Many Worlds Theory question

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

All of us probably know the Many Worlds Interpretation.

The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are very—perhaps infinitely[11]—many universes. 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 and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe. In fact this theory is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunctio is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse.[2] This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe.

Basically every time a "random" event takes place, the universe splits between the various options available.For example: if an event has 5 possible outcomes, the universe will split and other 5 universes will become reality and each one of them will represent 1 of the 5 outcomes. Basically Each separate version of the universe contains a different outcome of that event. Instead of one continuous timeline, the universe under the many worlds interpretation looks more like a series of branches splitting off of a tree limb.

There are premises for this:

1- The multiverse follows the Many Worlds theory

2- The events already happened, so the universe already splitted into more universes

My question is this:

A multiverse that is formed from an infinite amount of events would classify as Multiverse level+?

According to the Many Worlds Theory i think yes, since it could be interpretated as this:

Infinite splits in the universe caused by infinite events which have resulted in infinite universes that form the multiverse.

Now we could argue the fact that infinity has no end nor beggining and it can't expand. But the wiki uses the sets theory to classify Infinity, so basically infinite sets.

For example, the natural number set is a countably infinite set, it is infinite but it also possess a beginning (it starts from the number 0).

In this theory infinity can become bigger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

http://eldar.mathstat.uoguelph.ca/dashlock/Outreach/Articles/InfPlusOne.html

According to my explanation, this kind of multiverse would classify as 2-A


I'm currently debating outside of this wiki with a friend of mine about this topic, and i would like to know if i'm claiming something correct. Thank you

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Pretty sure we had many discussions regarding this, but there are a lot of knit picks on what actually qualifies as infinite around here. But one of the many arguments is that "Many worlds" actually is based on the principle that the Universe or number of quantum in the Universe always approaches infinity as opposed to it being currently infinite or ever actually reaching infinite. And same with Universes/Timelines in the multiverse; it's seen as just massive degrees of 2-B as opposed to 2-A. Exception is if there's are actual in verse statements that point to there being a infinite number of timelines.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

I didn't understand very well. You're saying that it is correct but you do not treat such a thing as infinite here? Sounds fallacious to me since it contradicts what the theory says

In this case you have already reached infinity

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-weirdest-implications-of-the-many-worlds-interpre-1692618056

It's implied in the theory that the number of universes that comes around depends on how many possible outcomes you have

If every event spawns at least 1 universe, infinite events spawns infinite universes

I'm not attacking you and i hope you won't think bad. I'm saying that this claim isn't totally right because as i said before it all depends on how many possible results you could obtain from the splitting

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't have problems in particular. And not saying and can't mean infinite. However, there are statements spoken frequently by other staff members that there's a difference between physical existing universes and imaginary universes/unborn baby universes. "Infinite Possibilities" simply means there's an infinite number of unborn baby universes as opposed to an infinite number of current universes as what's decided amongst the staff. If there's back up statements in verse that equate possibilities to physically existing universes, then it would be 2-A. But Many Worlds interpretation still has 2-B as the standard.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

I see.

But what if the infinite events already happened?

Infinite splits in the universe caused by infinite events which have resulted in infinite universes that form the multiverse. I'm saying that infinite events spawns infinite universes, basically there are infinite possible outcomes.

What i'm saying is: if the infinite events already happened in the past, this also means that all infinite possible outcomes are physically realized, so there is already an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse

This time i tried to make it more easier since at first i didn't explain it very well

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I mean, if that paragraph is elaborated in verse, I personally think that's 2-A. There are verses rated at 2-A based on a combination of two statements; "There are as many worlds as there are possibilities" and "There's an infinite number of possibilities". But simple references to the Many Worlds Interpretation only get qualified as 2-B.

 

[Antvasima]

Medeus is probably correct.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Thanks. Basically the situation in verse is this:

The multiverse has infinite possibilites

The it's stated to be formed from infinite events, implying that they already happened. So it's implied that all infinite outcomes are realized as infinite universes

Furthermore, the same character who stated infinite events,in the same "Saga" (basically the same continuity) says that he needs/wants to explore all the possibilities and that hopeless universes are sad and that we ,as the player , saw a lot of them + he says that everyone should be happy. This is Another statement that proves that all infinite outcomes are realized

I think this should be 2-A honestly since the same character implies multiple times that there are infinite universes. he also says that he wants to explore all the possibilites which are infinite and i think that this is a big proof

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

@DarkDragonMedeus

Do you think that these are enough for 2-A?

 

[Antvasima]

Has this specific verse upgrade been discussed and rejected in other discussion threads?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, I'd like to know what verse this is for. I have a feeling Dragon Ball Xenoverse/Heroes? I've been hearing a lot of discussions regarding that and I know we already had hundreds of discussions. But if the statements in game are literally all over the place like that, then I personally might thing 2-A might become reasonable. But I think that may be reserved for another time.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

@Antvasima Yes but these statements have never been used.

I'm gonna sleep now.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

DarkDragonMedeus

And your feeling is correct. But as i said, these statements have never been used. the history statement was used, but it was slighty different from this one (the statement i used above really exist in the game).

the second one was used in a general discussion but i didn't find it in any CRT. It was never used as a support to an upgrade

If you want the scans i can give them to you on Discord

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, I recommend saving the scans that hold such statement; whether an screenshotted image, GIF, or time stamp linked YouTube URL. But given Fandom is going through a giant Forum move, it would be a good idea to hold off on making any big Content Revisions ATM.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Yeah don't worry about that.

