• 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.

Many worlds interpretation

Sniper670

Sniper670

He/Him
6,409
1,365
What tier would a cosmology be if it followed the many worlds interpretation.

From my understanding(ahem, Google, Wikipedia) , M. W. I leads to an uncountably infinite number of universes. I want to know how it's treated here
 
Iirc, here by default MWI is multi, multi+ if there are proofs of infinite possibilities

What I wanted to know (related to the thread where this question comes from) is what if, following MWI, in a single world there is an infinite amount of people, each of which does an action which creates another world with infinite people (infinite worlds), each of which creates another world with infinite people (infinity^infinity worlds), each of which creates another world with infinite people (infinity^infinity^infinity ?) and so on

I wanted to know if such logic could be applied or, if it's wrong, why it's wrong. Mayor I'll do a thread of that later
 
But the theory of m.w.i dictates an uncountably infinite number of universes. Which is at least low 1C

2A cosmology is countable infinite number of space-time continuums
 
JustANormalPerson01 said:
Iirc, here by default MWI is multi, multi+ if there are proofs of infinite possibilities

What I wanted to know (related to the thread where this question comes from) is what if, following MWI, in a single world there is an infinite amount of people, each of which does an action which creates another world with infinite people (infinite worlds), each of which creates another world with infinite people (infinity^infinity worlds), each of which creates another world with infinite people (infinity^infinity^infinity ?) and so on

I wanted to know if such logic could be applied or, if it's wrong, why it's wrong. Mayor I'll do a thread of that later
Click to expand...
Good question. I mean, just a bog standard MWI multiverse could be considered to be an infinite set of natural numbers (countably infinite), but if each of those universes in the MWI structure spawns it's own MWI multiverse, would it eventually grow to the extent of being more akin to an infinite set of real numbers (uncountably infinite)?
 
The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are most likely an uncountably infinite number of universes.[11] It is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised. This is intended to resolve some paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[5]: 462 [2]: 118  and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe.

[Seems like atleast Low1C to me]
 
Good question. For my cosmology and understanding, MWI can be as 'low' as 2-A/2-B to as high as High 1-B/1-A.
Generally speaking, unlike most other cosmologies like Brane Multiverses or Inflation Multiverses, there is no 'need' for a higher spatial dimension of 4-D or higher.
MWI branches the multiverse based on a single dimension of time. This basically means it can be as low as regular, 4-D space like in a 2-A multiverse to as high as High 1-B/1-A if you use hilbert space or beyond (IE: You are using beyond countably infinite dimensional BUT you are still following the rules of the multiverse branching as long as the dimension you are working with has time.).

There is 4 levels of multiverses according to Max Tegmark. You can think of them as extra 'sets' of one another. The tldr of each in plain english can be approximated too.

1. Quilted Multiverse (3-D + 1 Dimension of Time.)
2. Inflation Multiverse/Brane Multiverse (As few as 4-D including space and time, or as high as 11-D for a Brane multiverse based on string theory/m theory.)\
3. MWI (Like I said, as few as 4-D (an extension of our spatial-temporal understanding.) to Countably Infinite/Uncountably Infinite-D
4. Math Multiverse. (Same as 3, but can include Uncountably Infinite/Beyond.)

Of course, there isn't really a current fictional approximation for 4. I can think of a basic 2-A multiverse for 3 like Rick and Morty generally or a High 1-B/1-A as like, Warhammmer 40k where the temporal branching is done in a parallel, infinite dimension (IE: The Warp.)

The timecodes for each, to get a general explanation of either.


1: 5:36
2: 20:20
3: 42:24
4: 1:00:35

Tldr: Just be careful with how many dimensions with MWI there are. If it just seems to be an extension of our multiverse, it should be 2-B/2-A if either 'endless' or countably infinite.

