The multiverse hypothesis disputed as scientifically unfounded

Cosmos
1

Okay, let’s talk about the Universe. The only reason that people have ever theorized as to whether or not a multiverse exists is to explain dreams or fantasies. There is no, and I mean no, genuine scientific research that confirms or implies a multiverse that is not more consistent with some other finding.

So why do people believe in it? Delusion, fantasy, wishing they had a better life than they do now. To sell books on theoretical physics. Science fiction television writers, and also movies, I guess.

Why is it important that people stop believing it? It is being used as a manipulation tool. People are being told to slave away in this life because on the next one they can be a space soldier in Star Trek, or go to Heaven, or that they are just one version of themselves and every other version of themselves is better or worse.

Let’s think about the Universe. Presume that the Universe originated with two points at imbalance, or one become imbalanced. Every single motion those points take and make are determined by the arrangement, charge, spin rate, spacing, and so many other factors. They only move in that direction once and that was always and will always be the direction they were going to move.

This isn’t a probability trial where you get to retest the results and measure each one as a classed alternative series of events. That isn’t the Multiverse, that’s just measuring multiple instances of similar actions.

If you go back in time, you were already there, and that’s why you can’t change anything and another reason as to why there is no Multiverse.

Why is it important to reject the idea of the Multiverse and a mutable timeline? Idiots are trying to change the timeline and they’re using the idea of the Multiverse as part of their justification. This wouldn’t work and is just causing harm. Basically, it’s to explain to all of the theoretical physicists and actual idiots, and the overlap.

atf8fu
atf8fu500×740 84.6 KB

Edit: Apparently someone reported this post as offensive? I edited the title slightly but if it gets flagged again I ask that moderation consider the value of the statement.

4

If there is no muiltiverse then there is a single and fundamental temporal field.

The critical gap is your claim that the timeline is not mutable. This is where you overcorrect. Rejecting the multiverse doesn’t mean rejecting timeline mutability — it means understanding mutability correctly. The temporal overwrite hypothesis says the timeline is absolutely mutable — it has been overwritten before and can be overwritten again — but on a single substrate rather than through branching multiplication.

1 Like
5

I have no intertest in tangling with you on whether we are multiversal worldlines, or… not, that matters little me, I am open to it… but lay no claims either way to it’s certainty.

Please TimeTravelerZero? Watch my toes here! I smashed it recently & damaged my nail, it is quite sensitive still.

If you have no interest in debating me, that’s fine… then I just ask not act like you proved something, when from my perspective you are on grounds made of quicksand… before me.

I carry a much heavier responsibility than others.

Glad to pull you out if you are on quicksand, but if you won’t take my hand… I still can’t just let you sink further down in front of me. If you catch my drifting sands.

I am open to being proven wrong, I am humble enough to even listen, but show me your evidence, or… at least link me too it, I will try to read & if it makes sense/does not eventually give me a headache cause it is mentally exhaustive.

Then I will formulate my plan/explain my side & let us see if we can come to any agreement on if I am wrong, or… you & where we may still disagree.

Cheers TTZ! :wink: ~QS

P.S. I would have to agree with Timeportal1!

I would rather go to the future, I feel like my past was messed up enough!

The Absolute Last Person who should ever mess with the past… IS ME! :zany_face:

6

Calling Hugh Everett an idiot is quite bold.
We look forward to seeing your research on the topic. You don’t know much about Quantum Physics, do you?

2 Likes
7

I wasn’t specifying an individual. I know quite a lot about quantum physics, but I also know more about pragmatic logic, and Novikov is correct. It’s inarguable and one of the problems that I have experienced with yes, even some of the top minds in many fields, has been theoretical speculation outweighing common sense.