As i said, if you want the scans i can give you them on Discord

 

[Antvasima]

Medeus is correct. All discussion posts made after April 14 will disappear in the new forum, so if there are any important content revisions that need to be referenced in the new forum, please back them up here:

https://archive.org/web/

The threads can be updated with later backups if more posts are made in them.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Sorry if i bother here again. Do you consider Trunks as an authority for the Dragon Ball cosmology? Because i think i found an inconstency in a 2-A statement made in Dragon Ball Shin Budokai by Cell that was rejected because he wasn't considered an authority ( the inconstency is that if Trunks is an authority, he likely supports what Cell says in the sense that he will stop Cell from what he's gonna do)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Is it the "Endless number of worlds" statement?

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Yes. The fallacy would be the fact that an authority regarding the cosmology doesn't disprove the argument, at the contrary Trunks sayd that he's gonna stop Cell from destroying other worlds.

If you want i can post the full dialogue.

This would grant 2-A at least for Heroes (SB is canon only to Heroes)


EDIT: in other version of the game Cell says "Infinite Worlds"

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Scan for that last statement?

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

The full statement https://imgur.com/a/szT15rA

"Mondi Infiniti" in Italian means "Infinite Worlds":

https://imgur.com/a/eYgk6L7

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, Google translate isn't exactly reliable, and Word Hippo which is considered more reliable simply says it means Endless. And the original Japanese translation should be seen as the most credible edition.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Yes. One thing: i'm Italian and for describe something "Endless" we say "Without an end" which translates into "Senza fine". This is the Italian of "Endless".

Got what i mean? To describe "Endless" we use its meaning.

Infinite in Italian translates into "Infinito" and nothing else


EDIT: i'll check myself the Japanese version of the game

 

[Antvasima]

@Medeus

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

The 'Many Worlds Interpretation' is viewed at a 5-dimensional perspective. Each universe has infinite possiblities, and each of those outcomes also branch off into infinite possiblities as well, even the slightest thing can cause a divergence in the timeline, specifically due to superposition of every particle in the universe.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

The 4th dimension is linear time, but a diverging timeline is the 5th dimension. This is a 'quantum multiverse', in which is a multiverse that holds all the possible outcomes a universe will ever have, down to even photons shifting even a planck length, that alone is enough for a divergence in time.

Quantum multiverses are not 'other universes', but it is a single universe with many possible outcomes that describe what can happen, they are not 'spatio-temporally isolated' universes in this case. So manipulating the space-time of this structure isn't affecting infinite universes, rather affecting the 5th dimension itself. Manipulating the space-time of this can also grant Quantum Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, Causality Manipulation, Probability Manipulation, and even Existence Erasure if used a certain way.

 

[Giygas3]

@Exermis "The 'Many Worlds Interpretation' is viewed at a 5-dimensional perspective. "

Where did you get this from?

"even the slightest thing can cause a divergence in the timeline, specifically due to superposition of every particle in the universe."

The MWI has to do with the observer taking different terms of the Wave Function, it has much less to do with, "the superposition of every particle in the Universe." Unless you mean the same thing by this?

"The 4th dimension is linear time, but a diverging timeline is the 5th dimension. "

What's your source for this?

 

[Furudo_Erika]

The 5th dimension is summed up as 'possible worlds', as for my source, pretty much everywhere that explains higher dimensions in physics.

 

[Giygas3]

"The 5th dimension is summed up as 'possible worlds'

I've never heard of the 5th dimension being summed up like that. That's why I'm wondering where you're getting this from.

"Pretty much everywhere that explains higher dimensions in Physics."

Then a single reference from a textbook or Peer-Reviewed paper will do.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Will this video do then?

 

[Giygas3]

No, because YouTube videos are not used as reliable sources for any academia subject. I'll only accept Textbook's or Peer-Reviewed paper's as references.

 

[Truth_Bullets]

He cited all of his sources in the description, it can be used

 

[Furudo_Erika]

He cited all of his sources in the description, it can be used

He also used many brilliant physicists as well, this is not from his personal perspective but actually using facts and news articles for his sources, so I believe it's quite reliable.

 

[Giygas3]

I looked at his citations. Half of it looked to be to his own blog, one linked looked to be dead, two others were from Pop-science sources, then most others are referenced to Wikipedia - Which is not even suppose to be used as a secondary source.

Arxiv is the only source in there that i would accept as references, and looking through - I don't see where they ever say that the fifth dimension is, "possible worlds", much less your description of, "Linear time" to the fourth dimension.

 

[Truth_Bullets]

It doesn't matter what you accept, it's whether he refers to intelligble sources, which he did

 

[Furudo_Erika]

'Possible worlds' was mainly my oversimplification of it, the 5th dimension is not easy to explain after all.

 

[Giygas3]

It matters what he uses as references. It's not a matter of, "intelligible" sources, it's a matter of what sources he uses which are considered reliable given their audience. This is how it's done in academia, and how it should be done everywhere when you're getting into these subjects.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

He used many famous physicists such as Einstein and Hawking as references. But regarding that, the branching timeline would still be uncountable universes. Infinite possiblities in which each also branch out into infinite possiblities indefinitely in the same manner.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

If a dimension shows an endless length, then the 4th dimension (time) would also be endless, making it possible for an infinite set of infinite possiblities in the form of a diverging timeline.