Source:
 
If a story just says "there are many worlds", there's nothing suggesting that it's uncountably infinite. It would be a stretch to assume it's referencing a wikipedia article with just these lines, and stories with multiverses more often than not would point out whether there's an infinite number of universes in the first place. It'll just be 2-C as that's the most reasonable assumption.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's a mantra we stick to and should stick to.

If it is truly referencing some theories IRL then I suppose if that's the case, then the cosmology's interpretation would naturally follow what the theory says.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
Many worlds is 2-B. Most probably the highest level of 2-B possible without reaching into 2-A, but still 2-B nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Not always. Not even scientists agree on this.
There is two interpertations I have seen.

The first is that there is a finite number of material in our base universe and thus there is only a large (but still trans-finite iiirc) of universes within the multiverse, that would be 2-B here. This is based on the idea of the laws of physics being generally being symmetric across the multiverse.

Or 2-A at the very minimum if there is different physical constants possible in the quantum vacuum.


Source and Quotes: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.14042.pdf
"We argue through basic topological properties of Cantor space that under certain assumptions about the spacetime structure and causation, given any event x, if all worldlines extending the event x are ‘eventually deterministic’, then within the many-worlds interpretation the number of alternate universes with respect to x is exactly ℵ0" (N0 is Aleph Null/Naught, so countably infinite)
"On the other hand if we do not have any restriction on the lifespan of universes, then clearly there may be infinitely many possible worlds."
"For every event x, since there are finitely many atoms—by I(b) and I(d)— there can only be finitely many events y1, . . . , yn such that yi is the immediate successor (or immediate effect) of x, meaning that x < a < yi for no event a (See Section 2.2 for details)." (2-B interpertation here.)
"Given an event x, a split of at least two immediate effects of x defines incomparable spacetime events (see Figure 1). In the MWI, thus, a split is usually considered as a way of defining alternate universes." (The fundamental core of MWI, an event creates any causal chain of events in its unique world line, it requires time so can be as high or low as you want it according to our systems.)
"The number of paths that 8 start with b and end up with l is clearly finite. This then has no effect on the number of worldlines in the future of b if the future of b contains infinitely many paths" (Another 2-B statement in the paper, but acknowledges there is an infinite number of paths.)

And so on. There are other papers I use but cannot cite immediately that imply a 2-A cosmology by stating there is a countably/uncountably infinite number of branches.

Edit: Of course, MWI is the most flexible but also controversial theory in science. It is considered mostly unprovable and untestable so really any number of dimensions and timelines are 'acceptable'. There could be an infinitely discrete number of values and variables or just a very large, but finite number. So take what I say with a grain of salt. Analysis should be done by case by case basis, with evidence.
 
Last edited:
A finite world can generate up to 2B at best but if the world is infinite along with matter then it could be 2A possibly low 1C.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
Theories aside, the best way to go about it is to see how the verse itself treats it. A verse can be 2-A or even higher while having many worlds, but as a baseline it would indeed be 2-B.
Click to expand...
Oh most definitely! Type 3 is the most flexible like I said in that it is like a bigger set of 1 and 2.
and yes, a 2 could be a Low 1-C, a 1-C, or whatnot. But that doesnt necessarily mean this trait is ’inherited’ in Type 3.
Usually for 1 and 2, space is the separating factor for different universes/timelines. But not for 3. And for 3, since it is reliant on time, it can be as low or high as you want it.

I used to think MTG, one of my favorite universes followed a Type 3 model, but upon closer inspection, it is closer to a hybrid of Types 1 and 2.
I didnt mean to like, catch ya on the spot my dude. It gets nuanced very quickly. Alot of fictional cosmologies can get complicated quickly.
Best to just cite your evidence on how many branches in type 3 are possible. Because you are right, it is case by case. It can never be as simple as “Lul 2-A! Can‘t wait to make my matches!”
Because Type 3 is ontologically seperated by Types 1 and 2 that on the surface, it is hard to guesstimate the number based on just the multiverse description.
Plus, we didnt bring up Type 4 and that can also include MWI, but I am lazy and dont want too lol.
 
