

To simplify it even more:

For example, we take these scans from Persona 1:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/670747588080959528/690255339589075113/image0.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/670747588080959528/690255402528800902/image0.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/670747588080959528/690255469301858506/image0.jpg

As you can see, the verse mentions the Many Worlds Theory, then mentions that they are parallel worlds. This means that The Parallel Universes theory coexists in this world. Which in turn means the existence of infinite parallel worlds.

And before anyone says anything when you see the word "Countless", look at this link below...

https://www.definitions.net/definition/countless

Definition of Countless:

countless, infinite, innumerable, innumerous, multitudinous, myriad, numberless, uncounted, unnumberable, unnumbered, unnumerable(adj) too numerous to be counted "incalculable riches"; "countless hours"; "an infinite number of reasons"; "innumerable difficulties"; "the multitudinous seas"; "myriad stars"; "untold thousands".

So the meaning of the word "Countless" depends on its position in the phrase. For example, i can say "Countless Bodies", but does that mean that there are infinite amounts of bodies? Nope, because logically speaking, there is no such thing as infinite amounts of human bodies in the 1st place.

On the other hand, i can say "Countless Parallel Worlds", and then place the theory of Parallel Universes, or the theory of Infinite Universes in it, and it would place infinite amounts of dimensions in it, or in the case of Parallel Universes theory, would mean infinite higher planes of existence (If you place the word "Countless" in consideration).

To simplify it even more:

The theory of Infinite Universes means 2-A.

The theory of Daughter Universes means 2-B (A universe born from another, where another universe gives birth to another universe and so on, but this time, there is a definite number for it).

The theory of Bubble Universes means either 2-C, 2-B, or 2-A (Depending on the context, whether a universe actually inflates to bring forth multiple universes, or infinite amounts of universes. And in fiction, stuff like this is common most of the times if it's mentioned).

The theory of Mathematical Universes means Low 2-C or 2-B (Since you have massive amounts of numbers in our world, and that all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes, and no matter how much numbers are there, they are definite and finite in our world, and maybe it could be said the all numbers are the thing that form our own universe or it can form multiple universes).

The theory of Parallel Universes means 2-A, or up to High 1-B (Considering the fact that Parallel Universes means higher planes of existence, and if mentioned to be "Countless worlds", or "Infinite Worlds", and it was never mentioned a definite number of Parallel Universes, then this would mean the existence of Infinite transcendence levels of reality above our own space-time, which would warrant to High 1-B).

And remember: Only when 1 out of those 5 theories being mentioned and stated with The Theory Of Many Worlds could this theory and its tier explanations be applied.
 
Actually, it is.

When Parallel Universes coexist in an indefinite and uncountable amount, this would mean higher layers above the observable space-time of our universe, or in turn indefinite and infinite amounts of dimensional brane layers.
 
You have to prove through the cosmology of the multiverse depending whether or not the Many Worlds Theory is presented or not and in which way.
 
The meanings of this were completely straight.

If the Parallel Universes sub-theory in the Many Worlds Theory was mentioned to have a finite amount of dimensions, then it's depending on the number of dimensional layers above our own space-time, but if it's stated in context like "Infinite", or "Countless", then it holds infinite amounts of dimensional layers above our own space-time.

And i explained the word "Countless" and the variety of its meanings in several phrases and definitions.
 
How exactly does the "Parallel Universes" theory warrant a High 1-B rating in any case? It at the very best would warrant a 2-A rating unless it is specifically stated that it operates on a higher level of dimensionality than normal (6th dimensional multiverse, 11th dimensional multiverse etc.)
 
Since in the Parallel Universes Theory, it states The idea comes from the possibility of many more dimensions to our world than the three of space and one of time that we know. In addition to our own three-dimensional "brane" of space, other three-dimensional branes may float in a higher-dimensional space.

So depending on how many dimensional branes above our own, the rating varies, well, from 2-A and up to High 1-B at that case, depending on the number of dimensional branes, that is.

And in something like that Persona scan from above, it stated "Countless", and i explained the meaning of the word Countless above. It can mean a definite number or an infinite amount of numbers depending on its place in the phrases it is put in.

I also said in the thread from above:

The theory of Parallel Universes means 2-A, or up to High 1-B (Considering the fact that Parallel Universes means higher planes of existence, and if mentioned to be "Countless worlds", or "Infinite Worlds", and it was never mentioned a definite number of Parallel Universes, then this would mean the existence of Infinite transcendence levels of reality above our own space-time, which would warrant to High 1-B).
 
It isn't a rule per se, but I would rather bump a thread after a few hours rather than a few minutes.

Forgive me if I sound rude, but do you think you could summarize what you are trying to say here? Do you think it would significantly affect our Tiering System and the profiles in the wiki?
 
I'm not entirely certain I understand the discussion here and it's justifications, but I'll follow this thread to keep track.
 
