Disproving the Multiverse Theory: Please let me be wrong.

[AkazilliaDeNaro]

So i was thinking about the Multiverse Theory, and one thing came up, now know that i am only a dabbler in this field so bear with me. Also i think that there is a high probability that someone already thought this up.

Now the Multiverse Theory states that for every action we make, their is an infinite number of different action we COULD have taken and each one of those actions creates an alternate universe in which we did take that action. Now suppose someone decided to destroy a building, in one universe that building is destroyed and in another that building still stands because someone decided to stop that person, but imagine if someone decided to destroy all of reality, every universe, and because of the number of universes they succeeded in one of them.

So, the point i'm trying to make is that this is impossible because we are still here. so someone please disprove me, because ii rather like the multiverse theory.

[The_Final_Stand]

Theory: The destruction of the entirety of reality is impossible, no matter how hard you try. Physics disallows interaction with other, theoretical realities, therefore, such a scenario could not come about, double therefore, there is no universe where all universes are destroyed.

Which leads to the question, what's the point of having a multiverse theory, if such an existence is no different from a reality where there is only one universe?

[Shadow of the Sun]

Multiverse theory is really just a useful mathematical model. There is no feasible or even viable way to test it's truth.

We only use it because it makes the math work out, and because a lot of physicists have a habit of thinking that the model is the same as the real thing.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm pretty sure the whole point of having multiple universes is so that what happens in one doesn't affect the others, making your premise an impossibility. That's just my layman's opinion, though. I'm not a theoretical physicist or anything.

Ask yourself what's more likely: that multiple universes exist but cannot interact, or that multiple universes don't exist because somebody in one of them would have figured out how to destroy every universe? Alternatively: only one universe exists and we have very active imaginations.

[valadil]

but imagine if someone decided to destroy all of reality, every universe, and because of the number of universes they succeeded in one of them.

I just decided to do destroy all the universes. Still here? That's okay. Just because I decided to do that doesn't mean I have the capability. I think all you've proven is that nobody has simultaneously had the capability and made the decision to destroy all the things.

[LaZodiac]

Play Bioshock Infinite, it explains this quite nicely.

SUPER SPOILERS, TECHNICALLY: Long story short, even an infinite amount of universe requires SOME Constants in order to not fall apart and rip open space time. As a result, there must ALWAYS be some consistency. Additionally, the amount of time an alt universe has to exist is perportionate to the impossibility of some of the stuff in it. For instance, the news show you're watching right now could have every suddenly strip naked and dance around like monkies, but that's so unlikely and silly that if that did happen, that universe would collapse and end, as more possible universes "happened", thus making that a constant.

Longer story short, you will never destroy all realities because it's so patently ridiculous, your universe will be overwritten by more logical realities before you can trigger that switch.

[warty goblin]

The problem with your induction is that it assumes just because there are a very large - reasonably approximated by infinite - number of universes, anything that can happen will happen.

Probability does not work this way. You can roll a standard six sixed dice until the end of time, and you will never observe pi. Not in this, or any other universe. There would be a universe somewhere on the bleeding edge of zero probability where you rolled nothing but sixes.

Another subtle point is that, broadly speaking, as the number of possible outcomes increases, the probability of an outcome tends to go down. Even if destroying all universes had technically non-zero probability, there may simply not be enough universes to have made the event reasonably probable yet.

Alternatively you could take a Bayesian approach, fix an uninformative prior on the probability that all universes will be destroyed, and use the observed knowledge that this has not yet happened to calculate the posterior probability that, over any timespan, the universes will be destroyed. I suspect your posterior will, to any level of round-off error calculable by modern methods, be indistinguishable from a point mass of probability one at 'not going to be destroyed.'

In short the probabilities do not, to my mind, provide convincing evidence that the continued existence of the universe is incompatible with the multiverse hypothesis.

[BaronOfHell]

The idea of a multiverse theory as explained in the OP is that anything that can happen will happen. If the theory holds true, then obviously all of reality can't be destroyed in a sense where we can't observe what we're observing, because we're, obviously, observing it.

The multiverse theory is among other things a possible explanation for why time travel into the past may be possible. Simply by having an infinite amount of universe in all possible states of any possible events which could ever happen, time travelling to the past simply becomes a travel between these universes, allowing for otherwise unpleasant paradoxes to be easily explained away.