.
Metalballrun said:
If a story just says "there are many worlds", there's nothing suggesting that it's uncountably infinite. It would be a stretch to assume it's referencing a wikipedia article with just these lines, and stories with multiverses more often than not would point out whether there's an infinite number of universes in the first place.
Click to expand...
The book where that was mentioned is actually referenced, so at least it has some credibility.

I mean, so what if it's an infinite multiverse where every possibility within each universe branches out into its own parallel universe.

It's already infinite, but it keeps infinitely expanding beyond that.

I think, that would lead to the uncountably infinite multiverse that mwi dictates.
 
Yemma670 said:
.

The book where that was mentioned is actually referenced, so at least it has some credibility.

I mean, so what if it's an infinite multiverse where every possibility within each universe branches out into its own parallel universe.

It's already infinite, but it keeps infinitely expanding beyond that.

I think, that would lead to the uncountably infinite multiverse that mwi dictates.
Click to expand...
Isn't the question here is that the theory is already the one referenced? it already says uncountable infinite so it should be Low-1c if the verse in this hypothetical thing truly follows mwi.
 
Cat said:
Isn't the question here is that the theory is already the one referenced? it already says uncountable infinite so it should be Low-1c if the verse in this hypothetical thing truly follows mwi.
Click to expand...
Yeah, MWI is treated as uncountably Infinite sure. But I wanted to know how it's treated here, if it's not treated as uncountably infinite here, then why? Something like that
 
Yemma670 said:
Yeah, MWI is treated as uncountably Infinite sure. But I wanted to know how it's treated here, if it's not treated as uncountably infinite here, then why? Something like that
Click to expand...
If it's not treated as uncountable infinite it should be around 2-B to 2-A since it is endlessly branching or so, well that is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Cat said:
If it's not treated as uncountable infinite it should be around 2b-2a since it is endlessly branching, well that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The mwi is akin to the video about the hotel room. Where infinity can be exceeded with a greater one

 
Yemma670 said:
The mwi is akin to the video about the hotel room. Where infinity can be exceeded with a greater one

Click to expand...

Well that should be possible enough if there are different sets of possibillities or so, but i'll say mwi without uncountable infinite is 2-C to 2-A minimum if that is what you want to hear.
 
Yemma670 said:
Yeah, MWI is treated as uncountably Infinite sure. But I wanted to know how it's treated here, if it's not treated as uncountably infinite here, then why? Something like that
Click to expand...
How it is treated here, again depending on context, just because the verse throwing some MWI doesn't mean it automatically 2-A or Low 1-C without further context, at worst it could well be just 2-C
 
Vietthai96 said:
How it is treated here, again depending on context, just because the verse throwing some MWI doesn't mean it automatically 2-A or Low 1-C without further context, at worst it could well be just 2-C
Click to expand...
So far no MWI cosmology went below 2B, 2B is the hotbed for MWI cosmology all the time.
 
Vietthai96 said:
2-B due to being ad-infinitum. However, it could well be placed at 2-C, we just didn't see it
Click to expand...
Not really, undertale before it's eventual downgrade was extremely high into finite 2B with just 100+ characters by determining the magnitude of the order in which monsters can be killed and applying it to MWI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

eternal1234
A question about many worlds interpretation
Replies
4
Views
569
eternal1234
eternal1234
MightyFrogBeyond
How to Keep infinite branching timelines as Low 2-C??
Replies
2
Views
440
MightyFrogBeyond
MightyFrogBeyond
Ezaru
Curled Up Strings
Replies
0
Views
291
Ezaru
Ezaru
Grabbing_dragon
Trinity seven low 1C Worlds simple
Replies
0
Views
634
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Realabod
my little pony cosmology possible upgrade
Replies
39
Views
3K
BestMGQScalerEver
BestMGQScalerEver
Back
Top