Well it is possible to have an High 1-B cosmology with certain models of the many worlds theory, but it would require specifically one which relies on any new universe that's formed could be governed by different laws which would allow it to have any arbitrary number of dimensions as well. And of course the number of the possibilities to be infinite in order to get a universe with infinite dimensions.

But that's rather too specific and would require the fictional verse to delve into much detail in order to qualify for something like that. Otherwise, usually, the highest a parallel worlds cosmology would go would be Low 1-C, thanks to fractal/uncountably infinite number of universes.
 
Well, to tell you the truth, sir, i wasn't thinking about it, but i think it would change some meanings in the Tiering System.

Also, i was using this basis to confirm the nature of the Many Worlds Theory, considering the fact that it would significantly make a change in the profiles that hold this theory.

And to simplify it all, i was just explaining the the theory did not have only 1 basis, where some or most would treat its existence as 2-B in its verse. It held about 5 basis, and depending on whether 1 of those basis coexist in the verse and was stated in the Many Worlds Theory, it would affect the verse's cosmology.

Those 5 basis are, with their tiers:

The theory of Infinite Universes means 2-A.

The theory of Daughter Universes means 2-B (A universe born from another, where another universe gives birth to another universe and so on, but this time, there is a definite number for it).

The theory of Bubble Universes means either 2-C, 2-B, or 2-A (Depending on the context, whether a universe actually inflates to bring forth multiple universes, or infinite amounts of universes. And in fiction, stuff like this is common most of the times if it's mentioned).

Basically, if the Many Worlds Theory was mentioned, and along with it, 1 out of the 5 basis of said theory was shown or mentioned, then the tier of said verse would be the same as the 1 of the basis mentioned in the verse, effectively cementing its cosmology.

An example of it is the Persona scans i mentioned above.

The theory of Mathematical Universes means Low 2-C or 2-B (Since you have massive amounts of numbers in our world, and that all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes, and no matter how much numbers are there, they are definite and finite in our world, and maybe it could be said the all numbers are the thing that form our own universe or it can form multiple universes).

The theory of Parallel Universes means 2-A, or up to High 1-B (Considering the fact that Parallel Universes means higher planes of existence, and if mentioned to be "Countless worlds", or "Infinite Worlds", and it was never mentioned a definite number of Parallel Universes, then this would mean the existence of Infinite transcendence levels of reality above our own space-time, which would warrant to High 1-B).
 
If it's a single spacetime continuum, it's Low 2-C, even if there are infinite Big Bangs forming infinite local clumps of matter-energy "universes". 2-A requires creation/destruction/manipulation of infinite distinct and disconnected spacetime continua, so a single infinite spacetime universe shouldn't qualify for 2-A even if repeating configurations of matter-energy can be found within it.

I will have to look at all the rest of these to give an opinion of it, though.
 
Well if each universe is a sort of a transcendental plane, rather than being a parallel universe, then yeah it would qualify for High 1-B if there's an infinite amount of them.
 
Please don't derail.
 
Dark wizard56864 said:
Who would win in a fight frankie from hitchhikers guide to the galacy or child franklin richards
Blinking what
...What does this have to do with this thread's topic?
 
As said above, Parallel Universes are 2-C to 2-A, Perhaps Low 1-C, Higher Dimensionality in of itself does not qualify for being in Tier 1, and they must prove themselves to be transcendent to any amount of universes, this cannot be mathematically proven, as it is purely metaphysical.

Also if this passes it would f*** up the Tiering System and be a massive middle finger to all of Tier 1 and Tier 2, along with Ultima Reality for the work he put into the new Tiering System. This argument seems to be born out of a lack of understanding of what the higher tiers actually mean.

It treats dimensional tiering as an absolute truth, despite the fact that we only use it if the fictional universe uses it.

High 1-B is "endless hierarchies of layers of existence, each succeeding one completely trivializing the previous into insignificance." if we go off the definition you gave, it would not even qualify for even two layers of existance, much less endless that transcend the lower on such a level that they literally exist beyond any form of mathematics or physics imaginable. Anything past Low 1-C, actually no, all past 2-B, exist purely in the realm of metaphysics and philosphy.

Parallel Universes are not higher levels of existance no matter what definition you look at. Even if embeded in higher dimensional space, if explicity shown to be transcendent to lower levels by multiple degrees of infinity. Dimensional Tiering is only used if the fiction itself goes off of the philosphy that a being in higher dimensional space would be omnipotent when compared to lower levels.
 
No. This is not the place for that.
 
Ogbunabali said:
Well if each universe is a sort of a transcendental plane, rather than being a parallel universe, then yeah it would qualify for High 1-B if there's an infinite amount of them.
3. Parallel Universes:

Another idea that arises from string theory is the notion of "braneworlds" — parallel universes that hover just out of reach of our own, proposed by Princeton University's Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada. The idea comes from the possibility of many more dimensions to our world than the three of space and one of time that we know. In addition to our own three-dimensional "brane" of space, other three-dimensional branes may float in a higher-dimensional space.