My main issue with the multiverse theory is that we only experience a single universe. The moment any universe splits due to the possibility of a different taken action, we only continue along the ride of a single universe, and not any of the other ones. From that it follows we continue to exist in this universe, and a different person with our body, memories, thoughts, etc. exists in the other. Maybe we were all the time both persons in complete harmony over every action believing both to be the same one, and the difference in decision made us go each our way, without any one of us noticing (halving infinite, essentially leaving infinity left). However in such a case, one can wonder why the probability of atoms randomly collecting into a boltzmann brain has not occurred, unless the probability for this occurring is zero. But we know it isn't, because we're here, observing. One possible explanation is that if there's an infinite amount as many universes from which point we observe than there are boltzmann brains, effectively cancelling the effect out by dividing through with zero, but that would require the probability of a boltzmann brain to be infinitesimal, in which case, there shouldn't be an infinite amount of us from the get go, etc.
So while it's a very interesting theory, I'm not fully convinced.

Some more on the subject: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3778

Long story short, even an infinite amount of universe requires SOME Constants in order to not fall apart and rip open space time. As a result, there must ALWAYS be some consistency. Additionally, the amount of time an alt universe has to exist is perportionate to the impossibility of some of the stuff in it. For instance, the news show you're watching right now could have every suddenly strip naked and dance around like monkies, but that's so unlikely and silly that if that did happen, that universe would collapse and end, as more possible universes "happened", thus making that a constant.
So if I were to get a job as a news anchor and suddenly stripped naked and danced around like a monkey, I'd make our entire universe collapse? I did not know I had this power!


The problem with your induction is that it assumes just because there are a very large - reasonably approximated by infinite - number of universes, anything that can happen will happen.

Probability does not work this way. You can roll a standard six sixed dice until the end of time, and you will never observe pi. Not in this, or any other universe. There would be a universe somewhere on the bleeding edge of zero probability where you rolled nothing but sixes.

Another subtle point is that, broadly speaking, as the number of possible outcomes increases, the probability of an outcome tends to go down. Even if destroying all universes had technically non-zero probability, there may simply not be enough universes to have made the event reasonably probable yet.


Probability works exactly so that after infinite tries, every possible outcome has happened in accordance to its percentage chance of happening. Events decided through probability, such as the throw of a coin, has no fixed order in which they appear, but the uncertainty of their rate of appearance goes to zero as the number of throws goes to infinity. Since we're dealing with infinity here, any finite chance events which can happen throughout infinite tries have happened an infinite amount of times, no matter how absurd small the rate is. For an infinitesimal chance, the event will have happened a finite amount of times.

The six sided dice example is horrible, because it's not talking about a very unlikely outcome, it's talking about an impossible outcome under the premises set, i.e. that you only get the whole numbers 1-6. Even then, strictly speaking, the probability of all the atoms in the die randomly redistributing themselves to form the letter pi given an infinite amount of dies and infinite time is 1. Heck if going to a broader definition of the multiverse, where it's not merely everything which could have happened in our universe, but decentralizes our universe, there'll be universes where the probability of that happening is 1 at throw one.

And there wouldn't be a single universe where you roll nothing, but sixes, there would be an infinite amount. In fact any combinations of actions taken throughout the universe is only one possibility in what's an unimaginable high number of possibilities, the likelihood for this road is no smaller than the likelihood for any road you can come up with, that does not mean this is the only universe following the so far exact same path. After all, if the universe splits for any action where there's more than one possibilities it follows that for this to be able to continue without running out of universes (unless you want to postulate that an entire universe is suddenly created), is for there to be an infinite universes all on the same path for any path ever taken. These infinities will of course not be of identical size.

[LaZodiac]

So if I were to get a job as a news anchor and suddenly stripped naked and danced around like a monkey, I'd make our entire universe collapse? I did not know I had this power!

Well yes, but you won't get a job as a news anchor, if that is your intention.

[BaronOfHell]

I've seen news anchors doing far worse stuff than what you described :smallwink:

Edit: Here's something else to consider. The probability of any action, given an infinite possibilities, is zero. Any action should then make the universe be overwritten, but that goes for every universe.

While you can say it's more likely for a news anchor to perform his job, we've no idea of the amount of possible past actions which left to a news anchor acting like you described, meaning we can't reasonably compare those two events and say which one is the absurd one.

[factotum]

I don't think there are infinite possibilities, though. Assuming each new universe gets created at a quantum-level decision point, there have only been a finite (albeit very, very large) number of those since the universe began--there would only be infinite decision points if the universe were infinitely old, which it isn't.

As for the whole idea the OP put forward:

1) How do you know it's even possible to destroy the entire multiverse? People can dream about doing it as much as they like, if it's physically impossible it will never happen.

2) Assuming it *is* somehow possible to destroy the entire multiverse, it perhaps takes a level of technological accomplishment which simply cannot be reached by any race that is around this soon after the creation of the universe.

3) Assuming the first two hurdles I've outlined above are cleared, wouldn't somebody who had the ability to destroy the multiverse perforce know that it exists? If they just destroyed their own universe it wouldn't affect any of the others that exist...

[the_druid_droid]

Multiverse theory is really just a useful mathematical model. There is no feasible or even viable way to test it's truth.

We only use it because it makes the math work out, and because a lot of physicists have a habit of thinking that the model is the same as the real thing.

Honestly, most of the mainstream theoretical physicists I'm aware of find the multiverse explanation of quantum outcomes fairly silly. I actually attended a lecture last year where a rather prominent nobel laureate more or less called it that, in fact. At the very least, it's rather a minority opinion, outside of a few extreme circles and lots of sci-fi books.

[GolemsVoice]

What, by the way, constitutes as an action? Is there a multiverse where I made a step to the right, and a multiverse where I made a step to the left, even if both moves would have had the same outcome in the end? I mean, both ARE decissions I've made.

[Lorsa]

It's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right? Put your hands on your hips...

I thought the multiverse theory had more to do with quantum mechanical outcomes than it had to do with "decisions". It was invented by people that can't stand there being intrinsic randomness in the universe.

[Asta Kask]

Well yes, but you won't get a job as a news anchor, if that is your intention.

In fact, I think there's a news channel that has naked women reading the news.

[Friv]

Other people have given a logical reason why there's a flaw in your idea, so here's a totally ridiculous one!

If you go with the "literally anything must happen" approach, then when the shock-wave of destroyed universes reaches each new universe, a branch will be created. In one branch, the universe is destroyed, and in the other the shockwave inexplicably fails.

Therefore, if someone unleashes a weapon that destroys all universes, that weapon will create a new universe for each one destroyed, and we will all be destroyed and re-created, forever, into infinity.

[LaZodiac]

In fact, I think there's a news channel that has naked women reading the news.

Yes, but that's not crazy, since it's localized within itself. They set out from the get go to create that. I'm saying if something suddenly, inexplicably random happened.

[Emmerask]

So i was thinking about the Multiverse Theory, and one thing came up, now know that i am only a dabbler in this field so bear with me. Also i think that there is a high probability that someone already thought this up.

Now the Multiverse Theory states that for every action we make, their is an infinite number of different action we COULD have taken and each one of those actions creates an alternate universe in which we did take that action. Now suppose someone decided to destroy a building, in one universe that building is destroyed and in another that building still stands because someone decided to stop that person, but imagine if someone decided to destroy all of reality, every universe, and because of the number of universes they succeeded in one of them.

So, the point i'm trying to make is that this is impossible because we are still here. so someone please disprove me, because ii rather like the multiverse theory.

the number of actions one can make is not infinite, its an incredible huge amount of possibilities but it is finite.

If you combine all these finite possibilities the outcome is still a finite number of universes.

There could however be an infinite number of seed universes (ie universes with different laws of physics) maybe? duno ^^

[Mutant Sheep]

I'm just going to leave nihilistic Owlman (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G-rl0tfQO9E) here, and not mention the various holes in his Intro to Lecturing Batman speech.:smalltongue:

(But kablooing one world that evidently isn't all that important, since it's a barren wasteland, doesn't make seeense.)
Edit: I suck at embedding.

[Ravens_cry]

If someone could destroy all universes, mayhap someone could create them?
If the universe was destroyed and then created, we would have no way of telling anything happened.
Fiat Lux.

[Asta Kask]

Yes, but that's not crazy, since it's localized within itself. They set out from the get go to create that. I'm saying if something suddenly, inexplicably random happened.

Well, the universe survived this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG0vIiwWGGo), so it must be fairly resilient.