Columbia University physicist Brian Greene describes the idea as the notion that "our universe is one of potentially numerous 'slabs' floating in a higher-dimensional space, much like a slice of bread within a grander cosmic loaf," in his book "The Hidden Reality" (Vintage Books, 2011).

Going back to the idea that space-time is flat, the number of possible particle configurations in multiple universes would be limited to 10^10^122 distinct possibilities, to be exact. So, with an infinite number of cosmic patches, the particle arrangements within them must repeat — infinitely many times over. This means there are infinitely many parallel universes, or rather infinite parallel universes: cosmic patches exactly the same as ours (containing someone exactly like you), as well as patches that differ by just one particle's position, patches that differ by two particles' positions, and so on down to patches that are totally different from ours.
 
Not on random threads. You can try and ask people who know the characters directly. Further commenting on this here will result in your official warning, so please stop.
 
Make a post on the Versus Thread board about the match.
 
Also, why is Persona being linked in the topics here? I'm aware the series has brought up the Many Worlds theory before, but that was like... in a passing statement that has no bearing on this general discussion as a whole. It doesn't seem like a consequential topic to link.
 
But this is not the place, please don't hijack threads on completely unrelated topics, or even related ones. Keep it on the same topic, do not rerail.
 
Zouken said:
As said above, Parallel Universes are 2-C to 2-A, Perhaps Low 1-C, Higher Dimensionality in of itself does not qualify for being in Tier 1, and they must prove themselves to be transcendent to any amount of universes, this cannot be mathematically proven, as it is purely metaphysical.
Also if this passes it would f*** up the Tiering System and be a massive middle finger to all of Tier 1 and Tier 2, along with Ultima Reality for the work he put into the new Tiering System. This argument seems to be born out of a lack of understanding of what the higher tiers actually mean.

It treats dimensional tiering as an absolute truth, despite the fact that we only use it if the fictional universe uses it.

High 1-B is "endless hierarchies of layers of existence, each succeeding one completely trivializing the previous into insignificance." if we go off the definition you gave, it would not even qualify for even two layers of existance, much less endless that transcend the lower on such a level that they literally exist beyond any form of mathematics or physics imaginable. Anything past Low 1-C, actually no, all past 2-B, exist purely in the realm of metaphysics and philosphy.

Parallel Universes are not higher levels of existance no matter what definition you look at. Even if embeded in higher dimensional space, if explicity shown to be transcendent to lower levels by multiple degrees of infinity. Dimensional Tiering is only used if the fiction itself goes off of the philosphy that a being in higher dimensional space would be omnipotent when compared to lower levels.
I understand that High 1-B is endless hierarchies of existences, and that is in the middle of the explanation of The Parallel Universes sub-theory.

The Parallel Universes sub-theory states that in addition to our own three-dimensional "brane" of space, other three-dimensional branes may float in a higher-dimensional space.

And depending on the numbers of those branes that are above our own universe, the verse's cosmology can vary between 2-A and High 1-B.
 
The thing is that Parallel Universes in fiction are always shown as being on the same level, and are considered as Parallel becuase they exist on the same plane. They also typically are all 3-D, and exist in a Bulk. But their tier would not scale to this "Bulk" unless they destroy the Bulk. Though it is most common to only destroy the universes, not what they float through.

And again, we do not use dimensional tiering unless the Verse in question repeatedly shows that Dimensionality equates to Infinite Transcendence.

And if all comes from a singular Big Bang than they would all exist in a singular Space-Time Continua, thus would be considered 2-B. As no matter how many variations one can make it would never reach Infinity, and 2-A also requires seperate continua.
 
This is going to be a rather long critique, but they're many things in here which are inaccurate.

"Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat"

No. Given Einstein's Field equation: $ G_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=8\pi T_{\mu\nu} $

where $ G_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu} $ gives the shape of Space-Time, while the right-hand side describes the distribution of energy, momentum, and stress. So given the distribution of stress energy, that will give the shape. Mathematically we describe the shape with $ G_{\mu\nu} $, but often for most shapes, it would be a 4D Psuedo-Riemannian manifold in which we don't really describe with English words. It's not really 'flat' at all.

"It's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely"

This is describing the curvature of space, not Space-Time. And to be noted, it's describing the local geometry of the Universe, and not necessarily the Universe as a whole. Can you explain what you mean by, "flat"?

"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."

No. If the Universe is indeed Spatially Infinite, that does not guarantee in any sense that there must be another you. It's possible that beyond the Observable Universe, there's no more planets or stars.

I don't have problem for 2. I haven't studied String Theory, so I have no idea for 3.

For 4, provide a source for this, "mathematics".

5 I'm not going to get into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top